Boeing 7E7 Announcement

Airbus has done the same job as Boeing indeed, only
better").

Well, it would have been more accurate if he had written: Airbus has
done the same job as Boeing, only newer. That's certainly true. From a
pilot's point of view (not that many people care about that) the
Airbus line has a great advantage in that all glass cockpits are
alike, or can be made so, whereas analog instruments are unique to the
era in which they were built.

But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
one.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote

In order to get a European airframer into the
transport business, the various host governments have paid
AirbusIndustrie
hundreds of billions in direct launch aid through outright grants and
below-market loans.

If true, this is great stuff for the American and Asian traveler. You
can't do better than have a foreign government subsidize your travel!

That's exactly right: please don't throw me in that briar patch. Of course
that's rough on Mr Boeing. While commercial transports are big business,
it's also true that airlining isn't a business at all: after seventy years
of track record, the industry as a whole hovers around the
zero-accumulated-profit line.

"Oelewapper" wrote in message
. be...

"fudog50" wrote in message
...

Hey Olewapper,
To say that Airbus has done a better job of building
jets than Boeing is an unvalidated opinion, what are your reasons?

My reasons are plenty: first of all, there is the problem with the
Boeing-MD
integration, that hasn't worked too well, certainly not with the product
line, with the development of new planes and with residual values of some
of
the existing planes.
Then there is the argument about the market: AI has better performance,
better operations, reliability, price... and its very interoperable as far
as crews and techicians are concerned.
Of course there is the argument about the incorporated technologies, I
think
eversince Airbus launched it 2crew and FBW planes, they have been at the
forefront as far as building better planes is concerned. Even though
there
clearly was some hesitation at first, about FBW in particular - AI quickly
solved those problems - rumour has it they simply rewrote the code - and
that's exactly the difference between A and B: A is far more reactive,
proactive and flexible. Do you honestly feel safe when boarding a 767 ?
Better check if the thrust reversers are working properly !!!
Also the management: towards the mid-90's B found itself in a situation
where it had laid off most of its valuable engineers, technicians and
mechanics, creating a problem as far as reacting to changing market
conditions was concerned, failing to manufacture and to deliver many
planes
on-time for a couple of quarters.

Experianced contractor employees, many of which were Boeing retirees filled
that void nicely and implemented a drafting change through which their own
jobs were eliminated. What caused the slip in deliveries was a change to a
more efficient system of manufacuring.

Compare it to Ferrari vs Toyota
manufacturing systems.

You make a good comparison and many automotive engineers and draftsmen were
used to update the manufacturing system at Boeing.

Part of the development, corporate strength and
competitiveness of Toyota is how it actually builds and develops its cars.
Likewise in the airliner industry: in the mid-90's Boeing management screw
up big time, and it is still suffering from what happened back then, about
10 years ago now.

BCAG is suffering from a loss of export tax subsidies ($4 billion disputed
by EU) and the AI member countries subsidising their airplanes. I don't
really see any reason why the US government would not assist Boeing in some
manner.

The tanker deal looked to be a real help, but this Boeing shooting
themselves in the foot on the military side has to stop.

Also planning dept.: what happened to 747stretch, sonic cruiser... ??
Sonic
cruiser was a strategic error that seriously hurt B's reputation.
Everybody
knows that there are some basic laws of physics, and unless you come up
with
some revolutionary research, there's just no way that a development like
the
sonic cruiser would work... economically... As far as the industry is
concerned now: more and more it appears that Boeing is all hat, and no
cattle.

The laws reguarding regulatory certification changed with the fall of the
wall. (Law of the Wall)

The 7E7 will only canibalise B's already rapidly decreasing market
share, but it will fail to compete against Airbus. It's simply too little,
too late: even when it's a technically sound plane, it's gonna be a hard
sell in the market (compare MD11).

The 7E7 is aimed at the A-330 and looks to have a good chance of delivering
fuel savings in a oil short economy. A phenonemon the A-300 took advantage
of through the use of high bypass engines thirty years ago.

The only good job B has done over the last 20 years has been its relaunch
of
the 737; even the 777 hasn't been the ultimate success B was hoping for.
AI
has a viable alternative with its A32 line.

All except the A-32 line are in many ways inferior airplanes to the Boeing
line. (except Douglas) I expect Boeing will address passenger comfort in
the 7E7 and I am the first to admit that the 757 and 767 suck in that
matter.

The A scenario (budget airlines
short distance PTP and big birds HTH) seems to be winning it from the
overall PTP scenario put forward by B. And as the low-cost business model
is moving up into the longer ranges (within the logistical limits) the
Airbus business scenario is clearly getting the overhand.

loaning customers money to buy your product has always been a good way to
expand market share and AI has certainly exploited that finance/marketing
track. That financing and Beoing's refusal to update the 37 years ago made
a place for the A32 and AI really put out a nice airplane.

Plenty, plenty, plenty... How else would you explain that Boeing lost its
dominance over the market, and the Europeans could create a new
manufacturing giant with a competitive product line almost from scrap?

I would point to the many billions of dollars in subsidies paid to AI in low
interest loans and capitalization, from the European taxpayer.

Subsidies??? Gimme a break... During the 70s and 80s B was generating so
many profits they hardly knew what do to with the money... No, I think
it's
about time Boeing's management got its act toghether - instead of relying
on
the DOD and all kinds of corruption to keep their lousy business going.

Thus, the 7E7.

My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.

Real pilots would rather not be flying Airbus or Boeing...

Yes.

"Peter Kemp" peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom@ wrote in message
...
On or about Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:31:29 GMT, fudog50
allegedly uttered:

My opinion is that real pilots would rather "fly" a Boeing
product, than be a "systems manager" on an Airbus product.

I'm curious, wouldn't it be the same thing anyway - on all modern
airliners you're merely convincing the computer to do what you want -
that's why they are so safe these days?

Fused sensors provide automatic multi-sensor cross checks that assist the
operator in monitoring system integrity.

I'd much rather fly a modern airliner with all the glass cockpits and
fly by light possible, Boeing or Airbus. I personally prefer Airbus on
comfort grounds, but I've never flown a 777 so maybe Boeing's latest
is as good or better.

The aspect ratio of the 777 cabin is very pleasing.

But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
one.

Has there been info about why did the tail come off that Airbus taking off
in NY?
The one that happened in earlier (in Italy?) was because they used
counterfit parts to save costs (old parts made to look new with counterfit
papers).

"Tarver Engineering" wrote .


BCAG is suffering from a loss of export tax subsidies ($4 billion disputed
by EU) and the AI member countries subsidising their airplanes. I don't
really see any reason why the US government would not assist Boeing in
some
manner.

The tanker deal looked to be a real help, but this Boeing shooting
themselves in the foot on the military side has to stop.

The comprehensive way Boeing has screwed its many businesses is fairly
amazing.

Launcher business? The pricing information brought over from LockMart cost a
billion in booked orders cancelled.

Satellites? The underwriters have been so burned by the BSS-701 failures
that one underwriter said that until the underlying quality problems are
fixed that Boeing satellites were uninsureable.

NMD? More competitor pricing information (this time from Raytheon) cause
Boeing to hand the NMD kill vehicle contract to Raytheon rather than have
ex-Rockwell BSS do it.

And now the suggestion that Darlene Druyun brought over competitive pricing
information from DoD (which I don't believe for a second). Druyun oversaw
the procurement of_very_sensitive, large dollar value procurements that make
the tanker contract look like small beer.

It's little wonder that Condit is history.

"Oelewapper" wrote

"tadaa" wrote in
But newness is as newness does. It seems to me that the tail is less
likely to fall off a Boeing jet, and surely that is more important
than the pilot's comfort in transitioning from a small jet to a large
one.

Has there been info about why did the tail come off that Airbus taking
off
in NY?
The one that happened in earlier (in Italy?) was because they used
counterfit parts to save costs (old parts made to look new with
counterfit
papers).

Utter bull**** !! From here it's only one step to say that the european
countries are handing out billions of euros to AI, because otherwise they
would have to staple the tail on the plane with a Bostich B8 staple
machine... which would be bad for the economy because Bostich is an
American
brand... Gimme a break.

Last that I heard is that Airbus and AA are facing each other in court,
and
it doesn't look too good for AA and its instructors. Apparently American
pilots dunno how and when to use the rudder: the guy kept pumping the
goddamn thing until his tail blew off !!! I mean, eversince 9/11 no
single
pilot had gone to such great lengths to make sure that his plane would
fall
to pieces.

Talking about the thrust reversers and the prematurely appearing cracks on
the B767 though... any news if Boeing fixed that problem already, or is
that
maybe the reason why nobody wants to buy these planes anymore ???

Unwind your undergarments.

As I read the reports, there were no structural deficiencies in the A300
design or in the tail that came off. Airbus, like all airframers analysed
their aircraft to FAA standards that did not include the stresses from
opposite rudder with a significant yaw.

Apparently transport pilots were being trained (on many different
transports) to apply large rudder inputs which (absent the analysis
mentioned above) could overstress the fin, which is what took the tail off
the A300. Fixing it will require a combination of training and modification
of aircraft (mainly in control laws and software).