donttouchanything
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Oh Doug!
Didn't you know: friends don't let friends drive GM.
Oh Doug!
Didn't you know: friends don't let friends drive GM.
Did Boeing "blow" it?
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
And you're seeing exactly that from the guys at Boeing. Build the Sonic Cruiser? Nah, we can't cost justify it so we can't. Never mind that you'd be putting yourself on the leading edge of technology again, taking a quantum leap that would put you ahead of Airbus in a big way, and that the technology developed would be useful in ways that we couldn't even know right now.
Now, the 7E7 is going to be a cool plane, with some new technologies, but is it going to be the huge leap forward that the Sonic Cruiser would have been? Nope.
There's something to be said for being safe and cautious, and then there's something to be said for being innovative and taking risks. In Boeing's case, with so much money coming in from the defense contracts they have, they certainly could have invested in the Sonic Cruiser. The defense contracts give them about two billion in free cash flow, I believe. That means by the time the Sonic Cruiser was supposed to be ready, their free cash flow would have covered the investment.
And you're seeing exactly that from the guys at Boeing. Build the Sonic Cruiser? Nah, we can't cost justify it so we can't. Never mind that you'd be putting yourself on the leading edge of technology again, taking a quantum leap that would put you ahead of Airbus in a big way, and that the technology developed would be useful in ways that we couldn't even know right now.
Now, the 7E7 is going to be a cool plane, with some new technologies, but is it going to be the huge leap forward that the Sonic Cruiser would have been? Nope.
There's something to be said for being safe and cautious, and then there's something to be said for being innovative and taking risks. In Boeing's case, with so much money coming in from the defense contracts they have, they certainly could have invested in the Sonic Cruiser. The defense contracts give them about two billion in free cash flow, I believe. That means by the time the Sonic Cruiser was supposed to be ready, their free cash flow would have covered the investment.
donttouchanything
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
I agree, when did we stop wanting to go faster?
The Sonic cruiser would have been "the Bomb"!
Boeing should set the pace not follow it. Had Boeing built the HE-111 and the Nazi's the B-17 we would be living in a far different world.
I agree, when did we stop wanting to go faster?
The Sonic cruiser would have been "the Bomb"!
Boeing should set the pace not follow it. Had Boeing built the HE-111 and the Nazi's the B-17 we would be living in a far different world.
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Another interesting take is that Boeing really had no interest back in the day of building a 150 seat passenger aircraft to replace the 727 because they thought it would be at least a 180-seat 757 market.
Airbus stepped in and produced a viable, efficient and technologically 'risky' 727 replacement called the A320 and announced plans for common-type variants of the A320 in terms of the A319 and A319 which went head to head with Boeing's good, but albeit archaic 737 line of aircraft.
Believe me, if I ain't Boeing, I ain't going and I heavily prefer Boeing, American-made products, but my homies are in dire need of a change in direction. Fire a couple bean counters, hire some visionaries and kick Airbuses butt.
Hell, I'd probably even hire Steve Jobs if I was the CEO of Boeing.
Almost reminds me of McDonnell-Douglas before they got bought out. Just keep stretching the DC-9! Need a bigger jet? Stretch that DC-9 some more. The MD-88 is nothing more than a DC-9-10 with slats and a bunch of fuselage plugs, EFIS and bigger engines.
The MD-90 was a slight step forward, but they kept that same lame wing so we find ourselves flying 260 knots below 10,000 feet because of the lame wing. Even worse on the ill-fated MD-11.
Aww, but I digress.
Another interesting take is that Boeing really had no interest back in the day of building a 150 seat passenger aircraft to replace the 727 because they thought it would be at least a 180-seat 757 market.
Airbus stepped in and produced a viable, efficient and technologically 'risky' 727 replacement called the A320 and announced plans for common-type variants of the A320 in terms of the A319 and A319 which went head to head with Boeing's good, but albeit archaic 737 line of aircraft.
Believe me, if I ain't Boeing, I ain't going and I heavily prefer Boeing, American-made products, but my homies are in dire need of a change in direction. Fire a couple bean counters, hire some visionaries and kick Airbuses butt.
Hell, I'd probably even hire Steve Jobs if I was the CEO of Boeing.
Almost reminds me of McDonnell-Douglas before they got bought out. Just keep stretching the DC-9! Need a bigger jet? Stretch that DC-9 some more. The MD-88 is nothing more than a DC-9-10 with slats and a bunch of fuselage plugs, EFIS and bigger engines.
