Boeing Brilliance - Sometimes I am just amazed that Airbus is even in existence

[747FOCAL]

Boeing to send 270 jobs abroad
Seattle Times 06/12/03
author: Dominic Gates
(Copyright 2003)


On a day when legislators in Olympia scrambled to secure jobs with a huge Boeing 7E7 incentive package, some 400 Boeing technical employees in Seattle learned two-thirds of their jobs will be outsourced abroad.


One element of the move, according to a Boeing document, is to support the "global partner base" for the planned 7E7 jetliner.


The affected employees work in the Duwamish buildings south of Boeing's former corporate headquarters in Seattle. They produce technical publications Boeing provides to its airline customers, including maintenance manuals and service bulletins.


"After careful study, we've decided to change the long-term business model for that work by transferring it to companies with a lower cost base," said Boeing spokeswoman Jill Langer.


The first layoff notices are already going out, and the work will begin to move out in the fourth quarter of this year. Additional layoffs will follow over the next two years, with a loss of about 270 jobs here.


"We have to lower our cost of doing business," said Langer, "It's simply a reflection of the harsh business realities."


Additionally, Langer said, Boeing is studying other areas of fleet services and support for potential cost savings. Outsourcing of work in these areas may be considered.


"This is extremely disturbing news," said Bill Dugovich, spokesman for the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA), which represents many of the workers. "There are indications that it could be more than 400 jobs."


The plan for the technical-publications unit is to transfer much of the work initially to Continental DataGraphics, a Boeing subsidiary acquired in 2000 with units in England and in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. The subsidiary will help to spin off the work to one or more overseas suppliers.


Boeing is considering Chile as one possible location.


The new business model Boeing has in mind is one in which all airlines would agree to use standard technical manuals rather than customize them themselves for their own mechanics. Boeing is seeking to bring in industry partners to help create standards for the manuals. Boeing would oversee the work, but the partners would do much of the production.


In a recent interview, Mike Bair, head of the 7E7 program, cited the technical manuals as an example of maintenance services that might be more efficient to outsource.


"It's unlikely we would physically do the maintenance," Bair said, "but there are traditionally schemes where we could manage it."


In justifying outsourcing, Boeing routinely refers to its desire to become a "systems integrator," assigning itself a role of system management and oversight of work done by global partners.


An e-mail from Rich Higgins, vice president of Boeing's Maintenance Engineering and Publications, to employees yesterday said "this change will result in a smaller Boeing work force focused on the most complex, value-added engineering portions of our process."


Langer confirmed that in addition to the outsourcing of technical publications, Boeing is studying ways to get "leaner" in a range of other aviation services.


These include dealing with airline in-service-fleet problems; sending routine technical service Telex messages; measuring service performance; and maintaining relationships with both suppliers and airline customers.


Boeing is using General Electric as a model for outsourcing of its technical publishing. GE partners with Adexus, a publishing company based in Santiago, Chile.


A presentation to Boeing managers yesterday included GE data on "worldwide business-cost assessments." The United States was second only to Japan in terms of high costs.


Chile, which ranked 26th, came out as the best outsourcing prospect in a scoring of various factors. Though it scored low in English fluency, it made up for it in other areas, including low investment requirements and low cost.


Boeing insists the quality of technical-service publications that it provides will be maintained. "Boeing stands behind that 100 percent," Langer said.

:mad: :O :mad: :{ :ok: :E :ouch:

Thats like having a french person write a recipe for apple pie

[flycat]

Oh men!
Here we go, one more airplane manual that no one will understand. I don't know you guys, but out here in the US, some of the manual provided by the airlines to the pilots make no sense. I have personally seen this with the Embraer ERJ-145 manuals. Sometimes you just have to guess what they are trying to explain.
Good luck to all.

[Faire d'income]

Why is it in your country anti-African American racism and anti-semetic racism is ( correctly ) illegal and punishable yet anti-french racism is ok? Also to the moderators of this board the same question?

This post will be the censored one not 747's post with the offensive postscript. :mad:

[PlaneTruth]

Wow.

Didn't know French folks were a different race. Black. Caucasian. Asian. Indian. French.

That explains alot!

PT:ok:

By the way, I've had some might fine French apple desserts. Of course thay have a different name for them. Must be a "racial" ethnic thing.

[Faire d'income]

(from Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)
race (PEOPLE) noun [C][U]
a group, especially of people, with particular similar physical characteristics, who are considered as belonging to the same type, or the fact of belonging to such a group:
People of many different races were living side by side.
Discrimination on grounds of race will not be tolerated.
An increasing number of people in the country are of mixed race (= with parents of different races).

race group noun [C]
a group of people who share the same language, history, characteristics, etc:
LITERARY The British are an island race.

The above definition is from the Cambridge dictionary online. :rolleyes:

[Lu Zuckerman]

This action by Boeing is really stupid. In preparing technical publications the tech writer has to have direct contact with engineering, product support, and flight test as well as several other involved departments. When I worked on the A-310 program I questioned the technical writers about the lack of technical detail in the repair manuals. The lead tech writer told me that ATA-100 the manual that governs the writing of technical manuals allows the writer to put in as much or as little information and associated illustrations as the writer wanted to include. This caused the mechanic to assume a lot in the repair and return to service because the lack of technical content. The reason for this was a means of cutting costs. The manuals are provided to the airlines at no cost and so many sets of manuals are delivered with each aircraft so the less technical content the lower the cost to the manufacturer. I can only assume that Boeing is cutting costs by offloading the program to Chili and at the same time providing less technical content in the manuals.

Aviation manuals have to be written using “Aviation English” but to use this language the writer has to have strong English skills.

I can understand Boeing wanting to deliver a standard manual to each of its’ clients but not all aircraft of a given type have the same equipment installed to include differing engine types so it would be difficult to impose this requirement on the operators.


:suspect:

[PPRuNe Pop]

Faire d'income


The only race question in this thread is the one you are bringing in to it - without good reason.

Thats like having a french person write a recipe for apple pie

.......is not a racist remark. It is simply a quip. Millions of people make them every day - including you unless you have no sense of humour.

