A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are Boeing's plans?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 18th 04, 04:50 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"R. David Steele" /OMEGA wrote in message
...

What is the advantage that the 7E7 or the Dreamliner have over
the rest of the line?

I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.


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


No ?

My fave large a/c is still the 747 ( not keen on 777 - feels cramped to me - and
I'm sure that factor will be a great seller for A380 ) . 747's been around a
while hasn't it ! ;-)

Modern version of 737s still sell well and how old is that design originally ?

Even some ancient 727s were only recently pensioned off in the US.

with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have
to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my
replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread).


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.


Graham

  #13  
Old September 18th 04, 05:14 AM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:

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.


BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
numbers by the time it was back in service.


The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.

As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe. The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.
Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.

To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #14  
Old September 18th 04, 05:52 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
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 .

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.


  #15  
Old September 18th 04, 06:03 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:

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.


BA actually made good money on Concorde for a significant number of years -
hence why they were keen to get it fixed and re-introduced after the Paris
crash. They had the interiors refitted too.Of course 9/11 had reduced passenger
numbers by the time it was back in service.


The made money on it - only after the R&D and production funds were
written off by the Government, and British Airways was basically made
a gisft of them. They made enough out of them to pay the operating
costs, but nowhere near enough to cover development and construction.


Agreed, but that wasn't their problem.

It was a political decision by the British and French governments to design and build
the plane.

Concordes were 'forced' on their national airlines when no-one else would buy them
after the oil price hikes of the 70s - never mind environmental 'issues'.


As for the Pacific routes - no way. Not with a Concorde sized and
performance airframe.


Pax capacity was never going to be realistic for more general use.

The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.


Uhuh.


Concorde's range was marginal for the North Atlantic run, especially
if you consider an emergency that requires deceleration to subsonic
speed. (A Concorde's subsonic ceiling is below 30,000'. Fuel economy
at those heights, for that airplane, stink on ice. The only way it
was allowed for the Atlantic run with that limitation was becasue on
the Great Circle route from England or France (Yes, England,
Scotland's a bit closer) you're never more than about 800 miles from a
divert airfield.


It worked !


To make the Pacific run, you've got to be able to divert (worst case)
ha;fway between San Francisco and Hawaii - that's on the order of 1300
miles. (IIRC, the California-Honolulu leg is the longest single
stage on the planet.) That would have required something like the
Boeing 2707, or its Lockheed competitor (L-1000?) Those were much
bigger than Concorde - about 4 times the size, and 3 times th
epassenger capacity. And, it should be pointed out, also a far more
expensive proposition.


Would BA or AF have been even allowed rights to operate Pacific routes though?


Graham

  #16  
Old September 18th 04, 06:13 AM
William Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
Here is an interesting question: the USAF KC-767 deal was supposed to

keep
the 767 line open, but this deal is dormant. If the USAF doesn't act
soon,
they won't be able to buy 767s as the line closes real soon. With this

in
mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is

closed?

From what I have read, the E-10 concept is not completely locked into the
767 platform--the first operational test and eval aircraft will be a 767
platform, but no firm decision regarding later procurement has been made.

If
Boeing wants to continue to pursue the 767 tanker option, it has the

ability
to temporarily kill the line and restart it later, as long as they keep

the
tooling and jigs--there has also already been mention made of possible 7E7
use in the E-10 role, and more remotely as a future tanker platform.


There are still 24 767s in the announced backlog which keeps the line open
until at least the end of 2006 though I would guess some parts of the supply
chain would shutdown sooner. I have never heard of any plans to mothball any
line at Boeing and don't really see how it could be done.

And of course the last 757 is in final assembly now.


Brooks






  #18  
Old September 18th 04, 06:46 AM
Pooh Bear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

William Wright wrote:

There are still 24 767s in the announced backlog which keeps the line open
until at least the end of 2006 though I would guess some parts of the supply
chain would shutdown sooner. I have never heard of any plans to mothball any
line at Boeing and don't really see how it could be done.

And of course the last 757 is in final assembly now.


Is this an example of the 'healthy order book' that another poster in this
thread referred to ?


Graham

  #19  
Old September 18th 04, 07:06 AM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #20  
Old September 18th 04, 07:19 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
want to trade 601 plans for 701 plans [email protected] Home Built 0 January 27th 05 08:50 PM
Unused plans question Doc Font Home Built 0 December 8th 04 10:16 PM
Fly Baby Plans Off the Market Ron Wanttaja Home Built 9 June 6th 04 02:45 PM
Modifying Vision plans for retractable gear... Chris Home Built 1 February 27th 04 10:23 PM
Here's a silly question regarding plans David Hill Home Built 21 October 8th 03 04:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.