What are Boeing's plans?

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
Well, you
shouldn't let your personal experiences color you ideas about the US
economy. For example, it ooks like you missed the insourcing of high
paying
that is also occurring. Not to mention the strong growth of the

Insourcing of high paying lobs? Surely you must be joking.


Nope, not a joke:
http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/


If good paying jobs are ever created in US,they are usually for the
imported
talent not for Americans.

FYI in US:
38 % of Medical doctors are foreign (mostly Indian),also,
38 % percent of IBM employees ,
36 % of NASA employees,
34 % of Microsoft employees,
17 % of Intel employees,
14 % of Xerox employees are foreign .


You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries?

This list goes on and on,expect these percentages to rise after elections
as
whoever gets elected will increase H1B visas available to the foreigners
hired
by US companies.

Thanks to Anglo minority that rule America,Americans have only two less
than
perfect choices:
1)Either high paying jobs will go to other countries,or
2)Foreigners will come and take high paying jobs away.

In Anglo minority dominated US the image (facade) is everything.



My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist?

Jarg

You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries

By definition foreign nationals who came here on dual intent temporary visas.

My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist?

No,thats only a snapshot of current job market here.

BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any plane?

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries

By definition foreign nationals who came here on dual intent temporary
visas.


Then are you saying that 38% of doctors in the US are not citizens?


My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist?

No,thats only a snapshot of current job market here.


I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.


BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any
plane?



Yes

Jarg

Then are you saying that 38% of doctors in the US are not citizens?

When they came here they were not citizens or immigrants (permanent
residents),they were like all other foreign professionals, on temporary visas.
After 1965 the numbers of US Immigration Lawyers skyrocketed,for a reason I
guess.I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born
employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.

I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.

US immigration policies are not very consistent and vey much depend on what our
ruling elite has in mind.

For example US immigration policies before 1920s were relaxed,followed by very
restrictive policies between 1920s and 1965.
Current US immigration policy that had been jump started by the most junior
Kennedy in 1964 is again a very relaxed policy.

BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any
plane?



Yes

Thats good.

Smutny wrote:

The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
where the circus sets up a couple times a year.

BAe has done this to Hatfield ( formerly owned by Hawker Siddeley and de
Havilland ) , the home of the jet airliner, just to name one significant
product made there.

Oh, sure, the management said they would *never* close Hatfield.

The real estate was worth too much as a business park and BAe wanted to
concentrate on defence contracts instead of commercial.

Sounds kinds similar.


Graham

well I hope boeing comes out of this and stays alive, from a pilot
perspective I'm not a fan of joysticks on the side for flight controls and
i've worked around them.. they're pretty aircraft, I just wouldn't want to
fly in that cockpit.

Matthew

Matthew Chidester wrote:

737 next generation a mistake? they just got a huge order from the navy to
replace the p-3...

I agree, it seems like Canadair and Embraer will take over the small stuff
and most start up airlines are sticking with Airbus (lower maintenance
costs?)

Don't forget, the A320 series includes the A318 now ( 108 seats IIRC ). I was
quite surprised that the A318 was developed as a result of customer demand (
Lufthansa ? ) but when you consider that the A320 series encompasses a greater
than 2:1 pax capacity with unified sytems - it kinds makes sense.

I wish someone would post the prices and performance of the aircraft
so we could compare and see why airlines pick the planes they do.

I wish ! Of course that would also depend on your ( the airlines ) accounting
methods too.


Graham

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Jarg,

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

And who would be "we"? This is the Internet, not the USAnet.

Mercuns tend to forget they're not the planet's only technically competent
inhabitants.


More to the point: A large portion of the A380 (40 percent, IIRC) will be
built in the US.

It will ?

Where did you hear that ? News to me.


You ever heard of this new-fangled thing called globalizaton? It's here,
man.

It also involves many 'first world' nation jobs being outsourced to mainly
asian countries. I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
and no longer require *us* !

I speak from some experience of the situation.


Graham

Pooh,


Hmm, I looked for the article I read that number in, but can't find it.
Will try to call Airbus later today to verify. But if you consider the
amount of avionics and standard aviation equipment going in, it makes
sense.

I see trouble looming as the asian countries get the expertise
and no longer require *us* !


Oh, I agree. Fully.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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


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 !

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


Graham