What are Boeing's plans?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:16:05 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

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.

The big selling point on cockpit commonality is drastically reduced
training and recurrency costs to the airlines. Crew movement up and
down the fleet is also simplifed as various factors change route needs
and employees are re-deployed.

The beauty of having one airfame in various fuselage lengths is not
only cockpit comonality, but maintenance and spares issues are
simplified as well.


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


Boeing scuttled the process when the 777 was not 'in the family' and
competed with the larger 767s. The 757-100 was never built, and the
-300 came too late to save the line. The 737 Next Gen is had an
adverse impact on the 757-100 development. So in essence, Boeing
created its own competition and that hurt. That should have been
better thought through.


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 !


I have no idea if Airbus is making the A380 cockpit common to any of
the rest of thier line. But when you go after the biggest or the
fastest parts of the evelope, it's hard to stay common.

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


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)

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
Fuel efficiency ( cost per seat-mile ) is what it's about. This factor
is
skewed by amortised cost of old but serviceable a/c - like the 727s I
just
mentioend. Not efficient - but the lease purchase was paid off decades
back.

I tell you what--you want to start up a new low-cost airline here in the
states with 727's, be my guest---but don't be planning on getting many
financial backers.

Question - how efficient is a 727 re-engined with the RR Tay conversion?
These seem popular with the higher end of biz-jet operators.

I think someone on here, though may have been on TV, said that the
difference between cruise speeds on various airliners is to do with the
critical speed of the wing. Above this speed, the thrust required is much
more, so you use much more fuel. The 747 was designed for a faster
speed in this respect so has a higher cruise speed? I think the 727 was
quoted as being quite good at M 0.75 but not at 0.85? Something like
that?

Paul

Concorde didn't have the range for trans-Pacific flight. It just barely had the
range for trans-Atlantic flight.

Best,

Steve Robertson

wrote:



One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever)

No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives.

Some helicopters don't.

--
Fritz

"Fritz" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old
ones
forever)

No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives.

Some helicopters don't.

Point to the modern passenger carrying aircraft that offers infinite cycles
and airframe hours.

Brooks


--
Fritz

"Matthew Chidester" wrote in message news:pXs3d.13921$wV.2523@attbi_s54...
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.


I think allowing FBW on transports was stupid in the first place.

Allowing Boeing to buy McDonnell-Douglas was a bad idea, however.
Even though McDD management were idiots, having only one major
aircraft company just isn't smart.

Ted Azito wrote:

Allowing Boeing to buy McDonnell-Douglas was a bad idea, however.

bad idea if all what you are goin gto do with the newly acquyired
company is to DESTROY it.

--
Fritz