So..........if you cannot offer something of interest to the thread I suggest you ignore it.

[DSR10]

Perhaps Mr 747F [no bias meant of course] might realise that Airbus is a conglomerate of the EC so why not slag off "roast beef" as well.
There is "sense of humour" but the current piss taking of anything French is paranoia pending the day that there were no WMD and the sole purpose was to steal a coverted oilfield or two.
Get real USA and use your own oil reserves and apples.

[Final 3 Greens]

Okay then PPrune Pop.

In support of Faire d'income, I would like to make a quip that 'that's like expecting Americans to understand that they too live in a global market' - time to wake up and smell the coffee y'all.

Tens of thousands of US jobs will be going to China, South America etc over the next few years, because the cost of production in the US is way too uncompetitive.

Modern technology makes outsourcing only too easy and the stockholders care about the bottom line.

But hey, that's free enterprise for you.

[witchdoctor]

Since when was Indian a different race from Asian? Or did he mean Native American? Must be that inability to speak proper English that seems to be so funny. Tell me, when will Americans be able to speak and spell in English?

[stillalbatross]

Remember after 911 when Americans started shooting the odd Hindu because they had no idea they were different from muslims. :p They aren't the sharpest people on the planet so if they want to try and be funny the rest of you should let them. Airbus are in existence because Boeing have done a p*ss poor job at retaining market share. And selling, sorry, leasing aging 767's to the US Airforce at 300 million each using taxpayers money to prop up a rudderless company is about as bad as the joke gets.

[Lu Zuckerman]

If so many of you from OZ, NZ, the UK and Europe find so much wrong with the United States why oh why are so many of you trying to emigrate to the States to find work?

:confused:

[PlaneTruth]

witchdoctor

"Since when was Indian a different race from Asian?"

I am no physician. But, at least I can tell the difference between someone from India and a Korean. Do you need a little help?
For your own edification, the term "Indian" was originally misapplied to the Native North American by the early British settlers: They believed they resembled the peoples of that nation.
The racial classification "Indian" does not apply to the "Native American".

Learn to read. Engage brain before mouth.

stillalbatross

Your exquisite commentary speaks for itself. Your logic is impeccably obtuse. Your views on how we choose to finance/buy aircraft is of little concern to me. I suggest you figure out how to get your own Euro Airlifter in the air before your C-17 leases come due. How'd that feel? It was a cheap shot, just like your post. Sorry to get in the gutter with you my friend.

It is obviously your inabilty to deal with your own personal issues that drives your thinking. That, or you are 11 years old.

PT
:ok:

[747FOCAL]

My god. Prune Pop was correct, I meant no racism toward anybody with the quip regarding the French and apple pie comment. But, once again, it would appear their tendancy to be cranky is rearing it's ugly head.

DSR10,

Maybe now you understand why gas is $1.15 in the USA.:E

witchdoctor,

enough is enough, stop playin the 911 card. It's over, let it go.

:rolleyes:

Lu Zuckerman,

exactly! Anybody who can run, jump or swim is trying to get here so they can bask in the beauty of freedom(and hate every bit of it) and wait for the US govt to buy them a gas station or a 7 eleven(with tax payer money). :ok:

[stillalbatross]

Planetruth, whatever. It was Senator John McCain who firstly asked why on the question of Boeing, the military and the overpriced 767s and then asked how they could bleat endlessly to Congress about Airbus and govt sudsidies.

[PPRuNe Pop]

For the last time. NO racist remarks are necessary. And I heartily agree with 747, that 9/11 should NOT be used to stress ANY points. We remember it each in our own way.

I think this actually a good thread for debate. So, I will leave it to see if those with the good sense shown thus far can keep it going. Otherwise it goes in the bin!

Now enjoy it please.

[PlaneTruth]

stillalbatross,

Sir, we agree.

McCain's point was valid. I agree completely that the lease arrangement is a dumb idea. Pay for the damned things and be done with it. Problem is, with this War on Terror sucking up some cash, the only way Congress would approve the appropriation for the full complement of aircraft (which we desperately need) was to go wil the lease arrangement. And they did so begrudgingly.

There is also NO argument whatsoever that each country MUST support it's own Military Industrial Complex. To buy arrows for your quiver from a less than reliable source compromises your security.

(By the way, the above point is one of the few points Senator McCain and I agree on. His run for President was one of the greatest shams foisted on the U.S. voter. The man is an egotistical loose cannon who is despised by much of his home base in Arizona and only got religion after the polls closed.

A coworker showed up to pick the good senator up in a DEA Citation one day for a big press arrival in Flagstaff after a fortuitous drug bust. Arriving an hour and a half late with no excuse, the senator was greeted by my friend as he approached the plane. The good senator brushed off his welcome with the comment, "Just don't kill me would you?"

That would endear the good senator to any pilot I would think. Schmuck! I'd have gotten one of those unfortunate "instant ear blocks" and made him drive to the press conference!)

PPRuNe Pop: "Now enjoy it please."

Yes Sir.

PT
:ok:

[stillalbatross]

Planetruth, don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Boeing but there is an awful lot more ability and ingenuity in that company than what they're using. Watched Bullitt recently and there's a bit where Steve McQueen is chasing the bad guy underneath a few DC8s, B707, past a Convair 880 and I thought "forget consolidation, gimmee the good old days where everyone was makin' airliners"
I think that crowd that is trying to resurrect the worlds last Convair 880 to fly is from Arizona.

[PlaneTruth]

Indeed,

Believe me, on occasions there is no bigger critic of Boeing than I. I grew up flying the 737-200 in the early 80's and the Boeing engineers and tech-reps were messengers sent from On High. Their intellect and insight was uncanny. The Boeing of today is nothing like the Boeing of twenty years ago, nor could it be I suppose. I hope to hell they know what they are doing because it is unclear from the outside looking in.

