Boeing laying off 900 in LGB

H46Bubba said:
Douglas/McDonnell Douglas/Boeing have been a major staple in Long Beach since before WWII. My grandmother used to work for McD on the MD-11 and then the C-17 when it started up. Before that she worked at Rockwell Space Systems in Downey on the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs. Rockwell Aerospace was also bought by Boeing. It was always clool to dive by the paint shop and see rows of DC/KC-10s, MD-80/90s and MD-11s either waiting for paint of just freshly painted. It sad to see the place now and will be even sadder the day it closes. I hope the airport can revitalize the land for aviation uses.
Click to expand...
A few weeks ago when a C-17 was completed, they did a few fly bys and wing waggles while the employees stood outside and cheered. It warmed my heart. I have no idea what will become of the properties. I had heard a rumor that a film company was interested in part of them. Ugh.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
Pax stacked like cordwood obviously doesn't apply to Airbus, or you obviously have never flown in one. It applies marvelously to the 737 though...
Click to expand...

Pépé le Pilot said:
Totally irrelevant since carriers outfit planes the way they want with their choice of seats, pitch et al. And what's the 777 doing in that comparison ?
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant? What does "stacked like cordwood" mean to you? Fine, here's this. Again, pretty darn similar.

737_a320_width_ip.jpg
 
Since these lay offs have nothing to do with the airline business, why don't you guys start comparing MILITARTY TRANSPORTS to make this more of a relivant debate to the reason why these plants are being closed down, rather than turn this into a pen---- I mean an "the airplane I fly is so much better" contest.

IMHO, Airbus will loose hands down in a comparison like that. The make a few Military transports, but what do they have that can directly compete with a C-17. They make nothing AFAIK, but the closest thing would be their A400M.


General characteristics
  • Crew: 3 or 4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
  • Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb)
    • 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops,
    • up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
  • Length: 45.1 m (148 ft 0 in)
  • Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
  • Height: 14.7 m (48 ft 3 in)
  • Empty weight: 76,500 kg (168,654 lb) ; operating weight[65]
  • Max takeoff weight: 141,000 kg (310,852 lb)
  • Max. Landing Weight: 122,000 kg (268,963 lb)
  • Total Internal Fuel: 50,500 kg (111,330 lb)
  • Powerplant: 4 × Europrop TP400-D6[66] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,060 hp) each
  • Propellers: 8-bladed, 5.3 m (17 ft 5 in) diameter
Performance
  • Cruising speed: 780 km/h (480 mph; 420 kn) (Mach 0.68 - 0.72)
  • Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
  • Range: 3,298 km (2,049 mi; 1,781 nmi) at max payload (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
    • Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,540 km (2,450 nmi)
    • Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,390 km (3,450 nmi)
  • Ferry range: 8,710 km (5,412 mi; 4,703 nmi)
  • Service ceiling: 11,300 m (37,073 ft)
  • Tactical Takeoff Distance: 980 m (3,215 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
  • Tactical Landing Distance: 770 m (2,526 ft) (as above)
  • Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m
Compared to the C-17


General characteristics
Performance
 
data.jpg


On average, the Airbus A320 seats are wider, but not by much. Only about 1/2″ in economy and almost no difference with premium seats. It seems that airlines and seat manufactures are not using that extra 7″ of cabin width that the Airbus A320 provides.

While the A320 does have a wider diameter fuselage, it doesn’t necessarily mean that airlines will put in a significantly wider seat.

From the owner of SeatGuru,"We’ve found that while there is some variation, we generally see airlines give about 17-17.2″ seat width in coach on a B737, while they give about 17.5″-18″ seat width in coach on an A320. These differences depend on the types of seats airlines use, as well as the overall seating configuration of the aircraft. A320′s fuselage is just marginally wider than a 737NG which does not offer significantly wider seat width.

Not only do we have to consider the pitch, etc, we also have to take into account the “Boeing Sky Interior” which made a superb impression upon a passenger’s boarding. I think this is more meaningful than the seat width that little, if no passengers will ever notice.You also need to take in pitch (legroom) , squab depth, backrest flexibility, etc. As a generalization, I find the B737-800 to be more comfortable in the air than the A320, irrespective of the seats. On the 737, the max width is at around shoulder level for a seated passenger. For the A320, it is at around the hip level to a seated passenger. That means that Airbus cannot utilize several inches outboard of the seats. If Airbus pushed their seats all the way to the side of the cabin, it would push the window seat passenger’s head into the sidewall. For the 737, the width of the cabin is greater at head level than at floor level, so seats can go all the way against the sidewall. That’s why a smaller cabin can have similar-sized seats. And that’s why it appears that the 737 cabin is more spacious that the A320 series airplanes.”
 
Yes since Europe is not half as expansionnist as the US :sarcasm:
The C17 is an awesome machine. Qatar Airways operate one or two, in fact it was being serviced the last time I went to LGB. Even more beautiful with the QAL livery...
 
Yes! Boeing versus Airbus! Just add a bunch of pictures and a core group of guys that doubt I'm a pilot and we'll call it airliners.net! :)
 
And here I was just wishing Boeing would upgrade the systems and FMS on the 777 to make it as sophisticated and capable as the MD-11. I might consider bidding it then!
 
seagull said:
And here I was just wishing Boeing would upgrade the systems and FMS on the 777 to make it as sophisticated and capable as the MD-11. I might consider bidding it then!
Click to expand...


