Boring airliners?

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Dylan Smith wrote:

Now the A380 is surely a marvel of modern engineering, as is the Boeing
7E7 (787? Dreamliner?).

But fundamentally...it's yet another tube with wings with two or four
engines on pylons below the wings. I'm really disappointed that Boeing
dropped the Sonic Cruiser, a much more interesting proposition.

Yes, but interesting doesn't pay the bills in the airliner business.


I'm also wonder what the point of the 7E7 is - surely the
midsize longhaul jet market is already adequately served by the 777?
Could they just not make incremental improvements to the 777 in the same
way they've done with the 737 for years?

Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...

Matt

In article , Matt Whiting wrote:
Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

Yet they apparently don't feel that need with the 737 - the first model
which came out decades ago, yet they keep making new versions of it. I'd
expect a new 777 (which isn't actually an old design by airliner
standards) would be far less expensive to improve than building a
completely new ...well, tube with wings.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article , says...

Maybe, but I believe the 777 is an "old" airplane and they needed
something new to compete with the "new" airplanes from the bus.

I always have thought that Airbus was an accurate, yet unfortunate, name
choice for an airplane company. Talk about pedestrian...



I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.
It seems they fail to consider the connotations to English speakers. One of
the most advanced ADSL providers in France is called "wannadoo" - The poor
souls who to subscribe to them have to have an e-mail address
- and be the object of ridicule throughout the English
speaking world.

"Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
the world. It sounds like something slow and uncomfortable, with a toilet
in the back.

G Faris

Greg Farris wrote:

I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

"Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
the world.

It sounds exactly like what airliners are today: Nothing adventurous,
nothing fancy, just simple and safe transport.

Stefan

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:07:31 +0200, Stefan
wrote:

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the
place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an
American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to
crooked.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

Cub Driver wrote:

The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the

I'll always remember that American who proudly stated: Hey, I'm
certified! in a British environment. He earned big amusement and never
understood why.

The question remains: Why should Airbus care about the connotations
their name causes in the USA when their main market most probably will
be Europe, Arabia and Asia?

Stefan

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 at 06:55:00 in message
, Cub Driver
wrote:

The sensitivity is very different, however. When I lived in England, I
was startled to find a range of books called Cheap Editions, and the
place where I got my teeth fixed part of the Health Scheme. To an
American, cheap meant shoddy, and scheme meant something close to
crooked.

The National Health Service I think you will find it is called.
--
David CL Francis

Greg Farris wrote:

I agree. The French often get screwed up when they invent "English" names.

You seem to miss that Airbus is *not* a French company. And the Brits
tend to be at least as sensible for connotations as the Yanks.

"Airbus" doesn't sound like the most technologically advanced airliner in
the world.

It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are
looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe
transport.

Stefan

It sounds exactly like what airliners are today and what most people are
looking for: Nothing adventurous, nothing fancy, just simple and safe
transport.

Speaking of safety -- I wonder if the A380 has a composite rudder?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"