The 737-700 intro was marred by a good example of their apparent intermittent ineptitude. During HUD certification films of the main tires touching down, it was observed that the mains (whose shimmy dampers were removed by Boeing reportedly to save weight) shimmied precariously. We had noticed this phenomena ourselves on the line. On landing, the plane shook "like a dog shaking off a pee." Boeings answer was that our pilots "were landing the aircraft too smoothly." The suggested a firmer touchdown. What a CROCK! When senior management saw the video, one of the VP's called Boeing and asked them to verify the safety of this aircraft as delivered. He wanted a letter stating this fact faxed within the hour. Within an hour, Boeing sent a letter stating that all new aircraft would be delivered with shimmy dampers installed. Al in-service aircraft would be retrofitted. What the heck were thay thinking? With this and a few other exceptions, the aircraft has been exceptionally trouble free. This shimmy damper issue would have never happened in the early 80's.

I have not heard about the 880, but there is a 990 in El Paso and it flew in there only about ten years ago. It is a strange bird indeed with the shock canoes on the upper wing. Ah, when the girls were single and the Jet A cheap.

At least my company will be buying a few airliners. We are scheduled to buy 400+ more between now and '12 to bring our total up to 800+. I learned one of the reasons for Boeing's move away from Seattle was the concern for volcano damage. I hauled the chief company maintenance technician out of SEA four or five years ago and he told me the last year of the construction of the -700, the whole area was on volcano watch for Ranier. I guess since St Helens blew, Ranier is now become intermittently active. He told me that computer simulations for a failure of the western face of Ranier would put the valley that Renton is in under 14 feet of ash and debris. Perhaps it is time to get your production capacity moved elsewhere. Everett is far enough North to be out of major danger, unlike Renton. I saw an article in the paper this week (Phoenix is trying to land the 7E7 facility). The article mentioned the volcano threat in Washington.

Good chatting with you,

PT.:ok:

[Colonel Blink]

We are NOT all trying to get into you sadly overpolluted, overpopulated and self opinionated country.

Guess with the Boeing upheaval and Volcanic activity, they won't be heading here.

[Kaptin M]

Yet a further example of the dumbing down of the aviation industry, at the expense of SAFETY.
The new concept of safety seems to be one of, "If we say SAFETY often enough, that is enough."

All Japan Air Lines staff have been issued with little credit card-sized cards, that they are urged to read to each other before (and perhaps during) work, stating how safety-oriented they are - in the meantime corners are being cut in all areas of training!!

Hey Lu and 747F, I resemble that remark (please note flag on left), and can also "..run, jump or swim" (in fact, in my case, it's and swim :O ), and I have NEVER had any desire to work in the land of "the free, the bold, and the brave" - even when I was out of work for 12 months, due to the influx to Australia of Americans.
I promise.

[MarkD]

Indeed, not all of us are trying to get into the US... some of us are trying to get into Canada :D

Col. Blink

Can't blame you for not wanting to leave NZ after watching the Lord of the Rings movies, though I bet your tourist board wishes every copy of "Once Were Warriors" would quietly disappear - great show!

As for the topic at hand -

planetruth said:
There is also NO argument whatsoever that each country MUST support it's own Military Industrial Complex. To buy arrows for your quiver from a less than reliable source compromises your security.

Mr Planetruth? Some people from British Aerospace to see you! :D :D

[PlaneTruth]

MarkD,

The US and GB have had a long and established history of cooperation on aircraft development. Frank Whittle's engine was secretly sent to GE during the war because they were afraid it would get into German hands (plus the War Dept. didn't see "any wartime application for the thing."). The Harrier is another example. Rolls Royce frequently supplies engines for Boeing Aircraft. Our lackluster P-51 came into it's own when powered by the magic of the Merlin. Our lend-lease program kept the RAF equipped in sufficient quatity to execute a defense in WWII. Given our common history, it is no wonder.

While many died on both sides during the American revolution, many times that number of Americans have died to protect the British Isles. Not once but twice, we have shown what our response is to threats by those with hostile intent towards England. Incredibly, there are those who would suggest WWI and WWII never happened. In some countries, that whole period is omitted from the public school curriculum.

I for one know who buttered my bread. Those generations who went before and made the ultimate sacrifice have made this world a safer place fora great many of us. Those peoples who shared in this effort shall forever be linked by adversity. Should the need ever arise again, I'd be enroute to protect England in a heartbeat. Or Germany. Or France for that matter.

Hopefully we shall never again see the battles and destruction the likes of which characterised the first half of the twentieth century. God, I hope we have learned something.

PT

[DSR10]

Doesn't Emerates order tell it all.
Airbus Good
Boeing Crap

[747FOCAL]

Come on now DSR10, the bus has it's problems as well. :rolleyes:

[MarkD]

Planetruth

I was referring more to uk.govs cosying up to Thales et al. Point taken though.

DSR

Yawn. Tells no such thing. 777 order is quite significant too.

[PlaneTruth]

DSR10,

Quite apparently, it does not. -PT

Boyd Group:

Hot Flash - June 16, 2003

The jetBlue Embraer Deal...
It's A Lot More Than A Jet Order
Airbus Just Took One Right On The Nose Cone...

Two very significant events took place last week. One caused a media frenzy. The other was hardly noticed, if at all.
The first was the jetBlue order for 100 Embraer E-190s. The second notable event was when Frontier, at the Paris Air Show, accepted the keys to the carrier's first Airbus A-318.
Airbus Thought Boeing Was The Competition. They're Thinking Again. The significance of these events has apparently been lost on most everybody, except maybe for some thunderstruck folks deep within the Airbus and Boeing strategic planning departments. While the media types babbled on about jetBlue's "regional" jets, the folks in Toulouse no doubt got the real message: the 170/190 E-Jet platform has launched Embraer into the forefront of the mainline airliner business. Worse, with the jetBlue order, Airbus just got kicked in the nose cone, and possibly even relegated to a secondary role in the 100-seat market as well. The A-318 is in deep trouble.
Consider: jetBlue ordered a fleet of 100-seat airliners. Simply because the manufacturer was Embraer, the veneer types in the media called it a big "regional jet order." (They must have missed the press releases from both the airline and the manufacturer: neither used the term "regional jet.") At the same time, Frontier took possession of the A-318, which Airbus describes as its "100-seat" airliner. But nobody called it a "regional jet" when Frontier ordered it. Frontier ordered a handful of A-318s. jetBlue ordered and optioned 200 Embraers.
The E-190 is a 100-seat jet with a range well in excess of 2,500 miles. The A-318 is what Airbus bills as its own 100-seat jet, and it also has a range in excess of 2,500 miles. The real-world, in-fleet mission capabilities of the two aircraft are not much different, but some media trendies, many of whom couldn't recognize a E-190 from a Curtiss Condor, saw the name "Embraer" and confidently referred to the aircraft as a "regional jet."