The MD-90 was a slight step forward, but they kept that same lame wing so we find ourselves flying 260 knots below 10,000 feet because of the lame wing. Even worse on the ill-fated MD-11.
Aww, but I digress.
Minuteman
“Dongola”
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Aww shucks ... this whole mess ain't something a good PR company can't fix. A little boasting here, reminiscing about heritage, some corporate patriotism there...
Wait, this is the same Boeing that sacked a bunch of engineers in California and replaced 'em with cheaper fresh-out-of-an-internship graduates to do thermal analysis on space shuttle structures. And that was just a situation where all the holes created by a minimalist economic approach lined up. Imagine how many craters there are elsewhere in that company.
Aww shucks ... this whole mess ain't something a good PR company can't fix. A little boasting here, reminiscing about heritage, some corporate patriotism there...
Wait, this is the same Boeing that sacked a bunch of engineers in California and replaced 'em with cheaper fresh-out-of-an-internship graduates to do thermal analysis on space shuttle structures. And that was just a situation where all the holes created by a minimalist economic approach lined up. Imagine how many craters there are elsewhere in that company.
BoeingDrew
Well-Known Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Would the Sonic Crusier be a realistic plane? I'm not sure that it would be, because of one reason, SONIC BOOM! This would cause huge amounts of problems, and would only be viable for use with airports close to water. Also, remember the BWB (Blended Wing Body), that idea was also scrapped. Now that i think about it i don't think that anyone would want to fly on a plane with only 50 seats having window, while 300-400 are in the middle of the plane.
Even though i am only 14 I still always try to buy American products. For example I am thinking about buying a new MP3 player and am basing some of my choice on where it was made.
-As you can see by my screen name I am a Boeing nut!
Would the Sonic Crusier be a realistic plane? I'm not sure that it would be, because of one reason, SONIC BOOM! This would cause huge amounts of problems, and would only be viable for use with airports close to water. Also, remember the BWB (Blended Wing Body), that idea was also scrapped. Now that i think about it i don't think that anyone would want to fly on a plane with only 50 seats having window, while 300-400 are in the middle of the plane.
Even though i am only 14 I still always try to buy American products. For example I am thinking about buying a new MP3 player and am basing some of my choice on where it was made.
-As you can see by my screen name I am a Boeing nut!
donttouchanything
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Only 14 and already a patriot! God Bless you. You're on the right path.
Keep your eye on Boeing, I believe they won't let us down. I've been in love with Boeing aircraft since I was younger than you, I still believe.
Only 14 and already a patriot! God Bless you. You're on the right path.
Keep your eye on Boeing, I believe they won't let us down. I've been in love with Boeing aircraft since I was younger than you, I still believe.
gay_pilot18
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Buying american is good and all but the japanese make better automobiles and electronic stuff like TV's DVD players and stuff...Admitedly the best thing we make American is airplanes...
Matthew's words not mine.
Everett
Buying american is good and all but the japanese make better automobiles and electronic stuff like TV's DVD players and stuff...Admitedly the best thing we make American is airplanes...
Matthew's words not mine.
Everett
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Japen the country that copies everyone's elese ideas, then makes the idea into reality? Or is that China? One of the two.
Boeing was second best to MD, or the older Douglas, they knew how to make airplanes... look at NWA 9's, 35+ years old and still flying strong.
I think the big blow to Boeing was the advancment in technology across the pond at the Airbus factory with the addition of the A320 series... the cheaper, and more advanced the more sales the company brings in.
Oh well... I feel Boeing will be around for a long time to come.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Japen the country that copies everyone's elese ideas, then makes the idea into reality? Or is that China? One of the two.
Boeing was second best to MD, or the older Douglas, they knew how to make airplanes... look at NWA 9's, 35+ years old and still flying strong.
I think the big blow to Boeing was the advancment in technology across the pond at the Airbus factory with the addition of the A320 series... the cheaper, and more advanced the more sales the company brings in.
Oh well... I feel Boeing will be around for a long time to come.
Tired
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Look at Boeings product line...757 is history, the 767 only has 23 orders, without this ripoff military contract it is finished also. What does that leave, 717, 737, 747, and 777? There are three orders a piece this year for 747s and 777s...Airbus booked over 100 orders for wide-bodies this year.
The one aircraft that is did well this year, the 737NG, is substandard compared with the A320. How many years after the A320 came out did Boeing come out the NG? Plenty of time to build something with the same size and economy as the A320. And what is sacrificing the cockpit design to make Southwest happy? What about the -600...too heavy to make money and competes with the 717? Why bother making this model?
