It took 20 years for Boeing to pay off the R & D costs for the 747, so I don't think they had too much funding from the government. The current 767 tanker order on the other hand looks like it is just a subsidy in disguise. Read "Flying High" for a good history of Boeing. The author covers everything, good and bad, about the company.

Gordinho,

If it passes.........but it won't be as valid as the 747 until they sell 1500 plus units. :ouch:

The slides that I have seen pics of look double wide......or at least wide enough such that somebody does not jump a bit off to the side and miss the thing. :E

Burger Thing.

Couldn't agree more.

Boeing forever.:ok:

From the beginning of next month, the 1.3 billion population of the People's Republic of China will be allowed to travel to Hong Kong unrestricted, i.e. without the restriction of being part of a tour group. Up to half a million are expected in HK during their national holiday in October. It won't be long before the restriction is lifted for other countries. Although many of them can't afford to travel overseas, with an economy which grew 8% this year (even after SARs), it won't be too long before they will be able to. And at this rate of growth, China will be the largest economy in the world in 25 years.

They will need lots of big aeroplanes. The A380 fills the requirement quite nicely. And as most of the worlds manufacturing is being outsourced to countries such as the PRC, large chunks of the A380 will probably be made there to offset the cost of the large numbers the Chinese will buy.

If Boeing want to stay ahead of the game, they need to start thinking a bit more laterally and look at ways they can economically develope a new mass air transport rather than try and re-generate the concept of the 767 and/or re-jig their jurrassic large aircraft design.

DW

(PS, I would like to point out that I fly 747s before the pro- Boeing lobby decides to take a pop.)

Have to laugh when I see Beagle and his not invented here syndrome speach repeated ad nauseam in different threads. Well Beag's we have something in common as it relates to the A380, we can both say not invented here. We can also have sub contracting in common. To attract US buyers I believe the percentage of such is going up. Who's expense is that at?

Goates.

If the Airforce was buying 7e7 tankers then they would be subsidizing boeing. Keeping open a finished production line is hardly subsidizing passenger aircraft developement. Beoing kept building 707s well after they stopped offering them to the airlines in the form of AWACs and whatnot, but it didn't help boeing develope a new product.

Keeping the 767 line open with tankers will do nothing to help product developement.

Cheers
WIno

Boeings are real aeroplanes.

Airbus are JUST people carriers with JUST enough power to get them airborne.

I'd prefer to fly a Boeing any day over an airbus :)

I'm not so sure. If the manufacturer makes even a 1% profit - then that can contribute towards R&D of other products. It may not be a direct subsidy but if it helps the company retain staff in work, then it has political benefits. If, when the (say) tankers are finished, the staff then go on to work on the new project - it might be thought of as subsidy. If Boeing had to close a production line and cut the staff, they would not be in such a good positon when the new a/c was ready and they needed production staff.

However, the argument is a pointless one. EVERY govt will support it's own companies whenever it can irrespective of the area/type. Building weapons or aircraft, or constructing a new national building, they will try and help their own. Many would argue that is a prime and valid function of govt.

SU27, I can hear the sounds of the Bruichladdich talking. Was it at the Drover's Inn or at the Globe where you arrived at this pearl of wisdom?:rolleyes:

Continental USA (ie 48 states) has 4 time zones. Customers increasingly want more point to point flights. This has led to the use of smaller planes. So, demand for A380s from this market will be limited to a handful for the most popular routes and times.

The global picture is quite different:
1. As posters have noted, Asia is a large market that requires large planes.
2. Lots of long-distance routes have small daily 'windows' when flights are commercially possible. This situation is due to the interaction of timezones, flight times, night airport closures, airport slot availability and airport altitude issues. Perhaps it's not the best example but think of LHR-JNB. BA does 2 747s about 4 hours apart, then 20 hours till the next flight.
3. And there is a growing market for very cost-sensitive long-distance flight. Why else is Emirates buying A380s?

If US airlines and manufacturers think that the global market will inevitably converge to look like the USA domestic market, they are going to have to rethink.

answer=42

Except look at the MD-11: If the KC-10 order had not kept the DC-10 production line going, there never would have been an MD-11, as the gap between the last orders for civilian DC-10s and the first MD-11 was far too big.

Similarly, keeping the 767 line open helps Boeing by (i) keeping buildings and employees going until such time as the 7E7 reaches production and (ii) provides a steady flow of income that can help finance R&D for the 7E7.

It's not exactly the same as a direct subsidy to 7E7 development, but it'll do.

I seem to remember the B747 first being touted back in the 60s as a 500-seater and the Galaxy as a 700-seater? And if 'Non-stop is the real answer, not bigger', whatever happened to the B747SP and its 10,000nm worth of non-stop?

Anyone remember the double-decker VC10 proposal? Beags?

As originally proposed, the Super VC10 was to have been the world's largest airliner at the time. It was to have carried 217 passengers on 4200 nm sectors; however, BOAC decided instead to opt for a smaller, more modest version with up to 174 seats.

The 'double deck' VC10 design (VC10 Superb) wouldn't have had the same range. However it would have been able to carry up to 285 passengers. But this was in the days of government subsidy, and 'Sleepy Fred' Mulley (who dozed off next to the Queen at the 1977 Silver Jubilee flying display at Finningley) announced 'with regret' in May 1966 that the government could not support the development costs of the Superb. In any case, BOAC was determined to fly American and wanted the 747. As is well known, however, many passengers insisted on flying in the '10 long after 'Fat Albert', as the '10 crews termed the 747, came into service with BA.

SU27

Quote"Airbus are JUST people carriers with JUST enough power to get them airborne."

Exactly how many hours do you have on Airbus aircraft to enable you to give this highly qualified opinion????????

There aren't many Boeings that will climb straight up to FL370 with a FULL load of pax (360) 10 tonnes of freight on an 10 hour flight from LGW to CUN, its always quite comical listenig to the 747's battling for FL320 to cross the pond, while we're already up at 370 in a nice A330 having breakfast on a nice sliding tray table!!!

But would be doing the same in an A340? Is the inherent excess thrust in an ETOPS twin the feature which gives you the edge, or the superior wing design?

I don't think a Boeing aircraft ever had the tail come off. :E At least not from a few little bumps.......

Fin came off a BA 707 a few years ago.Anyway it was only the airline's training program that encouraged crews to do a tap dance on the rudder pedals of a heavy transport.could hae happened to any of the AA crews.

Before calling Gordon Bethune full of cr*p, bear in mind he did manage to turn Continental around from certain bankruptcy, by doing deals with both airbus and boeing so I don't think he has an axe to grind against either of them. He is very straight talking.

I actually have a great amount of respect for Gordon. I have a hard time believing the tap dance caused the fin to tear off with all the flight tests I have been on. I have sat in the cockpit and watched the pilot in more than a few different aircraft doing deep stalls where he is wagging the tail back and forth like crazy. when your in the back it sounds like a bunch of monkeys beating the fuselage but other than breaking a few stringers that was it. :O

The wing is identical between 330 and 340. As for performance, well a 330 will get there quicker (though a 340-600 will get to 370 with a full load (58t ish) in around 26 mins eastcoast bound); for a similar thrash across the pond with a full load (35t) the 340-300 will go straight to 370 ex JFK, (and 360 ex LHR. ISA conditions). Slowly though, about 34mins for a C2 powered a/c and 29mins C4.

Zoom
the 747-400 had the same range as the SP and burned the same fuel to go the same distance. No brainer... The SP was killed by the 400.

Cheers
Wino