A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are Boeing's plans?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6  
Old September 18th 04, 04:38 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

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

Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
more jobs and more money for Americans!


*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.


Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the trees?


Nope.


The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European
based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a
couple of major systems for it.


If it doesn't succeed I'm sure they'll pick up business elsewhere. They're an
avionics supplier, their product isn't tied to a single airframe.


Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind continuing to sell engines for it.


Rolls Royce are probably rather more interested in the Trent 900 sales that'll
come from the A380 ( 4 per a/c too ! ) right now - and they're firm orders !
They are the launch engine provider after all.


Some ten nations have companies contributing to the 7E7 work right now.


But not making.


Graham


  #7  
Old September 18th 04, 04:50 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message
...

What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over
the rest of the line?

I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.


7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever)


No ?

My fave large a/c is still the 747 ( not keen on 777 - feels cramped to me - and
I'm sure that factor will be a great seller for A380 ) . 747's been around a
while hasn't it ! ;-)

Modern version of 737s still sell well and how old is that design originally ?

Even some ancient 727s were only recently pensioned off in the US.

with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have
to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my
replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread).


Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor is
skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I just
mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades back.


Graham

  #9  
Old September 18th 04, 05:14 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:

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 for a significant number of years -
hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
numbers by the time it was back in service.


The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.

As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.
Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.

To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #10  
Old September 18th 04, 06:03 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:

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 for a significant number of years -
hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
numbers by the time it was back in service.


The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.


Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.

It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build
the plane.

Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them
after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.


As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe.


Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.

The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.


Uhuh.


Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.


It worked !


To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.


Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though?


Graham

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans [email protected] Home Built 0 January 27th 05 08:50 PM
Unused plans question Doc Font Home Built 0 December 8th 04 10:16 PM
What are Boeing's plans? David Lednicer General Aviation 6 September 27th 04 09:19 PM
What are Boeing's plans? David Lednicer Military Aviation 62 September 27th 04 12:23 AM
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... Chris Home Built 1 February 27th 04 10:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.