Look at Boeings product line...757 is history, the 767 only has 23 orders, without this ripoff military contract it is finished also. What does that leave, 717, 737, 747, and 777? There are three orders a piece this year for 747s and 777s...Airbus booked over 100 orders for wide-bodies this year.
The one aircraft that is did well this year, the 737NG, is substandard compared with the A320. How many years after the A320 came out did Boeing come out the NG? Plenty of time to build something with the same size and economy as the A320. And what is sacrificing the cockpit design to make Southwest happy? What about the -600...too heavy to make money and competes with the 717? Why bother making this model?
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
[ QUOTE ]
Buying american is good and all but the japanese make better automobiles and electronic stuff like TV's DVD players and stuff...Admitedly the best thing we make American is airplanes...
Matthew's words not mine.
Everett
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea,yea I think that...Japanese cars in my opinion are better then american cars.
Yes it is often said that the japanese do not create things themselves they simple improve on things already created.
I drive an Acura RSX-Type-S cause I enjoy driving small fast cars (and expensive tickets and court summons
).
Now if I were buy american muscle I'd buy a Corvette ina hot minute. But since I don't have $55K I'll stick with the small inexpensive well designed & manufactured japanese sports cars...
As for aircraft everyone knows P.O.B (Property of Boeing) is firmly stamped on my ass.
While I don't have much love for Airbus I do love the A320. But hate the side stick and greatly favor a "control column".
Boeing makes a simply superior product in my opinion and I was saddened that they as a company decided against the Sonic Crusier.
Now admittedly at first I wasn't a big fan of the sonic crusier but it definately grew on me more and more as time went by.
Lastly the 737 is old and seriously needs to be put to rest like now. I love the NG737 really I do love it to death. But how many times can you change the wing and add more power to the engines before it's time to just come out with an all new design.
And it's a proven fact guys/gals that the NG737 can fly faster,farther and higher then the AIRBUS A320 series.
Thats not Boeing propaganda people thats the truth.
Matthew
formerly Zen~Aku
[ QUOTE ]
Buying american is good and all but the japanese make better automobiles and electronic stuff like TV's DVD players and stuff...Admitedly the best thing we make American is airplanes...
Matthew's words not mine.
Everett
[/ QUOTE ]
Yea,yea I think that...Japanese cars in my opinion are better then american cars.
Yes it is often said that the japanese do not create things themselves they simple improve on things already created.
I drive an Acura RSX-Type-S cause I enjoy driving small fast cars (and expensive tickets and court summons
Now if I were buy american muscle I'd buy a Corvette ina hot minute. But since I don't have $55K I'll stick with the small inexpensive well designed & manufactured japanese sports cars...
As for aircraft everyone knows P.O.B (Property of Boeing) is firmly stamped on my ass.
While I don't have much love for Airbus I do love the A320. But hate the side stick and greatly favor a "control column".
Boeing makes a simply superior product in my opinion and I was saddened that they as a company decided against the Sonic Crusier.
Now admittedly at first I wasn't a big fan of the sonic crusier but it definately grew on me more and more as time went by.
Lastly the 737 is old and seriously needs to be put to rest like now. I love the NG737 really I do love it to death. But how many times can you change the wing and add more power to the engines before it's time to just come out with an all new design.
And it's a proven fact guys/gals that the NG737 can fly faster,farther and higher then the AIRBUS A320 series.
Thats not Boeing propaganda people thats the truth.
Matthew
formerly Zen~Aku
Tired
New Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Yes, the 737NG may be able to fly faster, further, and higher then an Airbus 320, but how exactly is that a major advantage? The range of the two aircraft are within 10%, an each can easily fly transcontinental. Airbus has Boeing beat in two really important categories, operating costs and comfort. The extra 7.5 inches width and flatter walls really do make a difference.
Yes, the 737NG may be able to fly faster, further, and higher then an Airbus 320, but how exactly is that a major advantage? The range of the two aircraft are within 10%, an each can easily fly transcontinental. Airbus has Boeing beat in two really important categories, operating costs and comfort. The extra 7.5 inches width and flatter walls really do make a difference.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 737NG may be able to fly faster, further, and higher then an Airbus 320, but how exactly is that a major advantage? The range of the two aircraft are within 10%, an each can easily fly transcontinental. Airbus has Boeing beat in two really important categories, operating costs and comfort. The extra 7.5 inches width and flatter walls really do make a difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really... cause I have heard and read in book that I bought on Boeing jets (no is wasn't written by Phill Condit) at Borders. That the NG737 have the best range and speed and the lowest operating cost of all single aisle aircraft.
