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

Bahrain lad, 747 focal is on track. Have a look down a 747 upper deck slide, you will see what he means. On the day it ain't gonna work.

As for the restaurants showers swimming pools etc, airplanes have to be light, real light. If Marketing over at airbus is really in charge to that degree then they won't make it.

Oblaaspop - Exactly. It is areally nice to be a pilot nowadays, isn't it? Let the computers do the job, play with the sidestick a bit on landing, and enjoy listening to the comedy show, when those poor bastards in their old dinosaurs struggle with weight.

Ah, thank goodness we don't need to bother at all. But of course at home we still tell everybody, how bloody difficult it is to be a pilot, and how much we enjoy to sit there for hours, fiddling with our thumbs... Imagine there was a time, when pilots handfly an airliner below 10000ft? Unthinkable....

Ok, enjoy your breakfast on your tray table. Your job sounds really a challenge.... :}

An ATC buddy of mine has figured out how the A340 manages to climb. It is because of the curivture of the earth. :}

Tacking slightly back towards the post subject re. certain folks who think the A380 is too large. Does anyone around today incharge of a major think the 744 is too large. For their own airlines maybe, but not for the likes of, Lufthansa, Singapore and Emirates etc. who seem confident (quite rightly) of filling the thing.

By early in the 2010's everyone will have forgotten about the whole size issue and be happily scooting through the sky without a second thought. Besides that stretch -900 is it? will probably be in the offing then if not already airbourne and It'll all start over, 650 in three classes. The "can't be done too big! and no-one will buy it" brigade will be out in force again.

Isn't it just part of the show when you launch a bigger aircraft of whatever type you get the same old chat?:}

I've looked down an A340-height slide (in a cabin sim) and shat myself, so no doubt I would have similar feelings at the top deck of an A380/747.

But, emergency egress from a 737 is frightening enough if the aircraft behind you is on fire and people are desperate to get out. In that sort of situation, I would take my chances going down the slide, no matter how uninviting it looked.

(And by the way, how many passengers willingly chuck themselves down huge, high slides at water parks day-in, day-out on their holidays? Some of those are near vertical, without any form of enclosure, hardly even a barrier.)

The slides for the A380 are fully enclosed at the top (and for about 10m down either side)....not to keep the rain off....but rather to hide the horizon. That way the punters wont (supposedly) be able to tell just how steep and long the slide is.
Yahoo.

Enclosed to hide the horizon....... Nothing like jumping into a black hole when your already terrified. Me thinks the covers will go away if they slow people down because they are afraid to jump into it.

When your at the water slides you are surrounded by an atmosphere nothing like an aircraft emergency. And..... likely a fine young scantily clad lass has just headed down in front of you and you want to catch up! :E :E

Oh my. I guess the chase for a new smoke screen is on, now that the Chronic Snoozer went on a much-deserved very early retirement.

Well, it is entertaining. Two tickets and a bucket of popcorn please!

(Government loans, defense research grants, whatever they elect to call it. A rose is a rose is a rose!)

Cheers,
Fred

Ft,

Thats Sonic Loser to you!!! :p

The debate is not who is bigger or better between Boeing and Airbus. This is a discussion regarding the size of the A380 only. Personally, I think she will be a great freighter. :ok:
:hmm: :rolleyes:

A380 slides
 

Have to agree with everyone with the slides. Just did my cabin crew training with Monarch, going down a single lane slide in their 757 mock up. That in itself was rather daunting, picking up a considerable speed before hitting the deceleration pad which really does get u up on your feet and throws you forward.

A number of people, even after a few times down the slide were falling over at the bottom, forcing us to slow down the evacuation at the top.

Change the scenario to that of the upper deck of a A380, fire, smoke, darkness... People will be crushed to death at the base of the slide.

Hopefully, somebody around here will have oportunity to film the evac test and post it for all to see. :\ Maybe a Pay Per View event :}

B747FOCAL

Re: Your comments concerning Airbusses and Tails. So no Boeing has ever lost a tail? Boeing DO build 737's and 747's don't they?

I've never heard of an Airbus's rudder throwing it out of control, or the rear pressure bulkhead ripping the fin off an aircraft, or a Airbus experiencing such a catastrophic depressurisation that it un-zips itself over the Pacific,or blows out a cargo door,complete with a section of fuselage and some pax.

We agree on that it would be a good freighter.It will also be a mighty fine Hub-to-Hub High Density Medium/Long Haul/Ultra Long Haul Pax and Pax/Freighter Combi aircraft. My employer has ordered 25 firm with about another 20 on option (it may even be 45 firm by now). I'll let you know what it flies like. :ok:

If you must get into childish argument at least get your facts right.

That incident was not a design fault but a repair incorrectly carried out.

