What are Boeing's plans?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:16:05 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Smutny wrote:

As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
historical sales figures.

And they go back a long, long way !


What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.

So..... Airbus's idea of making multiple capacity variants of the ( 737
competitor ) A320 ( A318, A319, A320, A321 ) was more sensible I guess ? Same
cockpit - same operating procedures - same handling ( fbw ) .

Then they made bigger twin aisle versions ( A330, A340 ) with the same flight
controls and similar handling - making conversion very easy.

The big selling point on cockpit commonality is drastically reduced
training and recurrency costs to the airlines. Crew movement up and
down the fleet is also simplifed as various factors change route needs
and employees are re-deployed.

The beauty of having one airfame in various fuselage lengths is not
only cockpit comonality, but maintenance and spares issues are
simplified as well.


Was that what you reckoned Boeing should have done after 757/767 ?


Boeing scuttled the process when the 777 was not 'in the family' and
competed with the larger 767s. The 757-100 was never built, and the
-300 came too late to save the line. The 737 Next Gen is had an
adverse impact on the 757-100 development. So in essence, Boeing
created its own competition and that hurt. That should have been
better thought through.


Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.

A380 is a pretty new concept too ! Mind you, I saw a documentary where Airbus's
Chief Exec simply jokingly described it as an A330 stuck on top of an A340 !


I have no idea if Airbus is making the A380 cockpit common to any of
the rest of thier line. But when you go after the biggest or the
fastest parts of the evelope, it's hard to stay common.

Similar cockpit ( but somewhat larger ), controls and handling to other fbw
airbuses are promised. Ease of conversion once again.


Graham

Kevin Brooks wrote:

The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
some routes that can use the greater capacity.

" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.

If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.

Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
different operating scenarios.


Graham

Airlines that use 737's on trans-Atlantic routes may benefit from the
7E7 as a replacement if load factors increase. But the vast majority
of 737's live in a high cycle, short flight environment. Not
something touted as a big selling point of the 7E7.

-j-


On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:21:33 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:

The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
some routes that can use the greater capacity.

" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.

If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.

Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
different operating scenarios.


Graham

Smutny wrote:

Airlines that use 737's on trans-Atlantic

Are there any?

--
--
Luca
http://www.geocities.com/lucaarnu/

Kevin Brooks wrote:

And what happened to the plans to use the 767 as replacement for the
KC-135?

Still in limbo for the USAF. Italy and Japan have purchased 767 tanker
mods, though.

Anithing tp do with teh fact that Italian Avionavali will make the
transformation? Looks like a political choice.

--
Fritz

Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable
2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

--
Fritz

"Fritz" wrote in message
...
Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable

BA made money from Concorde since they were practically
given the aircraft free, the taxpayer footed the development bill.

2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

Perhaps but prior to the 1970's oil price hike most people thought
supersonic was the way to go, including Boeing who had
their own SST project.

Keith

Fritz wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

wrote:

One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

BA actually made good money on Concorde

It looks to me that BA lose money twice:

1) the Concorde was never profitable

On the terms that they ( BA ) acquuired the aircraft - it was indeed
profitable.

BOAC probably lost money on Concorde operations but when BA was formed by
combining BOAC and BEA it was expected to be commercially viable and negotiated
a 'deal' on the price it paid for Concorde.


2) the Concorde was a mis-opportunity to develop an European 747

That's not an issue for BA as an operator. BA made money from 747 ops too.

Of course there is now a 'super-jumbo' on its way that's European, that would
likely never have seen the light of day had it not been for the spin-off
collaboration that created Airbus, following Concorde's development.


Graham