However I did question that when comparing the NG737 to the B-757-300.
Matthew
formerly Zen~Aku
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, the 737NG may be able to fly faster, further, and higher then an Airbus 320, but how exactly is that a major advantage? The range of the two aircraft are within 10%, an each can easily fly transcontinental. Airbus has Boeing beat in two really important categories, operating costs and comfort. The extra 7.5 inches width and flatter walls really do make a difference.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really... cause I have heard and read in book that I bought on Boeing jets (no is wasn't written by Phill Condit) at Borders. That the NG737 have the best range and speed and the lowest operating cost of all single aisle aircraft.
However I did question that when comparing the NG737 to the B-757-300.
Matthew
formerly Zen~Aku
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
Can the A320 series be ETOPS certified? I know there are plenty of 737NG's doing transoceanic flying, Aloha or example... but no Airbus narrowbodies.
Anyway... FYI when I was flying a while back on United, I was on three different Airbus flights and all but 1 (a captain) said they liked flying an aircraft with a sidestick better then a yoke... I hardly remember why but something about clutter, and free space... I'm guessing that's more room between your legs and the panel itself.
Though nothing can beat the mightly 757... not event Airbus! Just had to say that.
Can the A320 series be ETOPS certified? I know there are plenty of 737NG's doing transoceanic flying, Aloha or example... but no Airbus narrowbodies.
Anyway... FYI when I was flying a while back on United, I was on three different Airbus flights and all but 1 (a captain) said they liked flying an aircraft with a sidestick better then a yoke... I hardly remember why but something about clutter, and free space... I'm guessing that's more room between your legs and the panel itself.
Though nothing can beat the mightly 757... not event Airbus! Just had to say that.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
It's not overly surprising. If a company in in business long enough they get complacent and are fated to make some dumb decisions. Look at Boeing's "first" big mistake. They blew their technoligical lead in the airline game in the mid '30s by promising the 247 to United first. This created a backlog of orders and pissed off TWA enough to contact Douglas. The fruit of that little political skirmish? The DC-3.
The biggest problem with Boeing right now is they don't have an honest, American based competitior for civil aircraft. Say what you want about MD but at the very least they served as a thorn - or potential thorn - in Boeing's side. But with no one left on the field they've become the equivalent of Futurama's "Hedonist-Bot" - fat and and complacent. I honestly don't think anyone over there actually believes Airbus is a true competitor! And regardless of how they got that way they are. How do you compete agains a subsidized foe? Do what ever it is you do better and lead the way.
I too think the Sonic Cruiser would have been a refreshing wind in a stale market.
But what do I know ...
It's not overly surprising. If a company in in business long enough they get complacent and are fated to make some dumb decisions. Look at Boeing's "first" big mistake. They blew their technoligical lead in the airline game in the mid '30s by promising the 247 to United first. This created a backlog of orders and pissed off TWA enough to contact Douglas. The fruit of that little political skirmish? The DC-3.
The biggest problem with Boeing right now is they don't have an honest, American based competitior for civil aircraft. Say what you want about MD but at the very least they served as a thorn - or potential thorn - in Boeing's side. But with no one left on the field they've become the equivalent of Futurama's "Hedonist-Bot" - fat and and complacent. I honestly don't think anyone over there actually believes Airbus is a true competitor! And regardless of how they got that way they are. How do you compete agains a subsidized foe? Do what ever it is you do better and lead the way.
I too think the Sonic Cruiser would have been a refreshing wind in a stale market.
But what do I know ...
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't think anyone over there actually believes Airbus is a true competitor!
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't think that, then they've got one of the worst cases of rectal cranial inversion that I've ever seen.
Now, for what it is worth, I do not think that the A-380 is going to be all that. I think that's going to be a plane that gets a lot of hype, but doesn't live up to it. It's the equivalent of virtually every can't miss kid that comes out of college football who ends up disappearing after a couple of seasons..
I just don't see the reason why, when you've got lots of people switching from 747s to 777s because they can't fill the 747, you need a plane that's going to have even more empty seats to fill. Dumb.
So, if Boeing had shown the guts to fund the Sonic Cruiser and if they could have done everything they were supposed to with that bird (operating costs on par with the 757 and 767, etc) that would have been a huge leap forward. Think about it. Now you can take 250 pax from LA to Sydney in less time than you could with the 747 with operating costs on par with the 757.
