Boeing Brilliance - Sometimes I am just amazed that Airbus is even in existence
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus V Boeing
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?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrydude
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 ......
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 ......
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Jetblue? Just wait till the warranty runs out on those Buses
What main reason did Airtran give for choosing Boeing?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/htm...airtran01.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...airtran01.html
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrydude
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
I see you pick one example and conveniently "forgot" about the rest. Excellent procedure, I think I'll use that in the future
PS
Read the article windowseat provided a link to, that'll explain why they went Boeing.
I see you pick one example and conveniently "forgot" about the rest. Excellent procedure, I think I'll use that in the future
PS
Read the article windowseat provided a link to, that'll explain why they went Boeing.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomatoe VS Tomahhhhtoe
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!
Boeing Utilised less than 4000 on the 747 Program, and that was in the drafting board/slide rule days. It shall be interesting!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!!!!
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!!!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ..
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"?
selling aircraft for less than the cost to produce in order to be able to say, "we closed more deals than the competition"?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrydude
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.
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.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinsman
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.
Also I said that Boeings are designed By accountants not For accountants.
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.
Also I said that Boeings are designed By accountants not For accountants.