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
  #21  
Old September 18th 04, 07:32 AM
Jarg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Denyav" wrote in message
...
You mean foreign nationals, or Americans born in other countries


By definition foreign nationals who came here on dual intent temporary
visas.



Then are you saying that 38% of doctors in the US are not citizens?


My family like most here were immigrants. Are you a rascist?


No,thats only a snapshot of current job market here.


I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.


BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any
plane?



Yes

Jarg


  #22  
Old September 18th 04, 07:53 AM
Denyav
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Then are you saying that 38% of doctors in the US are not citizens?

When they came here they were not citizens or immigrants (permanent
residents),they were like all other foreign professionals, on temporary visas.
After 1965 the numbers of US Immigration Lawyers skyrocketed,for a reason I
guess.I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born
employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.


I fail to see the significance of your statistics on foreign born employees.
The US has always been a nation of immigrants.


US immigration policies are not very consistent and vey much depend on what our
ruling elite has in mind.

For example US immigration policies before 1920s were relaxed,followed by very
restrictive policies between 1920s and 1965.
Current US immigration policy that had been jump started by the most junior
Kennedy in 1964 is again a very relaxed policy.

BTW do you know what happens if you significantly exceed MTOW of any
plane?



Yes


Thats good.
  #24  
Old September 18th 04, 11:53 AM
John Mullen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
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.


And, it should also be pointed out, never flew.

John


  #25  
Old September 18th 04, 12:15 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
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 ?


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


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 ! ;-)


Uhmmm...they still build them, that is correct. A lot of the older, higher
hour airframes were either converted to cargo use, put out to pasture, or
both.


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


Yep, they still build them. Again, the original versions have gotten kind of
long in the totth, and retirements have already begun.


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


Exactly--they don't last forever, do they?


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.


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.

What was your point to all of this? According to an article in the August 04
Air International, Boeing sees a potnetially lucrative market for the 7E7 as
a replacement for older airframes nearing or exceeding their 20th
anniversary in the next few years (according to the article, some 1500
aircraft total meet that description in the niches the 7E7 would fill). You
apparently think otherwise--fine. I am willing to go out on a limb here (not
really) and state that Boeing knows more about it than you do.

Brooks


Graham



  #26  
Old September 18th 04, 12:22 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
Jarg wrote:

Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates
into
more jobs and more money for Americans!

*We* like European companies to be succesful for much the same reason.


Trouble seeing past your nose, eh? Forest getting in the way of the
trees?


Nope.


The folks at Smith's Aerospace (which last I heard was still a European
based firm) might like to see the 7E7 succeed, as they are providing a
couple of major systems for it.


If it doesn't succeed I'm sure they'll pick up business elsewhere. They're
an
avionics supplier, their product isn't tied to a single airframe.


Pretty poor business view, IMO. "Ahhh, forget about bothering over those
sales--surely we can sell it elsewhere"?



Likewise Rolls Royce would not mind continuing to sell engines for it.


Rolls Royce are probably rather more interested in the Trent 900 sales
that'll
come from the A380 ( 4 per a/c too ! ) right now - and they're firm orders
!


7E7 has firm orders too--you keep forgetting that, don't you? Or do you just
have a serious reading comprehension problem?

They are the launch engine provider after all.


Some ten nations have companies contributing to the 7E7 work right now.


But not making.


Ahhh! So companies should consider future business as irrelevant, eh? Maiden
flight is scheduled for 2007--not that far off, now is it? One can only
assume with the business sense you have demonstrated thus far, that you are
not employed in any kind of key business decisionmaking role.

Brooks



Graham




  #27  
Old September 18th 04, 01:05 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #28  
Old September 18th 04, 01:30 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #29  
Old September 18th 04, 03:07 PM
Peter Stickney
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Pooh Bear writes:
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.


Actually, I'd say that it is. In the Real World, it still costs money
to develop and produce something. That money gets paid out no matter
what. If you can't make it back, its a net loss of resources.
Now, I suppose that you could subscribe to the delusion that
Government Money isn't really money, and so doesn't matter, but even
the most Ardent Socialist would agree that it is a marker for
resources spent that could have been spent otherwise. How many Dog
Shelters in Battersea, or Labour Exchanges in East Acton could have
been supported with the dosh that was dumped into Concorde?

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'.


Actually, the bottom fell out of Concorde orders in the late '60s,
before the oil proce hikes. Concorde was too limited. There was no
growth in the airframe, and its operating economics were miserable by
even 1960s standards, let alone amortizing R&D.
But then again, it had been so long since the British Aviation
Industry as a whole had actually sold enough airliners to amortize R&D
that I wonder if they realized that they could. (The only airliners to
make money for theri manufacturers were the Viscount and the BAC 1-11.
(Well, the COmet IV may have, as well) Everythig else - Vikings,
Ambassadors, Heralds, Britannias, Vanguards, VC.10s - (And those are
only ht eones that made it into production) all ended up as losers,
economically.


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.


Passenger capacity has nothing to do with it, other than being the
airplane's reason for existing. The real problems are fuel capacity
and performance. Concorde didn't have any reserves available that
could be diverted to either. Over the COncorde's career, there were
enough such emergencies that there would have been at least 5 or 6
losses, in this context.

The Pacific stage lengths are much too long.


Uhuh.


Without a doubt, for revenue service. An inflight emergency on the
San Fran-Hawaii leg would have meant a lost airplane due to fuel
exhaustion, in most cases. Plus, even the shorter legs are still
damned long - Even if you duplicated the route of the Pan Am flying
boats - San Francisco-Honolulu-Midway-Wake-Manila-Hong Kong -
it's still unworkable wrt safety, and the stops would have added
tremendously to the travel time, annoyed the passengers, and shortened
the life of the airframes.

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 !


Only over that particular route.

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?


They would have had to have been able to demonstrate that they could
fly the routes with a proper safety margin, first. It would have been
possible, but embarassing, to stage Concordes across the U.S., if you
wanted to run a through service from, say, London to Tokyo. BA and
Braniff had an arrangement where Braniff flew a Concorde service to
Florida from New York, ocerland. The U.S. (or Canadian) legs would
have had to be subsonic, of course, and teh Concorde's low subsonic
ceiling (Nothing you can do about that, either) hamstrung it in terms
of range and speed - It's embarassing to by getting on what's supposed
to be the World's Fastest Airliner, and having every 727 or DC-9 beat
you from New York to LA or SFO.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster
  #30  
Old September 18th 04, 03:28 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?

Brooks





 




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 08:07 PM.


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