Airbus Just Got The Bionic Winkie. The 2003 Paris Airshow, at least behind the scenes, was likely not a real happy place for Airbus. While they were publicly tipping the bubbly, toasting a couple of A-380 orders, they where being zapped out of the lower end of the fastest growth airliner demand category.
Consider The Impact. The jetBlue order likely hit Airbus like a brick. The A-318 is almost 100% compatible with the A-320. Cockpits. Maintenance. Parts inventory. Training. Pilot exchangeability between the two. Consider: jetBlue has over 100 A-320s in operation and on order. From that perspective, the A-318 was the slam-dunk choice when jetBlue was looking for a smaller airliner, right? Wrong. The relative economics of the two airplanes apparently more than made up the difference. jetBlue clearly understands that it isn't the number of seats, it's the economics of the airplane.

The hard fact is that the A-318 and the E-170/190 series are direct competitors. Looking at what both airplanes can do, say, from Frontier's Denver hub, there isn't much difference. The A-318 is a little bigger, and has more range, but both aircraft have very similar in-fleet mission applications. Both, by the way, can reach either cost from Denver. Both can offer seats more than an inch wider than a 737. The only difference, and it's a big one: the economics of the Embraer are likely leagues better than the A-318, which is a downsized A-320.

The Beginning of The RJ End. Far from being an extension of the "RJ phenomenon" as some are trying to spin it, the emergence of the E-170/190 as a viable player in the US is another signal that the RJ order cycle is ending fast. While <51 seat jets (and their stretched 70-90 seat Canadair progeny) will continue to have a role, it's going to be one that will be in decline by the end of the decade.

Leveling The Playing Field. While jetBlue is a low cost airline, they do not have a permanent lock on operational efficiency. These smaller E-Jets can be used to great effect by network carriers. Not only do the economics lend well to feed roles, but the ergonomics are equal to larger jets, or better. Mega-carriers can apply these aircraft to building medium-size markets, generating more revenue through their hub operations than possible with 50-seat RJs.

Where The Demand Will Be: 70 - 150 Seats. As the fleet forecasts at our annual Forecast Conferences have made clear over the last four years, the main growth area in airliner demand in the coming decade won't be widebodies. And, as we alone first forecast, it sure won't be <51 seat RJs. The real demand in terms of units will be in the 70-150 seat narrowbody jets. The jetBlue order shows without any doubt that Embraer has staked out the lower end of this demand category.
We'd all better wake up and smell the Brazilian coffee: There are now three global producers of airliners: Boeing, Airbus, and - Embraer.

[Rananim]

Airbus orders are up because of the changing nature of the airline executive boardroom.Used to be that pilots were often strongly represented at board level if not on them and as such they got the planes they wanted.Planes which were pilot friendly,planes which were designed to be flown by pilots,ie,Boeings and McD.This canvassing has all been slowly eroded and now fleet selection is entirely a commercial decision and to hell with the pilots.This is where Airbus has creeped in.Their aircraft are cheaper and their packages often come with additional incentives such as crew training.They're able to do this because of the huge subsidies that are afforded them.Boeing is not.It no longer matters that an airline is flying machines that are ergonomically designed for pilots but which manufacturer offers the best deal(best as in cheapest to the airline).Airbus' type-rating commonality has been a big factor here.An airline can fly short-haul on A320's and long-haul on A330's and save a big whack on crew training(a big overhead for any airline).Doesnt matter that pilot skills are being sacrificed and that we have a new breed of pilot who has never seen(and might never see) a real aircraft.And if the pilot doesnt know any better,the airlines get away with it.The new breed convince themselves that Airbus offer the superior product.After all it has bigger cabins and there's a table you can eat your meal on.And it corrects for an engine out all by itself.See..no hands.And I dont have to do anything but just sit in my seat and feed some data into this computer here.Its great isnt it?The man-machine interface has all but been disregarded in the decision process.Thrown on the rubbish tip as a burnt offering to Progress.
So when I see postings like the infantile one from our friend DSR I wonder what the world is coming to.Sure Emirates,the company, can buy Airbus if they want to and good luck to them.But when I hear a supposed pilot say he prefers an Airbus to a Boeing,I just know that this industry is in trouble.
Southwest's criteria for fleet selection has always been pilot-based.Their excellence in safety is concomitant of this pioneering spirit.

[Burger Thing]

Rananim I just started the day with a relaxing morning coffee. With your post you made my day already. I totally agree.

[Flap 5]

It is interesting that Boeing pilots always say that about Airbus. However those that have converted to the Airbus never want to go back. I have flown many aircraft types, including the Airbus. If you feel that way about pilot skills then get yourself a helicopter rating! There is no skill in flying a Boeing after that.

[BahrainLad]

Indeed, an Airbus is not a 'real' aeroplane to a Boeing and a Boeing is not a real aeroplane compared to the Wright Flyer..........

It's called progress.

(And automatic engine-out compensation? Hmmm....must read up on TAC in the 777 then....)

[Faire d'income]

I have flown both Airbus and Boeing. Both build fine machines. Boeings are more fun to 'fly' but the Airbus would have the edge overall.

Rananim if your pilot skills are limited to pulleys and cables and using your hands you have a lot to learn. Also might I point out that Airbus is more ergonomically designed with pilots in mind than Boeing.

