Look at Boeing's beautiful new aircraft!
Guest
Posts: n/a
flap 5,
how much would a "sub-orbital" aircraft cost to operate? when asked for everyones ideas for the next generation of airliners (since no one liked boeings) i was counting on ideas that would be achievable and profitable. any sub-orbital aircraft would be incredibly expensive to operate. there is no way it could be operated in todays environment at todays fares. i think that idea will be viable in the next-next generation (30 years or so).
knave and others,
there are several here who seem to take joy in stating that boeing lost to airbus in the very large category. the did not lose. they chose not to compete because they do not believe it will be profitable. they may be wrong in this assessment but at least state the facts correctly. what would happen if ferrari decided to build a new 300 mph car. if porche decided that it was not going to build a competing car because they didnt believe that there was a large enough market for it, would they be categorized as "losing" even though ferrari might sell a few of their fancy new cars?
buck rogers,
i understand the economics of the concorde. the fact is that while it is a wonderful airplane (one of my favorites), it is was not economically viable 30 years ago and it is not viable today. the manufacturers either failed to consider or ignored the environmental, fuel and other negative aspects. whether or not concorde is profitable in a very small niche market is irrelavent. they sold 13 airplanes (to the state owned airlines of the countries who manufactured it i might add). you can guys can blame the U.S. for the problems of the concorde if you want but that doesnt change anything. the airplane doesnt work in todays airline environment. just because something is a technologicical marvel doesnt mean that it makes good business sense.
one last point, do you think that airbus will be building all new aircraft in 10 years from now? or will they be building derivitives of their current airframes? i can almost guarentee that they will not be able to build any brand new airframes for a while because of all the money tied up in the A380 (they better hope that boeing doesnt go ahead, because there is now way that they could compete with it). if this is the case that would mean about 25 years of updating the same airframes. roughly the same as boeing and their "old" airframes. just trying to put things in perspective.
[This message has been edited by LMD (edited 04 April 2001).]
how much would a "sub-orbital" aircraft cost to operate? when asked for everyones ideas for the next generation of airliners (since no one liked boeings) i was counting on ideas that would be achievable and profitable. any sub-orbital aircraft would be incredibly expensive to operate. there is no way it could be operated in todays environment at todays fares. i think that idea will be viable in the next-next generation (30 years or so).
knave and others,
there are several here who seem to take joy in stating that boeing lost to airbus in the very large category. the did not lose. they chose not to compete because they do not believe it will be profitable. they may be wrong in this assessment but at least state the facts correctly. what would happen if ferrari decided to build a new 300 mph car. if porche decided that it was not going to build a competing car because they didnt believe that there was a large enough market for it, would they be categorized as "losing" even though ferrari might sell a few of their fancy new cars?
buck rogers,
i understand the economics of the concorde. the fact is that while it is a wonderful airplane (one of my favorites), it is was not economically viable 30 years ago and it is not viable today. the manufacturers either failed to consider or ignored the environmental, fuel and other negative aspects. whether or not concorde is profitable in a very small niche market is irrelavent. they sold 13 airplanes (to the state owned airlines of the countries who manufactured it i might add). you can guys can blame the U.S. for the problems of the concorde if you want but that doesnt change anything. the airplane doesnt work in todays airline environment. just because something is a technologicical marvel doesnt mean that it makes good business sense.
one last point, do you think that airbus will be building all new aircraft in 10 years from now? or will they be building derivitives of their current airframes? i can almost guarentee that they will not be able to build any brand new airframes for a while because of all the money tied up in the A380 (they better hope that boeing doesnt go ahead, because there is now way that they could compete with it). if this is the case that would mean about 25 years of updating the same airframes. roughly the same as boeing and their "old" airframes. just trying to put things in perspective.
[This message has been edited by LMD (edited 04 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Buck Rogers,
'
Your post seems to insinuate that there was a concerted attempt by the US to sabotage the commercial sucess of the Concorde. I spend alot of time when on layovers at libraries, and reading alot of back issues of Aviation Week from that period, there was nothing but high hopes that the sky's would be full of SST's both US and Concorde, the real problem was the environmentalists as well as the business potential of flying a few people at high speeds. Hell if you prescribe to your theory then why is Airbus's biggest customers US based airlines? certainly if all US airlines stopped buying Airbus's their bottom line would suffer massively. PS This wasn't intended to start an "Airbus is a superior jet" thread.
