What are Boeing's plans?

In article ,
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.

I read somewhere (I vaguely recollect the NY Times Magazine, but could
be wrong on that) some time ago that 727's were favored by drug runners.
Huge cargo capacity, able to land and take off from dirt fields, and
cheap enough that if they need to abandon it someplace, it's no great
loss.

"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

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

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 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

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