737 Replacement

An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
about building a third new aircraft.

john smith wrote:
An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
about building a third new aircraft.

This has actually been in the works for some time. I interviewed for a
job at Boeing in May 2005, and they guys I was interviewing with told
me that there were plans to come out with a plastic 737 based on the
787 technology.

I was offered two different positions working on the 787, but since the
salary was comparable to an offer I had in Idaho, and the cost of
living is so much higher in Seattle, I just couldn't justify moving my
family there. I had previously worked at Boeing on the 777 and knew it
would have been fun to work on the 787, but when you have a family
there are other considerations to think about.

Dean

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:56:06 GMT, john smith wrote:

An interesting column in today's WSJ predicts that Boeing will take
advantage of the European squabbles over AirBus to design and build a
737 replacement. The theory being that AirBus is so mired in its
political protectionism and the loss of billions of dollars on the A380
and A350 that it will be decades before they will even be able to think
about building a third new aircraft.

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net writes:

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing. However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Cubdriver usenet AT danford.net writes:

Astonishing figures in that article, for example, the 737 outsells the
747 by such a huge margin; that the A320 outsells the 737 and indeed
is the only commercially viable aircraft in the Airbus lineup; that a
new P&W engine will make a 737 replacement profitable may -- the 797,
by golly! It's good to see Boeing getting back on its feet. I have
flown 7*7s since 1964 and have always preferred them to the 'bus.

I like Boeing because they are conservative as compared to Airbus.
Airbus will throw any kind of gadget on an aircraft just to have
something to differentiate them from Boeing.

How wrong can you be?!?

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

However, when it comes
to aviation and safety, I tend to prefer tried and true solutions in
most cases. Years of experience with computers also makes me
extraordinarily wary of anything that is run by them; I know what kind
of garbage they put inside.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOBRfyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhmSAKDfcU7tYHj8InNOIdNQaF nttCO+ngCg2lDK
fqWl04fNeXh95RktShLG9wc=
=mfCF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
"winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
the same aerodynamic advantage.

The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

Mike Schumann

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

The definition of "winglet" you are using to describe the things at the
end of the Airbus wing is a little on the thin side. Compared to the
"winglets", tipsails, whatever a given manufacturer chooses to call
them, that Boeing uses, the Airbus endplates certainly do not provide
the same aerodynamic advantage.

Mike Schumann wrote:
The Boeing winglets aren't even a Boeing product. They are designed and
made by a 3rd party. Boeing is now installing them as a factory option on
new aircraft.

The "third party" was a group of retired Boeing aerodynamics engineers.

Dean

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Best case in point: winglets. Airbus, with the exception of a
very aircraft in the -100 family, were delivered with winglets, long
before Boeing caught on and was able to offer them to the 737 and 757
family. From that alone, Boeing was behind the curve on reducing fuel
consumption. Like I said earlier, you may want to read up on the facts
before saying something you can't back up.

As I said, Boeing is conservative. I consider safety much more
important than fuel economy.

Then I suggest you learn a bit more about computers, because
they run a lot more things than you realize.

I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Snipola
I already know too much about them, which is why I worry. The people
who recklessly put them into everything need to learn a lot more about
how and why they fail.

Computers are infallible.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?