'
Your post seems to insinuate that there was a concerted attempt by the US to sabotage the commercial sucess of the Concorde. I spend alot of time when on layovers at libraries, and reading alot of back issues of Aviation Week from that period, there was nothing but high hopes that the sky's would be full of SST's both US and Concorde, the real problem was the environmentalists as well as the business potential of flying a few people at high speeds. Hell if you prescribe to your theory then why is Airbus's biggest customers US based airlines? certainly if all US airlines stopped buying Airbus's their bottom line would suffer massively. PS This wasn't intended to start an "Airbus is a superior jet" thread.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Sonic Cruiser is not the answer to Boeing's woes. For some reason, they still insist that airports are not congested, that the system is not creaking close to capacity, and that more frequency is what the public want.
How can they be serious? Some of the worst taxiway queues are in the US hub airports. I have sat on the taxiway rolling an aircraft-length forward every 90 seconds for 45 minutes at Minneapolis, Charlotte, Newark, Altanta. And every city-pair I can think of has ample frequency - there is daily non-stop service or more from London to the likes of Baltimore, Phoenix, Raleigh, San Diego, Charlotte, Cleveland (hardly in the league of NY / LA / SF / Chicago) in the US, five times a day from London to Sydney... There are regional jets which fly all over Europe from the likes of Southampton, all over the US from the likes of Elko NV, Ottawa, San Jose CA... Is there really a city-pair in the world which does not offer ample options should the meeting end two hours early or half a day late?
For my money, Boeing lost it with the 737 "NG". When they needed to come through with something to compete with the A320 and maybe begin a line of aircraft with common type ratings, they instead did very little. Look at the overhead panel on a 737-100 and a 737NG. 35 years in the making? Oh dear.
Regarding Concorde, this lovely aircraft was doomed fairly early on. The British were screwed by the French over a joint-venture missile development and therefore the penalties for either side to walk away from Concorde made cancelling the project very difficult, even though both sides had their doubts. Braniff were very keen but they looked at a cabin mock up and the actual operational stats and told the consortium, "It's too small, it's too slow, it's range is too short." Lufthansa were interested as well but Concorde does not have the range for Frankfurt to JFK.
How can they be serious? Some of the worst taxiway queues are in the US hub airports. I have sat on the taxiway rolling an aircraft-length forward every 90 seconds for 45 minutes at Minneapolis, Charlotte, Newark, Altanta. And every city-pair I can think of has ample frequency - there is daily non-stop service or more from London to the likes of Baltimore, Phoenix, Raleigh, San Diego, Charlotte, Cleveland (hardly in the league of NY / LA / SF / Chicago) in the US, five times a day from London to Sydney... There are regional jets which fly all over Europe from the likes of Southampton, all over the US from the likes of Elko NV, Ottawa, San Jose CA... Is there really a city-pair in the world which does not offer ample options should the meeting end two hours early or half a day late?
For my money, Boeing lost it with the 737 "NG". When they needed to come through with something to compete with the A320 and maybe begin a line of aircraft with common type ratings, they instead did very little. Look at the overhead panel on a 737-100 and a 737NG. 35 years in the making? Oh dear.
Regarding Concorde, this lovely aircraft was doomed fairly early on. The British were screwed by the French over a joint-venture missile development and therefore the penalties for either side to walk away from Concorde made cancelling the project very difficult, even though both sides had their doubts. Braniff were very keen but they looked at a cabin mock up and the actual operational stats and told the consortium, "It's too small, it's too slow, it's range is too short." Lufthansa were interested as well but Concorde does not have the range for Frankfurt to JFK.
Guest
Posts: n/a
epsom hold,
"How can they be serious?"
well, compare 777/767/A330 sells to 747/A340-600 sells over the last few years. which a/c type is getting the bulk of he sales?
