Boeing 7E7 Announcement

"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"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.

The State of Washington took Boeing's money to fix the road years ago. It
is unfortunate that the company had to go so far as to leave, over
tranpsortation issues.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message ...
In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
response to this.

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

If Boeing set out to build a Bigger Thing faster or better than
Airbus, it would only succeed in crippling both companies, because it
needs the 747 income to survive.

No.

Boeing 747 revenue is only 10% of the comercial aircraft revenue, which
is only 50% of Boeing revenue. Almost no one is ordering anything
bigger than a 737 from Boeing. There are only 52 747's on order
total, as opposed to 195 777s and 798 737's.

Only 17 747's were ordered this year, and only 27 were delivered.

Basically, the 747 is fading gracefully. It's been around a long time
though.

For 2002, the only planes who's order books grew were the
a320
a380
737-800
Embraer 170

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message
...

snip
Basically, the 747 is fading gracefully. It's been around a long time
though.

For 2002, the only planes who's order books grew were the
a320
a380
737-800
Embraer 170

Which vaildates Boeing's expectation of increasing market fragmentation.

"tadaa" wrote in message ...
The news today about Boeing building the 7E7 and giving the wing to
Japan to build sounds like it was taken directly out of the text of
Micheal Crichton's book Airframe, where some unscrupulous executives
at an ailing aircraft manufacturer give away closely guarded secrets
to turn a quick profit at the cost of future American jobs. Is this
really good news for Boeing...?

This is called globalization and it has been here for quite a while, so it
isn't anything that new. The companies are there to make money, not to safe
guard jobs.

Globalization, or just plain giving away the store?

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote

"Cub Driver" wrote
In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
response to this.

There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
risking your_own_money.

That's interesting analysis. (I don't know anything about Airbus's
financial arrangements, other than to accept the Wall Street Journal's
statement that they are indeed subsidized by European governments.)

If correct, you are validating Boeing's decision to take the contest
elsewhere.

Boeing's situation is an interesting refutation of the current belief
that being the first mover is the most important thing. Airbus came
along and essentially duplicated Boeing's line, with the end result
that everything Airbus has is newer.

I suspect that Boeing will come out all right. In the first place,
nobody wants a situation in which there is only one airliner
manufacturer in the world (even if that mfgr is Boeing!). In the
second place, it has since the 1930s built wonderful airplanes. I feel
just a bit more secure flying a Boeing jet than I do the Airbus
variants (and that's what they are--variants).


"Charles Talleyrand" wrote

"Cub Driver" wrote
In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
response to this.

There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
risking your_own_money.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote

"Cub Driver" wrote
In the 1970s Boeing bet the company on the 747. Now Airbus is betting
the company on the Next Bigger Thing. Boeing has absolutely no
response to this.

There's this difference: Airbus is betting nothing. The launch aid and
below-market loans will be forgiven if the bet turns out to be bad.

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
risking your_own_money.

"Cub Driver" wrote
That's interesting analysis. (I don't know anything about Airbus's
financial arrangements, other than to accept the Wall Street Journal's
statement that they are indeed subsidized by European governments.)

If correct, you are validating Boeing's decision to take the contest
elsewhere.

Boeing's situation is an interesting refutation of the current belief
that being the first mover is the most important thing. Airbus came
along and essentially duplicated Boeing's line, with the end result
that everything Airbus has is newer.

I suspect that Boeing will come out all right. In the first place,
nobody wants a situation in which there is only one airliner
manufacturer in the world (even if that mfgr is Boeing!). In the
second place, it has since the 1930s built wonderful airplanes. I feel
just a bit more secure flying a Boeing jet than I do the Airbus
variants (and that's what they are--variants).

_All_the Airbus models had their non-recurring engineering costs heavily and
directly subsidized by European tax payers. That's tough for Boeing to
compete with. In an interview (about 1990), Jean Pearson the (then) managing
director of AirbusIndustrie said that Boeing financed the development of the
B757 and B767 out of "the unconsciencable profits from the B747".

Europeans are of the opinion that because Boeing was paid for military
airframe work on things like the KC-135, B-52 and the proposal concepts for
the Boeing version of the C-5 that the designs of Boeing transports were
"subsidized" by the USG. In order to get a European airframer into the
transport business, the various host governments have paid AirbusIndustrie
hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
below-market loans.

Hey Olewapper,
The Boeing vs. AI thing is so huge, and there a multitude of reasons
why one is better than the other in different categories, it ends up
being a personal preference and opinion why one "like"s one airline
over the other. To say that Airbus has done a better job of building
jets than Boeing is an unvalidated opinion, what are your reasons?
(you said "In the end, the AI planes simply are better than the old
Boeing line... Airbus has done the same job as Boeing indeed, only
better"). My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product. I've spoke
to many pilots, most of them feel the same way, but I've never
actually seen any statitsics,,,,,anybody??? I have many more
opinionated reasons from a manufacturing and maintenance perspective
on why Boeing is a better made product, but they are only opinions
based on experience, not statistics.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:49:49 +0100, "Oelewapper"
wrote:


"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

Actually, Boeing's responce is "Airlines don't want big planes in big
numbers and anyone who tries this will lose money". (My paraphrase)

And they were right. The people who stand to lose money are European tax
payers. The business proposition made no sense if you were talking about
risking your_own_money.

Hi there,

It's only normal that the Europeans want to build their own planes, they
don't really care if some of their tax money is being spent on developping
new airplanes or on retaining important high-tech, defense-related,
strategic airplane manufacturing capability on European soil. Why should
they buy American planes, if they can build them themselves, and even make a
lot of money selling them abroad. In the end, the AI planes simply are
better than the old Boeing line... Airbus has done the same job as Boeing
indeed, only better.

And yes, many of Boeing's R&D expenses were, and are, covered by the DOD.
That's a fact and a fact is a fact.

Oelewapper manufacturer management survey:

A. AIRBUS MANAGEMENT:
---------------------------






B. BOEING MANAGEMENT:
---------------------------

On or about Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:31:29 GMT, fudog50
allegedly uttered:

My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.

I'm curious, wouldn't it be the same thing anyway - on all modern
airliners you're merely convincing the computer to do what you want -
that's why they are so safe these days?
I'd much rather fly a modern airliner with all the glass cockpits and
fly by light possible, Boeing or Airbus. I personally prefer Airbus on
comfort grounds, but I've never flown a 777 so maybe Boeing's latest
is as good or better.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

In order to get a European airframer into the
transport business, the various host governments have paid AirbusIndustrie
hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
below-market loans.

If true, this is great stuff for the American and Asian traveler. You
can't do better than have a foreign government subsidize your travel!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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