Pontious,

Please be logical......:E

Airbus does not have anywhere near as many older high cycle aircraft flying as Boeing does. When the day comes that they do I am sure that you will see various like type incidents that you have stated. Though I do pray they don't. :(

747FOCAL

Some of the older A300's were manufactured in the mid 70's. That means that they are as old,if not older, as some of the 732's and 733's. I was taxying out just the other day and was treated to the sight of a 707 landing. Now that is still a good looking,well-built aeroplane and a tribute to the people who built her. I regret not having flown one of those.
I enjoyed my 6 years flying 757rockets and cut my teeth in ETOPS on 763ER's. 2 aeroplanes that I won't hear a bad word said against, but my current employer put me on the A330 and this aircraft will take some beating. I think Boeing will seize the initiative again with the 7E7. I certainly hope so.

I stand by my comments concerning the A380. But there will be enough aircraft orders for fleet replacements of older generation aircraft to go around for both Boeing and Airbus. I mean not every aircraft is as solidly built or as simple to maintain as a trusty old 707.

Pontious,

They are as old, but there is nowhere near the numbers. The odds that you will have a catastrophic event go up exponentially when you have a lot more units.

When the US military stops flying their version of the 707 they will be almost 100 years old. :eek:

Boeing has for some time been on the back foot in terms of aircraft design, they have not turned out anything new for ages, the 777, 747 QRX, 737NG are fairly old designs.

Friends of mine who were design engineers with Boeing have commented that Boeing have lost large numbers of their good engineers, and have pointed out their inability to make simple modifications is becoming a joke, like crew rests.

It literally takes thousands of people to get a new aircraft certified these days, and you cannot teach engineering experience at college.

Boeing has learnt lots from Airbus, they now use the same software that Airbus uses to design their aircraft (CATIA was used for the 777). Unlike Airbus, Boeing has not been investing in the future, but resting on past achievements. Boeing also has been applying Airbus technology to their products, the 737NGs employ a more optimised wing, however its still 4% less efficient than the older A320 wing, and has higher V speeds than the 737OG which was 15% less efficient than the A320.

It is interesting to note that Boeing manufactures A320 wing boxes, and the A330/A340 landing gear doors for Airbus.

I made several comments when the sonic cruiser was announced to the effect that it will not be built, its not a feasible engineering project, they have done no headworks on the ground to build the aircraft in, its just a marketing ploy, anyone in Seattle knows it was from day one.

The A380 is a feasible engineering project, the current debate in this thread is about escape slides, its and engineering challenge that has been met, just put enough holes in the tube to get the 52 t of passengers out in 90 seconds. The first centre wing box is complete, the manufacturing/assembly facility is looking good.

Whilst its great to see all the history around Boeing Field and the other plants in Washington state, seems most of the future is taking off from LFBO.

Time will only tell to see if Boeing has lost too much of its intellectual capital to get another new design out the door, the automotive industry just pays a lot better these days in the US.

In my view these comments were nothing short of a buy American call for the 747X stretch 504 pax against the European A380 555 pax, and to take some of the aviation press of Airbus which passed more milestones on the way to getting the A380 airborne.

Zeke,

Nobody is trying to make a buy this or that ploy. :rolleyes: The discussion is around the size of the aircraft and do we think it is just too big.

You do have some good points and they are accurate surrounding all the Intellectuals flying the coop. :yuk:

You gone down that slide yet? :E

Zeke

While I agree with most of your comments, I find it hard to believe that the Sonic Cruiser was just a marketing exercise.

On most heavily used international routes, slots are congested and there some slots are more valuable than others.

Obviously any airline is going to place its first SCs in the primetime slots. So they replace a 747 with a 250-seat SC, which will be mostly premium class plus fullfare eco. Either they give the surplus economy pax to the competition or they need a bigger plane to fly them off-peak.

Bigger plane = A380.

So the launching of the SC after the A380 inevitably supported the latter's sales among those airlines that face this trade-off.

What I have trouble believing is that Boeing would have risked supporting the A380's sales if they didn't think the SC was going to fly.

but I could be persuaded.

answer=42

Its all coming down to economics. It all stops with the buck and how its spent. For my own opinion, I like Boeing much better than Airbuses, and allways will. But when companies like EasyJet a stalwart 737 operator order Airbus. Or Emirates in the UAE order 45 A380S. The blame for Boeings slump , must come down to Marketing and Product affordability. Airbus seemed to have triumphed in this area totally.

Also the availability of second Machines parked in the Mojave Desert, surely must make a dent in their market also. But there are as many parked buses aswell arent there? Maybe not, as the Airbus is more economical to operate, hence the Airlines retiring their costly Types first.


Sheep

still prefer boeing though!:{ :uhoh: