Boeing 7E7 Announcement

From: "Jack G"
Date: 12/16/2003 11:28 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

This is the first time wings have been outsourced. Note also that
engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.

Jack


Hopfully not to tarver engineering.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Is this
really good news for Boeing...?

It's the only news possible.

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.

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.

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.

Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.
Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
*can't* afford to lose.

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..
I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.




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 Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

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.

Niggle, 747 work started in 1963 and first flight was in 69. But yes,
they bet the farm on the 747 and scored big. Very ballsy move.

Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.

Not sure why the Airbus products are duller - these are commercial
airliners we're talking about, never the most exciting objects around.

Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
*can't* afford to lose.

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..

Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.

I'll take what ever gets me there cheapest in a modicum of comfort
(unless one of the aircraft turns out to have a bad safety record,
something becoming increasingly unlikely in today's engineering
environment).

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

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.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Is this
really good news for Boeing...?

It's the only news possible.

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.

It is all a matter of what market predictions are made that guides Boeing's
plans, whale AI is about jobs.

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.

There is no indication boeing is willing to "give away" airplanes and that
is pretty much what AI has done with the first 100 A-380s.

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.

Boeing has been betting on market fragmentation for a long time. Most 747s
are flying less than full, but need the range for the market.

Overall, Airbus's fleet is newer than Boeing's, if somewhat duller.
Boeing has got to bet on something quirky that will replace planes it
can afford to lose (757, 767) while stealing orders from planes Airbus
*can't* afford to lose.

The 757 and 767 have gone to zero sales since 9-11 and unless the USAF buys
the tankers, the 767 line is doomed.

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..
I'll take the 787 (as I assume it will finally be named) over anything
else on the market, Airbus or Boeing.

No Dan, the airplane is really an E, which is 2 times 7 in hex.

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
A-380 should be better.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
t...

"Jack G" wrote in message
...

This is the first time wings have been outsourced.

No, it is not--Airbus has already inked a deal with the PRC to produce
wings
for the A320. See, among other sites:

www.lehmanlaw.com/FAQ/faq/Aviation.htm

Note also that
engineering is being outsourced as well as manufacturing.

Now that part would be new, to the best of my knowledge. But not exactly
earthshattering--IIRC I read recently where other major US firms have
already been outsourcing engineering work to firms in India to take
advantage of the cheaper cost for professional services there.

Speaking of Microsoft, India is the other reason Boeing has WA over a
barrel.

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.

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?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:33:39 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
allegedly uttered:


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
.. .
On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
A-380 should be better.

Total 777 orders 622, total A330/340 orders 812

777 ordered in 2002 32. A330/340 55 ordered

Well, it looks like the airlines disagree with you Mr Tarver with
respect to operations. What a shock.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:33:39 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
allegedly uttered:


"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
.. .
On or about Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:24:41 -0500, Cub Driver
allegedly uttered:

Hence the A340 and A330 - both twin aisle widebodies, including the
longest ranged commercial airliner (A340-500 IIRC). I fly a A330 back
to the UK fairly regularly form the US and I have to say it's damn
comfortable (vibration, noise, and space). HAven't been on a 777 but
I'd assume it would be also slicker than the ageing 767s and DC-10s.

The 777 is far superior both technologically and operationally to the
A-334/A-340 widebodies. AI made a mistake designing their wings, but the
A-380 should be better.

Total 777 orders 622, total A330/340 orders 812

The 777 is a much newer airplane.

777 ordered in 2002 32. A330/340 55 ordered

An anomoly having to do with familiarization for the A-380 and a desire for
four engine airplanes; driven mostly by SA-7s.

Well, it looks like the airlines disagree with you Mr Tarver with
respect to operations. What a shock.

The A-340 has a critical wing designed to 17,000 feet, what I wrote is a
matter of physics for airliners headed west out of Asia. The Airlines
agree.