The 7E7 will be nice, and it probably will give Boeing a leg up on the next generation planes, but it's not the big technological innovation that the Sonic Cruiser would have been.
[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't think anyone over there actually believes Airbus is a true competitor!
[/ QUOTE ]
If they don't think that, then they've got one of the worst cases of rectal cranial inversion that I've ever seen.
Now, for what it is worth, I do not think that the A-380 is going to be all that. I think that's going to be a plane that gets a lot of hype, but doesn't live up to it. It's the equivalent of virtually every can't miss kid that comes out of college football who ends up disappearing after a couple of seasons..
I just don't see the reason why, when you've got lots of people switching from 747s to 777s because they can't fill the 747, you need a plane that's going to have even more empty seats to fill. Dumb.
So, if Boeing had shown the guts to fund the Sonic Cruiser and if they could have done everything they were supposed to with that bird (operating costs on par with the 757 and 767, etc) that would have been a huge leap forward. Think about it. Now you can take 250 pax from LA to Sydney in less time than you could with the 747 with operating costs on par with the 757.
The 7E7 will be nice, and it probably will give Boeing a leg up on the next generation planes, but it's not the big technological innovation that the Sonic Cruiser would have been.
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
Re: Did Boeing \"blow\" it?
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see the reason why, when you've got lots of people switching from 747s to 777s because they can't fill the 747, you need a plane that's going to have even more empty seats to fill. Dumb.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not endorsing the 380 here but ... because in the long term we will need more seats packed into fewer airframes.
O'Hare is already reporting traffic levels that are exceedingthe heyday before 9/11. It's only a matter of time before the trend picks back up and all these little RJs start chocking these airlines to death.
If, for example, you own say five gates at BFE Airport and are flying a fleet of RJs (or DC-9s or whatever it doesn't really matter) and demand starts going up you have two choices.
One - buy more RJs, DC-9s etc. and fly more flights. The problem with this is you only have five gates. Now you have a bottle neck - not to mention increaded landing fees, more crew costs and liability (you need more crew to fly more aircraft regardless of their size) etc. Most people fly at certain times so even if you bought an extra 200 airplanes you can only put five at a time in at BFE.
Two - buy larger aircraft to replace all the small ones. If you can cram the same number of folks into five 380s and drop the 200 RJs you've reduced the bottleneck, the landing fees (I know weight comes into play but this is a simplified example) and the number of crew. This is why, in Asia, no one has dropped their 747s (on domestic routes no less) for the "super efficient" RJs. They need seats because a lot of people fly.
Now, does that mean all American airlines should run out and fly nothing but 747s or 380s? No. But it also means that this "fad" with RJs is going to bite them in the @$$ because at somepoint in the near future loads are going to go back up and they're not going to have the capacity to handle the demand. It's like trying to move an orchestra in 45 Toyota Echos when they should rent two touring busses.
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see the reason why, when you've got lots of people switching from 747s to 777s because they can't fill the 747, you need a plane that's going to have even more empty seats to fill. Dumb.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not endorsing the 380 here but ... because in the long term we will need more seats packed into fewer airframes.
O'Hare is already reporting traffic levels that are exceedingthe heyday before 9/11. It's only a matter of time before the trend picks back up and all these little RJs start chocking these airlines to death.
If, for example, you own say five gates at BFE Airport and are flying a fleet of RJs (or DC-9s or whatever it doesn't really matter) and demand starts going up you have two choices.
One - buy more RJs, DC-9s etc. and fly more flights. The problem with this is you only have five gates. Now you have a bottle neck - not to mention increaded landing fees, more crew costs and liability (you need more crew to fly more aircraft regardless of their size) etc. Most people fly at certain times so even if you bought an extra 200 airplanes you can only put five at a time in at BFE.
Two - buy larger aircraft to replace all the small ones. If you can cram the same number of folks into five 380s and drop the 200 RJs you've reduced the bottleneck, the landing fees (I know weight comes into play but this is a simplified example) and the number of crew. This is why, in Asia, no one has dropped their 747s (on domestic routes no less) for the "super efficient" RJs. They need seats because a lot of people fly.
Now, does that mean all American airlines should run out and fly nothing but 747s or 380s? No. But it also means that this "fad" with RJs is going to bite them in the @$$ because at somepoint in the near future loads are going to go back up and they're not going to have the capacity to handle the demand. It's like trying to move an orchestra in 45 Toyota Echos when they should rent two touring busses.
Similar threads
- Locked