[kinsman]

Sorry I don't agree that the Airbus has been designed with the pilot in mind! The Airbus has been designed by engineers who thought they knew what pilot’s wanted/needed.

I have flown Boeing and am currently a TRE on the A320/1 and A330. I like the Airbus but it has its’ faults! The main problems are the screen displays which are difficult to see in strong sunlight, though this issue has been addressed with the new LCD screens, lack of feedback in the flight control system and ECAM! ECAM is a great concept and works fairly well with single failures but has limitations with multiple failures.

The pilot is left feeling a little detached from the aircraft at times and the lack of tactile feedback forces you to rely more heavily on visual acuity. With a little more thought a good aeroplane could have been great. Still I don’t suppose Airbus care what any of us think and they certainly don’t seem to be having any trouble selling them!

The Boeing v Airbus debate is pointless, they both do the job and at the end of the day you get paid to fly whichever aircraft your company operates. Frankly I thought it all went downhill when they put the tail wheel on the front, it will never catch on!


;)

[Faire d'income]

The key word in my statement was 'ergonomically'. I was referring to the cockpit.

My opinion would be that the Airbus is designed by engineers ( inevitable differences with crew ) but the Boeings are designed by Accountants! :O

[PAXboy]

An interesting thread that I cannot possiboy comment on. However, one or two of the side comments ..

In the following, this is NOT a criticism of Plane Truth, simply using his words to highlight a more general trend: I grew up flying the 737-200 in the early 80's and the Boeing engineers and tech-reps were messengers sent from On High. Their intellect and insight was uncanny. The Boeing of today is nothing like the Boeing of twenty years ago, nor could it be I suppose. I hope to hell they know what they are doing because it is unclear from the outside looking in.
This sounds much like how it has been in telecommunications in the 25 years that I have been involved! I recall engineers who could listen to a telephone system and know what was wrong. They could sniff out problems. Nowadays, the 'engineers' have never seen a REAL telephone system! They look on their PC screen and say, "I'll have to call the Tech Support Centre". Happily, telephone systems are on the ground when they fail but their failure can still cost lives.

So, I suggest that, it is true to say that no company is anything like as good as it was. The reduction in cost has removed much of the good along with the bad and the outsourcing nonsense is another whole topic by itself! Hearing about the 737NG gear-shimmy problem did not surprise me and I am sure that there are many more like that - as there are in all aspects of commerce. It's just that most of them, like telephone systems, are on the ground when they stop working and do not have so far to fall.

On another thought (also illustrated by the interesting posts of PT): Hopefully we shall never again see the battles and destruction the likes of which characterised the first half of the twentieth century. God, I hope we have learned something. I doubt that we have. Humans are very good at forgetting things and once both wars are out of living memory, we shall see one change. Once the children of those who served (including myself) are gone - then we are likely to forget these lessons. Why such a pessimistic view of human nature? What I learnt about history taught me that we never learn.

Safe Journey to you all.

[kinsman]

Fair d'income

Last time I looked the ECAM, screens and flight controls with no feedback were on the flight deck! The engineers did put a very nice table where the yoke used to be though.

As for Boeing designing aircraft for accountants, I think you have that round the wrong way. The Airbus sells so well because it keeps the accountants happy and they run the airlines these days not pilots! Boeing build great aeroplanes but Airbus build efficent ones.

As I said a pointless argument but fun!


:O

[Foxy Flyer]

Airbus vs Boeing, Boeing vs Airbus, both fine aeroplanes. Competition is a healthy thing.

I'm off to slip into my wellies to take the sheep for some Freedom Fries.

[AhhhVC813]

Utter, astonishingly laughable, twaddle, and typical of the stuff still going around. The Airbus does not correct for an an engine failure, unless the autopilot is engaged, and any aircraft with a three channel autopilot will do that. If hand flying and you lose an engine then you have to apply rudder. Basic stuff eh? The 777, however, does have an auto rudder input in the event that an engine fails on takeoff whilst hand flying. Does that make it any less of an aircraft. No, I don't think so.

As for this 'real' aircraft, and degraded skills argument, this has been the case since the advent of the FMC/Glass cockpit which goes back to the early eighties. It's called progress.
I can't say that on any type I've operated, whether it was glass or not, that the skill levels of the majority of pilots whilst hand flying has fallen appreciably. Those who find it hard will do so regardless of instrumentation/automation. It is also interesting that people still think that they are pilots in the sense of stick and rudder flying. The majority are not, regardless of what type they operate. Very few hand fly todays aircraft to any degree, and with good reason. The flight deck can be a busy place after takeoff or during an approach; sometimes it makes more sense to keep the autopilot flying the aircraft.

But regardless of how much one handles an aircraft it matters not a jot whether it's a Boeing or an Airbus; the controls operate in the same way, hydraulics power the control surfaces, and only smaller aircraft have a direct cable connection. If having that direct cable connection makes an aircraft a 'real' one, then we lost that in the fifties/sixties.

[buttline]

I'm waiting for my first jet job - but I've done quite a few hours in the Level D 737 sim.

Read the recent write-up on the A318 in F.I. Seems stick inputs for bank angles up to 30 degrees don't require any back pressure on the stick from the pilot - the elevator input is automatic. I realise the planes are not there for our enjoyment but it just somehow seems like less fun than the old stiring the porridge! Also, I was a chopper pilot first so I'm concerned that if I'm given a stick I might automatically try and hover on the approach! :-)

I really enjoy both the new tech. side of jets and the hand flying side. My ideal world would have me on a 737 for a few years and then switch to Airbus once the initial thrill has worn off and I don't want to work that hard on every minor task anymore.. I'm asssuming the common cockpit makes it easier to move up to heavier types on the Airbus.

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Gents, the business of an airline is not to provide the most comfy seat to the pilots; it's there to sell tickets and generate a profit. Someone once said "we don't fly aeroplanes, we fly passengers". Sums it all up really.