You're kidding, right?

Does the MD-11 have an electronic checklist that makes any non-normal a snap to manage?

The B777 FMS works just fine. Maybe not as advanced as on the MD-11, but perfectly capable of getting the airplane from A to B with minimal workload.

The B777 is a pure joy to fly and one doesn't have to worry about a firm landing causing the wing to break off and a resultant hull loss. Cheap shot , I know, but 5 hull losses now. That's a pretty bad mark on the aircraft.


Regards,



Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
The B777 is a pure joy to fly and one doesn't have to worry about a firm landing causing the wing to break off and a resultant hull loss. Cheap shot , I know, but 5 hull losses now. That's a pretty bad mark on the aircraft.


Regards,



Typhoonpilot
Click to expand...

You sure its the aircraft and not the crews?
 
In regards to the Bus argument I currenly fly Boeings and haven't flown a bus yet other than in the jumpseat. I do have friends that have flown both and they prefer the Boeing. The problem I feel is that the Airbus computer retains final authority and in the Boeing the pilot has final authority. I my experience the Boeings have also been more repairable in the field than the bus is. I have flown leading edges and other parts out to be replaced that can just be hammered out on a Boeing.

How many Boeings have lost all their flight displays in flight. This has happend on two Airbuses so far and was fixed by a simple turn it all off and back on. This was also an issue on the E170 that I flew. The computer would puke for no reason and of course to fix it you had to power down and power up the aircraft or wait for it to reset itself. This is the reason the 3rd ADI is no longer mel able in IFR conditions.

With regards to the tanker contract I feel that contract should be held by a US Company with a proven tanker record. Also the support is local. Probably just being a bit paranoid here but what happens if we get into a war or issue and the French really have a problem with it. Could we lose support for the tanker or have supply problems getting parts? Just how much of the tanker is going to have to be shipped over?
 
The 787 will like that. On all FBW airplanes computers retain final authority.
On the tanker : they will be assembled in the US, the planes will fly empty from Toulouse to be fitted in the US. Once again, Airbus in the US supports 120,000 jobs.
Having a war with us ? You're kidding right ? :bandit:
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
The 787 will like that. On all FBW airplanes computers retain final authority.
On the tanker : they will be assembled in the US, the planes will fly empty from Toulouse to be fitted in the US. Once again, Airbus in the US supports 120,000 jobs.
Having a war with us ? You're kidding right ? :bandit:
Click to expand...

I am not worried about going to war with France. I was merely thinking of the fact that having support and some parts that far away could become an issue. Especially if the two governments had a large scale falling out with each other.

Never knocked Airbus for creating jobs in the US.

I just hope a 787 never turns into a giant tree chipper because the computer told the pilot no you're not going around.... IN all the aircraft I have flow including FBW, clicking the little red button always gets rid of the autopilot and another button click and I have full control over the engines. Another oddity I don't care for in the Bus is its style of autothrottles. They never freaking move. Also to disengage them is also a bit funky compared to the more natural way Boeing and Embraer do it.
 
I agree with you on the throttles (thrust levers). This is distracting and has caused more than a few incidents and was a contributing factor on that TAM A320 that crashed into a building. The SPEEDMANAGE mode can lead to confusion.
With a FBW, by definition, since there is no physical link between the yoke/sidestick and the actuator the computers will ALWAYS have the last word. Let's see how the 787 behave. Will Boeing leave full authority (no alpha/beta floor) or will it be a la Bus with flight enveloppe protection ?
The tree cutting session you are refering to was a long time ago (1987 ?). Today's A320 has pretty much nothing to see with the first productions models. But it still has its quirks. It can on occasion behave strangely, but there are so much 320/330/340's flying now that the bugs are known among the Bus pilot community.
I'll tell you though, the Bus philosphy closely reflects the way you learn to fly in europe, it's a much more scientific and theoretical approach than in the US where more emphasis is put on actual flight experience. Both systems work, one has to adjust to it.
 
Pépé le Pilot said:
I agree with you on the throttles (thrust levers). This is distracting and has caused more than a few incidents and was a contributing factor on that TAM A320 that crashed into a building. The SPEEDMANAGE mode can lead to confusion.
With a FBW, by definition, since there is no physical link between the yoke/sidestick and the actuator the computers will ALWAYS have the last word. Let's see how the 787 behave. Will Boeing leave full authority (no alpha/beta floor) or will it be a la Bus with flight enveloppe protection ?
The tree cutting session you are refering to was a long time ago (1987 ?). Today's A320 has pretty much nothing to see with the first productions models. But it still has its quirks. It can on occasion behave strangely, but there are so much 320/330/340's flying now that the bugs are known among the Bus pilot community.
I'll tell you though, the Bus philosphy closely reflects the way you learn to fly in europe, it's a much more scientific and theoretical approach than in the US where more emphasis is put on actual flight experience. Both systems work, one has to adjust to it.
Click to expand...

I don't have any experience with the Alpha/Beta floors. I have just heard the interesting stories it has caused for some of my colleagues when they flew a Bus. Based on what I know about I hope Boeing doesn't use it. IMO the pilot, not a computer, should have ultimate authority over the aircraft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top