What are Boeing's plans?

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Tom S." wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

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

No ?

No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
that.

What's the service life of a DC-3?

Don't know--how many of them have you seen flying with major airlines of
late?

Why would the number of major airlines be at all relevant?

They are the folks who buy most of the airplanes--you know, the thing we
were talking about here?

Brooks

In article 3523d.323018$Oi.300857@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes:
Boeings take on aircraft service life is that it can be indefinite so long
as the sircraft is maintained properly. There has never been a requirement
to retire a Boeing aircraft after "X" number of whatevers. I suspect the
747 will fare far better than the DC-3 over a 70 year period.

While you're correct about Boeing's take on service life, the fact
remains that, at some point in its life (the end, of course) a 747
will start showing cracks in wing spars, and the fuselage pressure
vessel, and all manner of other areas, and it will become uneconomical
to repair it. That's already happening. the DC-3 series of airplanes
hasn't shown any of these behaviors. That's not too surprising,
really - The DC-3's wing structure is fairly stiff, and it uses Jack
Northrop's multi-cellular construction techniques. There are multiple
load paths there, so individual elements aren't stressed too highly.
It's not pressurized, so you're not inflating and deflating the cabin
on each flight. The 747, and, for that matter, any other jet, is much
more flexible, and has to put up with the stresses and strains of
pressurization, At some point, it's going to give.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Tom S." wrote


"Kevin Brooks" wrote
No. Aircraft have definite service lives. Surprised you did not know
that.


What's the service life of a DC-3?

Since all loads in a DC-3 are carried by high strength fittings
and not by "stressed skin", the CD-3 has no specified service
life as do the modern jetliners.
I recall seeing a TV interview with Mr. Douglas in which he explained
that by replacing the bushel basket of fittings that he had brought
with him, any DC-3 airframe could be made good as new.

Bob Moore

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

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

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

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.

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


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 !

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


Graham

Kevin Brooks wrote:

The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
some routes that can use the greater capacity.

" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.

If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.

Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
different operating scenarios.


Graham

Airlines that use 737's on trans-Atlantic routes may benefit from the
7E7 as a replacement if load factors increase. But the vast majority
of 737's live in a high cycle, short flight environment. Not
something touted as a big selling point of the 7E7.

-j-


On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:21:33 +0100, Pooh Bear
wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:

The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even 737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on
some routes that can use the greater capacity.

" that can use the greater capacity " is IMHO the ctical factor.

If you don't need the capacity ( or its range ) - you don't need 7E7 - period.

Do you *really* see 7E7s replacing 737s ? Sounds bonkers to me. Totally
different operating scenarios.


Graham