Therefore, the decision to buy this or that aircraft should rest with the people responsible for selling the tickets, and not the drivers. When the "beancounters" have decided which is the most economical solution, then by all means bring every other staff group on line and take their ideas/wishes onboard. Perhaps a HUD for the flightdeck, a revised crew rest area, aligning maintenance procedures to fit the engineering department, equip with a sliding carpet to please the loaders etc etc etc. But the bottom-line is to sell tickets.

If pilots ran airlines, the world fleet would probably consist of some fancy supersonic F-xx equipped with pods for the pax/cargo.

If handlers ran airlines, there would be only containerized aircraft.

If hosties ran airlines, passengers would be banned.

If engineers ran airlines, only Mercedes Benz would build aircraft.

In either case, it wouldn't work very well ...

PS
Just a quick edit to add: The article above said something about "Airbus happy over a couple of A380 orders". Well, if I could announce 12.5 Billion USD worth of orders to a single customer, then I'd be a bit happy about that too. Maybe I'm aiming too low?

[ferrydude]

CAL posts massive profits this quarter, Airtran selects Boeing over the Bus, Southwest= Highly profitable, Is it a coincidence that these are all Boeing fleets?

[Flip Flop Flyer]

In the meantime, DL are bleeding more money a day than I'll probably come across in a lifetime. They are a sole Boeing operator, is that a coincidence?

UA are also posting unbeliveable losses, and they are a mixed Boeing / Airbus operator. Is that a coincidence? Same with Air Canada, AA and UA so it's gotta be that then. Hang on, just remembered that Emirates turned in a very nice profit, and they operate a mixed fleet of Airbus and Boeings. Same with Air France and Lufthansa.

SAS bought a fleet of 50ish 737NGs, + a few 321s and 330/340s for longhaul, while retaining a few old 767s, quite a few MD80s and 90s, a regional fleet of Q400s + a few old F50s. They are loosing shyteloads of dosh. Shall we blame Fokker, Bombardier, Boeing, MDC or Airbus?

Singapore used to turn hefty profits, but did experience a loss in 2001/2(?). Ahh yes, that was the year Boeing sold them 777s to replace their A340-300. Is that a coincidence?

You forgot about JetBlue ...... :rolleyes:

[ferrydude]

Emirates? Profitable? Sure would like to see those books
Jetblue? Just wait till the warranty runs out on those Buses
What main reason did Airtran give for choosing Boeing?

[windowseat]

I think Boeing's ability to immediately recall $126m of debt from Airtran if they bought a single Airbus might have played a big part in the deal:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/135134049_boeingairtran01.html

[Flip Flop Flyer]

Ah yes, I understand. Emirates are of course not adhering to the world-class US way of corporate accounting. Sorry, my mistake. However, they did dish out 2 months worth of salary as a bonus to ALL staff. That was probably bogus as well, you tell me
:hmm:

I see you pick one example and conveniently "forgot" about the rest. Excellent procedure, I think I'll use that in the future :rolleyes:

PS
Read the article windowseat provided a link to, that'll explain why they went Boeing.

[ferrydude]

tisk, tisk, Emirates is funded by UAE oil money, of course they givve the staff bonuses, much the same as UAE nationals get paychecks just for breathing. Go check the accounting for any operator, the Bus is simply costs more the operate than the comparable Boeing model. Emotions aside, facts on the table.
As stated earlier, a profit seeking entity cares not what the pilots or passengers want, beancounters drive the choices. So, why would Airtran not state the "real" reason for choosing Boeing. Blackmail? Extortion?

[kinsman]

Ahhvc813

With the AP out if you rotate and do nothing else following an engine failure on take-off the Airbus will enter a gentle turn towards the dead engine and climb away. Try that in a 767 or 737! The Airbus flight control system makes the Aeroplane just about the easiest in the world to fly, that’s part of it's charm.

[ferrydude]

I see, that settles it for me. Now then, what do we need you for again??

[PAXboy]

FFF: "Therefore, the decision to buy this or that aircraft should rest with the people responsible for selling the tickets, and not the drivers."

When in the Southern Hemispheres a few months ago, I heard of an airline that still gave the pilots a big say in the selection of machines. I was told that the drivers asked for the biggest donkeys the machine could take. Understandable as one would want to have plenty of power in reserve... What it added to the purchase price was noticed later but was still agreed to.

They now have to be careful that those nice fat donkeys do not slurp too much go-juice. :=

[kinsman]

Ferrydude

You need us to stop the beast gently turning into the hill next to the airport and pick up the pieces when the computers go off in a sulk, which they do fairly often!

The other big difference between Boeing and Airbus is the depth of technical knowledge you need to operate the Airbus, which compensates for the ease of operation when it is all working.

Still they give you a nice table to put the manuals on.

[AhhhVC813]

Kinsman, that is correct; but is merely a function of normal law trying to keep the wings level. What it won't do is apply rudder. How many people fly an EFTO using ailerons/spoilers only? The climb out in a MTOW 340 using this technique is not going to make for a satisfactory ending.

[kinsman]

Works on an A330 at MTOW, guess it would depend on the engine or engines you lost on an A340 and your speed, having not flown one I could not comment. The Airbus instructor’s manual indicates it should work on the 340 but if you have tried it in the Sim I will take your word for it.

Yes it is a function of normal law but that’s the point the aeroplane protects you all you have to do is step on the correct rudder to improve the climb rate which at MTOW won't be very good if you don't centre the Beta target, which is perhaps what you are alluding to.

Using the spoilers and aileron alone is of course not an approved technique and I would not suggest otherwise. My point is you have another level of protection that would not be available on more conventional aircraft.

[ferrydude]

EADS reports over 6000 engineers working on the A380 program
Boeing Utilised less than 4000 on the 747 Program, and that was in the drafting board/slide rule days. It shall be interesting!

[used2flyboeing]

My two cents about France, Airbus Boeing & Embraer ...

Do the majority of frence women have silicone breats ? - Ive never seen so many beautiful thin women with relatively big boobs!! Just absolutely fabulous women ..

France will be run by the Taliban in a few years - they got the same problem as aging England - the Anglo-files are being overrun by the French Commonwealth workers - the one's they conquered in previous generations - read Briget Bardots recent book - for which she was indicted for hate speach .. AIRBUS aircraft wil be bought and sold with Rupies .. - my point is there is no longer a Frenchman per-se ..particilarly when they cant afford to reproduce..