"For my money, Boeing lost it with the 737 "NG". "
once again, i guess making money doesnt mean that much to you. boeing has sold quite a few of these mistake a/c. for he record, i believe that boeing could have done more with the 737NG but it has done very well in its market up against world beater A320. but they got most of it right, new wings, new cockpit, new engines, new interior, better performance. what more do you want? oh, i forgot, they didnt change fuselage. well i guess airbus should be chastised for using the same 1970's A300 fuselage for all their "new" airplanes.
i guess it boils down to what you consider a "success" to be.
"How can they be serious?"
well, compare 777/767/A330 sells to 747/A340-600 sells over the last few years. which a/c type is getting the bulk of he sales?
"For my money, Boeing lost it with the 737 "NG". "
once again, i guess making money doesnt mean that much to you. boeing has sold quite a few of these mistake a/c. for he record, i believe that boeing could have done more with the 737NG but it has done very well in its market up against world beater A320. but they got most of it right, new wings, new cockpit, new engines, new interior, better performance. what more do you want? oh, i forgot, they didnt change fuselage. well i guess airbus should be chastised for using the same 1970's A300 fuselage for all their "new" airplanes.
i guess it boils down to what you consider a "success" to be.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flap V and LMD,
I think the Sultan of Brunei could afford a sub-orbital flight from LHR to home. Bill Gates could have, but his stock is sort of in the tank these days.
Come to think of it, we haven't made any progress in orbital speed in 40 years either, and the XB-70 and Blackbird designs are over 35 years old.
__________________
The good news of the day is that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is going to put all of its courses on the Web, so ppruners can look forward to getting their virtual aeronautical engineering degrees. I just hope that there will be not be a new forum devoted solely to swapping answers to the problem sets.
[This message has been edited by SaturnV (edited 05 April 2001).]
I think the Sultan of Brunei could afford a sub-orbital flight from LHR to home. Bill Gates could have, but his stock is sort of in the tank these days.
Come to think of it, we haven't made any progress in orbital speed in 40 years either, and the XB-70 and Blackbird designs are over 35 years old.
__________________
The good news of the day is that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is going to put all of its courses on the Web, so ppruners can look forward to getting their virtual aeronautical engineering degrees. I just hope that there will be not be a new forum devoted solely to swapping answers to the problem sets.
[This message has been edited by SaturnV (edited 05 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the Aviation Week website, dated April 4th from Dallas.
American Airlines CEO Donald Carty strongly endorsed Boeing's effort to develop a new high-speed, subsonic aircraft today, saying such an airliner could revolutionize scheduling and possibly the industry.
Speaking at Aviation Week's MRO Conference & Exhibition, which opened here this morning, Carty praised the concept as the next great way for airlines to gain significant productivity improvements. "Over the past several years, we've had to work hard to make gains in productivity and save costs," he said. "But there have been no such productivity enhancements in the flying part of the industry in 40 years," since turbofan transports became common in the fleet. "Twenty percent faster is 20% gain in productivity, and the whole scheduling equation changes."
Such an aircraft would be a strong competitor to Airbus' A380, Carty said. "I had a conversation with an executive from Qantas and asked him why he committed to the A380, and he told me that there are really only three time windows per day where you can fly from Los Angeles to Sydney and depart at a reasonable hour Los Angeles time and arrive at a reasonable hour Sydney time. You can't increase frequency, so you have to increase aircraft size.
"But if you change the speed of the aircraft, that would change that equation altogether." Such a change could be especially attractive to the high-end business traveler, Carty noted.
American is watching to see if Boeing can fulfill its promise to keep the economics of the aircraft similar to the 767 that it would replace. "We don't say we need to be able to buy the plane for what we paid for a 767 five years ago. We do say that we'd like to pay what we'd pay for a 767 tomorrow with all the technological upgrades it's had since then."
He advised that Boeing Airplanes President Allan Mulally bring other airlines into design talks, providing, he joked, that "he make clear that American gets the first three years of production."
This is good sign for the new Boeing.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
American Airlines CEO Donald Carty strongly endorsed Boeing's effort to develop a new high-speed, subsonic aircraft today, saying such an airliner could revolutionize scheduling and possibly the industry.
