Boeing 7E7 Announcement

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

If it crosses its fingers and hopes that Airbus comes a pratfall, it
risks becoming irrelevant and fading away. Who will buy the 747 if the
NBT (I never can remember those Airbus designations) is actually a
decent aircraft? It's bigger and a whole lot newer.

Possibly quite a lot of people -- the A380 is a fair bit bigger than
the 747, so both aircraft may have a niche.

And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could rush-produce
a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time it
took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.
--
Zamboni

With me, Boeing has already won. I'd never fly a jumbo jet if there
was a twin-aisle widebody available, whether it's a 747 or a NBT..

Why not?

I used to fly 747s once a winter when I skied in Europe, and on
several other transAtlantic and transPacific trips (the worse was New
York to Seoul in one jump and just two meals). Getting off the plane
is almost as bad as getting off a passenger liner in the 1950s.

Even in the 1970s I preferred the Lockheed 1011 as a more humane
carcass-carrier. I was tickled when 767s (I do have this right, don't
I? the 767 is the twin-aisle?) appeared on transAtlantic runs. That's
a perfect-sized airplane. You don't get the claustrophobia you get in
a single-aisle plane; you can go to the toilet in one aisle while the
food or drinks cart is blocking the other, and you can walk up one
aisle and down the other to get a bit of exercise. And when it's time
to get off and find your bags, you can be in the taxi by the time the
747 has disgorged its cargo.

They're talking up to 800 people for the Airbus 380! Good grief.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could rush-produce
a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time it
took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.

Not really. The stretch 747 was to have cost billions. But the real
issue is that there is no market for two super-sized aircraft. The 380
won't kill the 747, though it will certainly make it much less
profitable for Boeing. But a Super 747 and a 380 would kill both
companies.

The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
France afforded the Concorde.

Boeing is in a very tough position. Because Airbus came along later,
its planes are more modern. Boeing can only play catchup with projects
like the 7E7/787, and at the end of the day it will have the more
modern fleet. But as long as the 737 is the airlines' cash cow, it
still won't have the cockpit similarity across its entire fleet that
Airbus has.

This was one case where being first mover proved in the long run to be
a bit of a disadvantage.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

And if the A380 is profitably successful, I'm sure Boeing could
rush-produce
a stretched 747 (main body and/or upper deck) in a fraction of the time
it
took AI to develop the A380 from scratch.

Not really. The stretch 747 was to have cost billions. But the real
issue is that there is no market for two super-sized aircraft.

There is no way to just stretch the 747, as the wing is at about the max
size for cable driven controls.

"Oelewapper" wrote:

"Hobo" wrote:

"Oelewapper" wrote:

The 7E7 is a child born dead.

Everytime I open a newspaper I see another story about the Euro going
up. You must be reading different newspapers.

Used to work in structured finance, Airbus sales are hedged up to a very
high level, the remaining difference: cheaper imports on the supply side,
higher revenues for Euro-Airlines, who also benefit from lower oil prices.
Plus also cheaper finance for dev. projects like A380, A400M and the like.
Geo-Fin. Analysis: the dollar is so weak partly due to overspending USgovt,
but also due to current account deficit - related to global trade and
economy = good economy and development in markets like china, india,
brazil - where airbus recently had major inroads and where the real growth
is expected, real payoff for airbus still to come.

The EUR is hedged, natural hedge postive eather way. It's not really an
issue as far as AI bottom line is concerned.

Lovely, lovely news. Just lovely. Thankyou.

Grantland

Used to work in structured finance, Airbus sales are hedged up to a very
high level, the remaining difference: cheaper imports on the supply side,
higher revenues for Euro-Airlines, who also benefit from lower oil prices.
Plus also cheaper finance for dev. projects like A380, A400M and the like.
Geo-Fin. Analysis: the dollar is so weak partly due to overspending USgovt,
but also due to current account deficit - related to global trade and
economy = good economy and development in markets like china, india,
brazil - where airbus recently had major inroads and where the real growth
is expected, real payoff for airbus still to come.

I can see why you no longer work in structured finance, whatever that
might be.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
France afforded the Concorde.

To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
paid back.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
France afforded the Concorde.

To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
paid back.

California offered $200,000,000 in tax breaks for boeing to build the 7E7
here and Washington offered $400,000,000; but I think Everett workers wish
the State would fix the road.

Actually, repayment of Airbus loans does not begin until the airplane starts
to make a profit - thus development of a new airplane is a very low risk
proposition.

Jack


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:04:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

The only thing Boeing hoped to do with the Super 747 was to scare
Airbus into canceling the 380. That failed, and Boeing backed down. It
is a private company and it has a responsibility to its workers and
stockholders not to commit suicide. Airbus is essentially bankrolled
by governments, so it can afford vanity projects, just as Britain and
France afforded the Concorde.

To be fair, Airbus isn't bankrolled by the governments anymore. The
most that has happened are loans to Airbus, which have been paid back
with significant gains. The same thing happens when Boeing gets tax
breaks for new aircraft sites (like the 7E7), except they don't get
paid back.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news


California offered $200,000,000 in tax breaks for boeing to build the 7E7
here and Washington offered $400,000,000; but I think Everett workers wish
the State would fix the road.

They should have thought of that before voting the automobile excise tax
away and handicapping the ability for the State to get revenues.

Glenn D.