The Concorde, TGV and the A380 are more examples of Europes insatiable appetite for projects that are "too big to fail"- regardless of the economic sense..

AIRBUS makes a great product because they have had the best teacher - BOEING - AIRBUS has shamlessly copied almost every technical innovation Boeing - even the layout of the FCU .. They should have copied the aisle stand as well - IE no tactile indiucation of thrust. The A340/330 was a terrible flop - but they fixed the problems - IE literally re-launched a new aircraft ( put a whole new wing on it after fiddling with it for 10 years ).

The Embraer is going to kill the competition in the >100 seat market - that airplane is literally a $24 Million dollar mini-777, only with the latest thinking in aerodynamics etc.. - why is it so good you may ask - because Embraer has hired tons of layed-off Boeing engineers. Bombardier is going to have a tough go against the little bird - wonder where the 717 will fit in ? Why do you think Lockheed Martin is partnering with Enbraer on the new mini-AWACS

Everybody look at Honeywell - here is a company that is "hosing" another new aircraft intro ( Embraer ERJ170 ) with their hosed up Primus Epic Avionic & Fly-By-Wire suite. This is exactly what happened to the 777 intro. Only difference is, Boeing amassed a great army of engineers/programmers to fix the problem, Cant wait to see how long / this plays out - particularly because Embraer has no experiance. I hope they wrote "feet-to-the-fire" contracts as opposed to "working together" or "unlimited partnership" contracts ..


Great discussion though

[ferrydude]

Embraer And Rolls Royce Help Mesa Finance ERJ145s
Aviation Daily07/07/2003


Mesa last week said it had snagged backstop financing from Embraer and Rolls-Royce for the last four ERJ145LRs of a 36-plane order placed in January 2000. The regional carrier also recently inked financing deals on three used CRJ200s and is close to finalizing agreements on four other used aircraft.

Wow, I thought Boeing was the only one using these sales methods!!!!!!

[used2flyboeing]

yea - another Harry Stoncipherism - take a risky business like building airplanes & make it more risky by financing them - hence Boeing Capitol's multi-billion exposure with the United 777 deal .. Oh well, what ever you got to do to close the deal ..

[ferrydude]

whatever you have to do to close the deal" Would that include
selling aircraft for less than the cost to produce in order to be able to say, "we closed more deals than the competition"?

[Flip Flop Flyer]

I think you've made your point quite clear now; Anything Boeing does is good and anything Airbus is bad. Obviously Boeing never sold aircraft below cost, and would certainly never sell (or lease) at exorbiant costs to save the business at the expense of the US taxpayer.

Boeing used to build a family of very nice, efficient and capable aircraft for their time. A time where commonality between different family members were not as important as it apparently is today. In this day and age, the 777 is about the only leading-edge of technology machine they have on offer, but it has virtually nothing in common with any other machine Boeing offers. This is undoubtedly a result of huge savings on the R&D front, perhapse because they found out too late that Airbus would emerge as a competitor.

Airbus, entering the fray, had to spend gazillions on R&D (yes, partly on state-subsidies but mainly borrowed from membership countries at very attractive rates, but not solely as state subsidies however much the US wants to say so) and has emerged with a product line that appeals greatly to the worlds airlines.

It is then only natural to expect Boeing to start turning the tide, as is indeed evident with the 7E7, and it is also natural to expect Airbus to start resting on their laurels. In other words, in a few years the situation may have been reversed if the 7E7 delivers on it's promise of a 20% reduction in DOC and is evolved into a family of aircraft. However, Airbus does not seem to be resting on their laurels, or at least not until the A380 is rolled out.

I for one hope that Airbus will continue to develop their product line. Indeed, they have been talking about an A300 successor for some time now. Furthermore, the major improvement offered by the 7E7 seems to stem for the advanced, yet to be developed, engines. What should keep Airbus from installing the same donks on, say, the A330? Or an A300 successor?

I also hope that Boeing will get the 7E7 up and running, and that it will deliver on its promises. That should keep Airbus on its toes, if they don' fall in the trap of neglecting R&D, and that again will see the industry with 2 manufactureres providing the industry with near-equal machines in all segments. The industry needs at least 2 competitors, but I have this feeling some people would love to see either Airbus or Boeing reign supreme.

Finally, let me finish by the following statement: I basically couldn't care less what badge is on the side of an aircraft. As long as it does its intended job safely, efficiently and comfortably for the company, staff, pax and cargo I'm happy.

[Faire d'income]

Please read carefully before being critical.

I said the airbus had an ergonomical design with the pilots in mind and I later added that I meant the cockpit. This means it is designed to improved the efficiency of the crew and I would happliy say it beats Boeing in this area.

QUOTE]Sorry I don't agree that the Airbus has been designed with the pilot in mind! The Airbus has been designed by engineers who thought they knew what pilot’s wanted/needed.[/QUOTE]

This is a contradiction. :ok:

Also I said that Boeings are designed By accountants not For accountants.

[dicksynormous]

personally i prefer the twin otter.

[danke]

Flap 5,

I am currently on the A320. Roomly cockpit, but that is about the only thing I like better than the Boeings i have flown. A majority of my fellow Scarebus pilots agree. Besides, i hate being called a "Retard" everytime I land.

[West Coast]

Next time you airbus boys are feeling cocky, go race a 757 through 10K, 70 seat CRJ for that matter. I remember reading not too long ago on PPRUNE a bus lover defending the hairdryers they like to call engines. He said the lower thrust allowed a safer aircraft in case of an engine failure at V1. Amazing.

[kinsman]

Bet you have a big watch as well!;)

[West Coast]

My watch is... well, big enough to please me.

[kinsman]

Once or twice when heavy I have been asked by Brest if I am still climbing! Always wanted to reply yes but it is a French aeroplane, never had the nerve so just told them it is an Airbus and yes I am still climbing!