Speaking at Aviation Week's MRO Conference & Exhibition, which opened here this morning, Carty praised the concept as the next great way for airlines to gain significant productivity improvements. "Over the past several years, we've had to work hard to make gains in productivity and save costs," he said. "But there have been no such productivity enhancements in the flying part of the industry in 40 years," since turbofan transports became common in the fleet. "Twenty percent faster is 20% gain in productivity, and the whole scheduling equation changes."
Such an aircraft would be a strong competitor to Airbus' A380, Carty said. "I had a conversation with an executive from Qantas and asked him why he committed to the A380, and he told me that there are really only three time windows per day where you can fly from Los Angeles to Sydney and depart at a reasonable hour Los Angeles time and arrive at a reasonable hour Sydney time. You can't increase frequency, so you have to increase aircraft size.
"But if you change the speed of the aircraft, that would change that equation altogether." Such a change could be especially attractive to the high-end business traveler, Carty noted.
American is watching to see if Boeing can fulfill its promise to keep the economics of the aircraft similar to the 767 that it would replace. "We don't say we need to be able to buy the plane for what we paid for a 767 five years ago. We do say that we'd like to pay what we'd pay for a 767 tomorrow with all the technological upgrades it's had since then."
He advised that Boeing Airplanes President Allan Mulally bring other airlines into design talks, providing, he joked, that "he make clear that American gets the first three years of production."
This is good sign for the new Boeing.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hmmm...the "sonic cruiser" debate just got more interesting. This is from the Aviation week website, dated April 5th from Dallas.
Airbus Industrie will sit down with airlines to discuss their desire for a high-speed subsonic aircraft, Airbus Industrie's top market-forecasting executive said today, calling the idea "fascinating and intriguing" while harboring some doubt that such an aircraft could be produced economically.
Speaking at the Air Transport Association Engineering, Maintenance & Materiel Forum running in conjunction with Aviation Week's Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Conference & Exhibition in Dallas, Airbus market forecast VP Adam Brown said that a transport cruising at Mach 0.95 could be "the best way for us to move on" for a next generation of airliner technology "if the trade-offs can be done" that will allow airlines to acquire and use the aircraft at a viable cost.
Boeing made a big splash in recent weeks when it announced it would work to create a high-speed, subsonic airliner series to replace the 757-767 family of aircraft. Brown contended that Airbus, because some of its engineers have experience on the Concorde, has the most qualified staff to design such an aircraft, but, he said, "my engineers tell me that it actually would be easier to design an aircraft that could cruise at Mach 2 than at 0.95."
Brown told attendees that Airbus conceptual designers have been working on an aircraft, dubbed the E2 (E-squared), that could fly about the same stage length as an A320 but have a capacity somewhere between the A320 and the A330/A340 family.
The concept, which Brown emphasized to AviationNow.Com here is not really new, is little more than an exercise for advanced engineering studies right now. A production version of the plane would need to drop its noise, nitrogen oxides and CO2 by 50% to meet ever stricter environmental requirements, especially in Europe. The aircraft would have a variable-geometry wing, a front canard, and two very-high bypass engines mounted behind the aircraft high above the wing surface to reduce noise signature.
Brown said Airbus is losing interest in the concept of a supersonic transport, saying such an aircraft doesn't meet the needs of his forecast of a rapidly growing low-cost leisure travel passenger base - some 42% of the current market, he said - a need served quite well by the A380. An SST for more exclusive passengers, he said, would be viable in the market, but could not draw the public funding that would be needed to finance research and development.
That's crucial for Airbus, since Brown noted he anticipates a high degree of input from the European Community - 120 billion euros through 2020, with the aim of making Europe the leader in the aviation technology industry by 2020. That call echoed a speech by 101-year-old aviation pioneer L. Welch Pogue at the conference Tuesday night, when he called for an "aviation champion" to keep the U.S. in front.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 05 April 2001).]
Airbus Industrie will sit down with airlines to discuss their desire for a high-speed subsonic aircraft, Airbus Industrie's top market-forecasting executive said today, calling the idea "fascinating and intriguing" while harboring some doubt that such an aircraft could be produced economically. Speaking at the Air Transport Association Engineering, Maintenance & Materiel Forum running in conjunction with Aviation Week's Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul Conference & Exhibition in Dallas, Airbus market forecast VP Adam Brown said that a transport cruising at Mach 0.95 could be "the best way for us to move on" for a next generation of airliner technology "if the trade-offs can be done" that will allow airlines to acquire and use the aircraft at a viable cost.
Boeing made a big splash in recent weeks when it announced it would work to create a high-speed, subsonic airliner series to replace the 757-767 family of aircraft. Brown contended that Airbus, because some of its engineers have experience on the Concorde, has the most qualified staff to design such an aircraft, but, he said, "my engineers tell me that it actually would be easier to design an aircraft that could cruise at Mach 2 than at 0.95."
Brown told attendees that Airbus conceptual designers have been working on an aircraft, dubbed the E2 (E-squared), that could fly about the same stage length as an A320 but have a capacity somewhere between the A320 and the A330/A340 family.
The concept, which Brown emphasized to AviationNow.Com here is not really new, is little more than an exercise for advanced engineering studies right now. A production version of the plane would need to drop its noise, nitrogen oxides and CO2 by 50% to meet ever stricter environmental requirements, especially in Europe. The aircraft would have a variable-geometry wing, a front canard, and two very-high bypass engines mounted behind the aircraft high above the wing surface to reduce noise signature.
Brown said Airbus is losing interest in the concept of a supersonic transport, saying such an aircraft doesn't meet the needs of his forecast of a rapidly growing low-cost leisure travel passenger base - some 42% of the current market, he said - a need served quite well by the A380. An SST for more exclusive passengers, he said, would be viable in the market, but could not draw the public funding that would be needed to finance research and development.
That's crucial for Airbus, since Brown noted he anticipates a high degree of input from the European Community - 120 billion euros through 2020, with the aim of making Europe the leader in the aviation technology industry by 2020. That call echoed a speech by 101-year-old aviation pioneer L. Welch Pogue at the conference Tuesday night, when he called for an "aviation champion" to keep the U.S. in front.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 05 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
And if I was Gerry Anderson, I would sue Boeing for pinching his design.
This could have been viewed 37 years ago in Episode 1 of 'The Thunderbirds' and was called 'Fireflash'. Only it did Mach 6.0 - which is what the Boeing thing should do if it is to be called in any way revolutionary!
This could have been viewed 37 years ago in Episode 1 of 'The Thunderbirds' and was called 'Fireflash'. Only it did Mach 6.0 - which is what the Boeing thing should do if it is to be called in any way revolutionary!
Guest
Posts: n/a
An Airbus marketing official may find the sonic cruiser to be "fascinating and intriguing", but they don't have enough bullion in the bank to simultaneously develop and tool-up production of both the A-380 and a mach 0.95 competitor to sonic cruiser.
IF, and thats a big if, Boeing pulls this off, Airbus must be thinking whether that will cap their A-380 market and they might never reach break-even on that plane, which I think Airbus claimed was 250 aircraft at about year 2011 (though there is skepticism about that break-even point).
From a marketing standpoint, the business and high-end traveler prize speed and convenience (flight frequency). Looking at the 3-class configuration of the A-380-100, I count 22 first class and 96 business class seats. How many of those seats will be filled if there is a competitive flight that gets passangers to their destination a lot sooner?
Does their market ultimately turn to one of flying planes with 800 steerage-class passengers on pilgrimages and to tourist meccas?
And given Airbus' comment that they are not interested in building an SST, does that mean that a Mach 0.95 aircraft with 100 first class seats is what will substitute for Concorde at the end of its operational life? That would be a sad commentary on aeronautical progress in the 21st Century, but it may also be economic reality.
IF, and thats a big if, Boeing pulls this off, Airbus must be thinking whether that will cap their A-380 market and they might never reach break-even on that plane, which I think Airbus claimed was 250 aircraft at about year 2011 (though there is skepticism about that break-even point).
From a marketing standpoint, the business and high-end traveler prize speed and convenience (flight frequency). Looking at the 3-class configuration of the A-380-100, I count 22 first class and 96 business class seats. How many of those seats will be filled if there is a competitive flight that gets passangers to their destination a lot sooner?
Does their market ultimately turn to one of flying planes with 800 steerage-class passengers on pilgrimages and to tourist meccas?
And given Airbus' comment that they are not interested in building an SST, does that mean that a Mach 0.95 aircraft with 100 first class seats is what will substitute for Concorde at the end of its operational life? That would be a sad commentary on aeronautical progress in the 21st Century, but it may also be economic reality.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mach 0.95 does not get you there "Much quicker". Especially not with ATC issues and a very high cruising altitude. Those descents and climbs are going to be slow. If an airline streamlined its check-in and customs procedures, it could still beat a Sonic Cruiser 'from arrival at airport, to leaving airport at the other end'.
And a half-hour saving across the pond will never replace Concorde.
And a half-hour saving across the pond will never replace Concorde.
Guest
Posts: n/a
jacko,
i think they actually quoted 1 to 2 hour savings across the pond depending on the sector length. anyway, i dont think it is being marketed to replace the concorde in the transatlantic market(there are only 13 concordes to replace). it is being marketed to replace the 767's and compete against the A330's. boeing quoted capacity as 150-300. this would indicate different variants. it is also being marketed for the pacific where the concorde can not compete because of lack of range. i believe boeing were saying up to 3 hours shorter in the pacific.
actually, the higher altitudes may help with ATC delays as there is much less traffic up there and you are above more of the wx. when things get backed up at FL330 because of wx related departure delays, they may be able to clear you out earlier if you are at 40 something.
i think they actually quoted 1 to 2 hour savings across the pond depending on the sector length. anyway, i dont think it is being marketed to replace the concorde in the transatlantic market(there are only 13 concordes to replace). it is being marketed to replace the 767's and compete against the A330's. boeing quoted capacity as 150-300. this would indicate different variants. it is also being marketed for the pacific where the concorde can not compete because of lack of range. i believe boeing were saying up to 3 hours shorter in the pacific.
actually, the higher altitudes may help with ATC delays as there is much less traffic up there and you are above more of the wx. when things get backed up at FL330 because of wx related departure delays, they may be able to clear you out earlier if you are at 40 something.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LMD
Most sincere apologies. I didn't make myself clear, I'm afraid. Mach 0.95 couldn't shave one or two hours off a five or six hour trip in a Mach 0.8 aircraft, and what really counts isn't Mach no. It's groundspeed. Also, my point about the height isn't the congestion at that altitude, but the difficulty in getting down through lower traffic.
I'd also take issue with your earlier contention that Boeing did not lose to Airbus in the very large category, and that "they chose not to compete because they did not believe it will be profitable."
I'd remind you that Boeing sank a great deal of money and ebergy into studying and beginning development of a number of 747 derivatives and variants to meet the need for a VLA, and clearly thought that there was enough of a market to justify this. You may write me off as an anti-American embittered and envious European (especially after I've been so rude to you on another thread!), but I can assure you that I am deeply saddened that Boeing has lost its long-standing adventurous, risk-taking, go-getting, fire-in-the-belly innovation and spirit (traditional American business values, and much to be admired). I'd be the first to admit that the 707 and 747 were landmark airplanes which would earn the company a place in aviation heaven or the hall of fame. But the decision to opt out of the VLA market was forced on Boeing because Airbus got their first, with a technologically more advanced aircraft, against which warmed-over 747s couldn't compete. I blame the climate of caution forced on the company by greedy, short-termist shareholders, who want their jam today, not the chance of caviar a week on Wednesday.
The tragedy is that the Boeing of yesterday would not be developing a sub-sonic cruiser, they'd be halfway towards the first practical, economically viable SST.
Most sincere apologies. I didn't make myself clear, I'm afraid. Mach 0.95 couldn't shave one or two hours off a five or six hour trip in a Mach 0.8 aircraft, and what really counts isn't Mach no. It's groundspeed. Also, my point about the height isn't the congestion at that altitude, but the difficulty in getting down through lower traffic.
I'd also take issue with your earlier contention that Boeing did not lose to Airbus in the very large category, and that "they chose not to compete because they did not believe it will be profitable."
I'd remind you that Boeing sank a great deal of money and ebergy into studying and beginning development of a number of 747 derivatives and variants to meet the need for a VLA, and clearly thought that there was enough of a market to justify this. You may write me off as an anti-American embittered and envious European (especially after I've been so rude to you on another thread!), but I can assure you that I am deeply saddened that Boeing has lost its long-standing adventurous, risk-taking, go-getting, fire-in-the-belly innovation and spirit (traditional American business values, and much to be admired). I'd be the first to admit that the 707 and 747 were landmark airplanes which would earn the company a place in aviation heaven or the hall of fame. But the decision to opt out of the VLA market was forced on Boeing because Airbus got their first, with a technologically more advanced aircraft, against which warmed-over 747s couldn't compete. I blame the climate of caution forced on the company by greedy, short-termist shareholders, who want their jam today, not the chance of caviar a week on Wednesday.
The tragedy is that the Boeing of yesterday would not be developing a sub-sonic cruiser, they'd be halfway towards the first practical, economically viable SST.
Guest
Posts: n/a
jacko,
thanks for flight instruction, i shouldnt need recurrent this year :~)
you are basing your numbers on a 6 hour trans-atlantic flight. i am not sure if you are aware of this or not but there are other routes besides JFK-LHR. some thans atlantic flights are 8,9, even 12 hours. so obviously the time savings are quite benificial on thise longer sectors.
as far as losing out to airbus on the VLA, only time will tell. but boeing spent relative peanuts researching the idea, contrary to your earlier statement. but selling 500 airplanes (i know AB says 250 but the bankers and investors say 500) will be a challenge. even if they do, it will probably take the better part of 20 years just to break even. in the mean time, they will have precious little capitol to develope new ideas, which is what you are slamming boeing for.
this gets to my 2 points that i was trying to get across when i joined this dicussion. the first is boeing is damned if they do and damned if they dont. the second point was that it is not "revolutionary" enough for you guys. what is more "revolutionary" ; this new offering from boeing or the A320 (which all europeans point to as the great leap forward in aviation)?
when i asked for ideas for what boeing should do next, no one had any answers (except for a sub-orbital hypersonic a/c that is impossible to operate economically with todays technology).
i do agree that if they had done it right, they could have had a real SST operational by now that actually makes money. JUST JOKING! i love the concorde. the concorde and the L1011 are what made me want to become a pilot.
thanks for flight instruction, i shouldnt need recurrent this year :~)
you are basing your numbers on a 6 hour trans-atlantic flight. i am not sure if you are aware of this or not but there are other routes besides JFK-LHR. some thans atlantic flights are 8,9, even 12 hours. so obviously the time savings are quite benificial on thise longer sectors.
as far as losing out to airbus on the VLA, only time will tell. but boeing spent relative peanuts researching the idea, contrary to your earlier statement. but selling 500 airplanes (i know AB says 250 but the bankers and investors say 500) will be a challenge. even if they do, it will probably take the better part of 20 years just to break even. in the mean time, they will have precious little capitol to develope new ideas, which is what you are slamming boeing for.
this gets to my 2 points that i was trying to get across when i joined this dicussion. the first is boeing is damned if they do and damned if they dont. the second point was that it is not "revolutionary" enough for you guys. what is more "revolutionary" ; this new offering from boeing or the A320 (which all europeans point to as the great leap forward in aviation)?
when i asked for ideas for what boeing should do next, no one had any answers (except for a sub-orbital hypersonic a/c that is impossible to operate economically with todays technology).
i do agree that if they had done it right, they could have had a real SST operational by now that actually makes money. JUST JOKING! i love the concorde. the concorde and the L1011 are what made me want to become a pilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I will only ever damn Boeing for NOT being as innovative and as revolutionary as their heritage shows us that they can be. It's the leaps of faith (707, 747, 377) which have made the company the World leader that it still is. Caution will make them lose the crown. Mach 0.95 is not revolutionary.
I need to save more than one hour from LHR-JFK, and about four hours LHR-PHO! And even more if the ticket price goes up appreciably. Air Travel has shrunk the world, and now needs to shrink it again.
I need to save more than one hour from LHR-JFK, and about four hours LHR-PHO! And even more if the ticket price goes up appreciably. Air Travel has shrunk the world, and now needs to shrink it again.