No one ever asked me that in the 757 or 767. Then again it's nice to look down on all the 767's across the Atlantic as I pass them in the 330. Of course you have to hate the 747's and 777's!

[javelin]

West Coast.

While the 320 may climb gently up to it's cruise height in comparison to the 757, try it the other way. We can go faster, lower and slow down quicker than you, we are more adaptable in the TMA because of it and we are always complaining that we have to slow down for the Boings. In our fine unrestricted skies, should we wish, we can do 340kts to 15 miles , slow, configure and be stable with power up at 700' without the use of speedbrake. Now at that point, we could look up to see the Boing doing a low pass!

My watch is of adequate size, my wife can read it well and she says it is a fine piece. I post to provoke, enjoy :E

[West Coast]

Do remind me, what is MMO in the 320, VMO also?

[javelin]

350kts bubba, 350kts ! And no windscreen limit - Errrr wouldn't like to prove it though :{

[West Coast]

Funny, never seen a bus pass a 757. What happens more often, approach saying go really fast, or the usual reduce to xx. The later, and when they do, nothing goes as slow on final as a 757.
All things considered the better performance aircraft is the 757.

[ferrydude]

Hmmm, sounds like Airbus is lacking a little brilliance

[PlaneTruth]

Dittos to West Coast,

I fly out of Phoenix (The Surface Of The Sun these days) and we always eat America West Airbusses' lunch in the -300/500 or especially the -700 737. Even heavyweight. I have taken off with 20 miles in trail and by 15,000 feet, I have caught up with the Bus infront of me and he is 1500 feet below me. Same out of LAX with other Bus carriers.

PT

Javelin --I hope you never cross paths with any airborne livestock. Years back a 727 F/O was killed climbing out of SFO when a goose came through the sheetmetal and hit the ADI knocking it out of the dash, striking the F/O. I hit a goose at approach speed and my radome folded in. A buddy hit a goose in an F-111 over the English Channel and ended up breathing seawater until he could get out of the crew capsule. A Pelican hit the ventral of a 737-200 going into OAK one night about 1 mile out and nearly ripped the whole fixture from the jet. Miraculously, they unbolted it and the damage was confined to that part.

Good Luck!

[kinsman]

West Coast

A330 fly's slower on the approach than any large aeroplane I have ever flown including the 757. It is a C rather than a D, which is amazing for an aircraft with a MTOW 230 tons! Though when you look at that wing perhaps not so amazing.

Have to say 350kts to 15 miles is not healthy!

Planetruth.

The 737 is a fine aeroplane but it burns more fuel than a bus and costs more to buy which is why the accountants love Airbus and Boeing is having a hard time at the moment. The Airbus will cruise faster than a 737 can't say I know anything about the –700 perhaps it is faster than the older models.

Speeds not everything .01 mach will save you very little time perhaps 1 or 2 mins on a four hour sector and cost you fuel. Fact is in these cost conscious times the Bus wins hands down as far as the accountants are concerned and what pilots think really does not matter!

[West Coast]

Kinsman
I made a conscious decision at a young age to be a pilot, not an accountant. We have plenty of bean counters lying (and lieing) around. I like you deal in speed and performance. There the boeings may not be as effecient, but they do leave comparable sized aircraft behind.

[PlaneTruth]

Kinsman,

The "classic" generation of 737's were designed in the mid 80's and their fuel efficiency is horrible when compared to the 737-700. The new bird will cruise at 410 burning 2000 lbs per side at .78 mach. Best forward speed? Vmo is about .83. Boeing flight tested it to .95 mach with no airframe flutter or buffet. An aircraft can be fast --and efficient if designed so. The -700 climbs, cruises and descends nearly at Vmo.

All I know is I am constantly running over my other Bus driving brethren in climb or descent. Of course, once we get above them, they are no factor.

Javelin,

If I drove a 737 to 15 miles at 350kts theres' no way I'd make the airport. The airplane is far too clean. At medium weights I can comfortably do 250 to 12 mi and configure without beating up the flaps. In idle, a 737 (old or new) takes about 1 mile for each 10 kts of speed reduction to 210kts. At 350 kts I'd have to go idle about 20 miles out to make it without additional "drag help."

The Bus must not be quite as clean as you're letting on or your "dropping the Dunlops" at max extension speed and riding the boards down at flap limiting speed. Not fun for the SLF's.

Now the SmurfJet (BAE 146) with the clamshell brakes could reportedly do 250 to the marker and make it, albeit still by pressing the passengers faces into the seatbacks in front of them.


Happy Trails!

PT:ok:

[AhhhVC813]

Anyone, regardless of age who made any sort of decision, conscious or not to be a pilot, would not claim they are being one by operating any of the modern Boeing or Airbus types. I fear you would need to go back twenty five years or so to be able to do that.

[kinsman]

Ahhhvc813

Could not agree more!

Like it or not West Coast this whole Boeing/Airbus argument is nothing more than a P****** competition! At the end of the day as long as I get paid and have enough time off to go and play with fun aeroplanes then I don't care what the accountants want me to fly!

[PlaneTruth]

AhhhVC813,

Well, not quite ALL of us.

My carrier still insists on no vertical nav activation in order to keep us in the loop and monitoring descent profiles/ situational awareness, etc. While we do fly the plane directionally via LNAV, climb and descent are handflown (pitch portion).

I regularly fly HUD handflown CAT III approaches to 50 foot minimums and 300 RVR in the winter. Takeoffs at 50 RVR are similarly handflown to 1200 AGL.

I will grant you this: NONE of the 737 aircraft hand fly as well as the old -200 advanced. From the minute Approach says, "Cleared for the visual approach (followed by the loud "click" of the autopilot disengaging --Whoo Hoo!) none of the series hand flies as sweet as the old bird. The control harmony is excellent and the feedback is near perfect. The 300 on final has all the feel of a dumptruck and the 700 is not much better. You almost can't screw up a 200 landing. The 90% of the flight to final gets kind of old without power and all the other conveniences one gets used to.

Ahh, the old days. My missus says I ought to leave it at that.

PT:ok: