Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why The Industry Needs Boeing  
User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Good morning/day/evening/afternoon fellow a.netters.

As we all know, there is only two major plane manufacturers left, out of a whole number of companies (MD, Lockheed).
Now Boeing in particular is in trouble. If they do not give the 7E7 a go ahead, the entire market would be left to Airbus. No doubt the 7E7 will be a success, there needs to be a new aircraft that size incorporating a whole lot of new technology. If the 7E7 does not receive its go ahead Boeing is dead. Everyone at Boeing knows this.

Now lets imagine Boeing is ceasing civil aircraft production. Airbus would be the only manufacturer left. What would this mean? Higher (and I mean a lot higher) list prices for aircraft, and no special financing deals, as every airline would now have to buy Airbus.
On top of that, Airbus would not see the incentive to develop new aircraft/concepts as they would have a monopoly. It is proven that monopolies do not lead to the same results such as a duopoly (two suppliers, many buyers) even.

This is why we need Boeing! Higher airfares and less comfortable aircraft would be the result if Boeing went belly-up!

So I sincerely hope they give the 7E7 the go-ahead as soon as possible in order to benefit the entire industry as outlined above.

What are your views on the issue?


Yours truly - StarFlyer
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6878 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

We need not just Boeing, we need at least a 3rd manufacturer of at least some part of the seat range >100 seats that can give both Airbus and Boeing a run for their money ! Otherwise it's so boring... Why only have A v B fights when we can create more nonsense by adding another manufacturer into the fight Big grin

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineHlywdCatft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5321 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Who knows, maybe Bombardier or Embraer will build a widebody in about 10 years.

User currently offlineFutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

You brought up good points, but also if Airbus were to create a monopoly should Boeing go under, I'm sure airlines would either approach Bombardier or embraer or some other manufacturewr to build them a cheaper airliner. I certainly hope Boeing survives, and that the 7e7 is the success we all hope it to be.


Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2676 times:

In the short term - there are many aircraft sitting in the desert; some would be happy to dust them off, if the cost of a new machine were excessive.

In the long term - if there's sufficient demand, then somebody else will start making airliners too. Doesn't matter who.

Anyway, it's hard to imagine the US government sitting idly by if Boeing were to implode. Laissez-faire economics ceases when voters' jobs are threatened.



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

can you imagine a world without boeing? what a bland day spotters would have. boeing was a pioneer in aviation's early days. it's a shame they are in the shape they are in today.


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineEmmett99 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2641 times:

And now you see what happens when the people who helped drive one commercial division into the ground, get to stay on the Board of the company they bought. Oops...I mean that bought them out.

User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

Boeing is not going to exit the commercial market. Airbus makes a great product but they are not going to drive Boeing out of the market.

If (emphasis on IF) this were ever to become close to reality I believe our government will step in. The US is not going to lose the aircraft industry like we lost the auto industry.


User currently offlineSkymileman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

I absolutely agree with the author 100%. In fact, I have been trying to put that into words to tell people, and now I think I will just print out this topic. It is a classic case of dependence between two long-time rivals.

-Lane

i.e. What would the UM Grizzlies be if they didn't play the MSU Cats every year.


User currently offlineAIR757200 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1579 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2609 times:


Monopolies not only increase prices but also, there is a tendency for the quality of a product (speaking in general) to decrease.


User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6439 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

Ummm...if Airbus went under, wouldn't the result be the same? Wouldn't Boeing do everything you claim Airbus would do?  Confused


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineDL328 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

I agree that Boeing isn't doing quite as well as they used to, but I don't think they will go under. Like others have said, the government won't allow their aircraft industry to go. Plus, all military aircraft, missiles, etc. production would be left to Lockheed and if they were to go as well, relying on other countries for our military aircraft would not be an option.

User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Boeing is not going under... not by a long shot. The author was questioning if Boeing was forced out of the commercial airplane market how would that affect Airbus, not if Boeing went under completely. I may be incorrect here but I believe Boeing is larger than Lockheed in the military market.

Also, if Boeing were to pull out of the commercial market I really think Lockheed would jump in. They would certainly give Airbus a run for their money. Hmmm, a modern day L-1011 (L-1111???) or perhaps even an SST... just imagine what kind of commercial plane the skunkworks could produce given the right market conditions!

[Edited 2003-11-18 04:13:15]

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

Echoing L1011Fan's post, I suggest that some people actually go to Boeing's web site and learn just a wee little bit about the Boeing Company. The main thrust of moving Head Office to Chicago was to emphasize that Boeing is so much more than commercial jets.

L1011FAN, do you really think that Lockheed would re-enter the airliner market and give Airbus a run for their money if Boeing didn't bring out another new airliner?




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2523 times:

Planemaker:

Yes I do.

If Boeing exited the commercial airplane market (leaving Airbus as the only manufacturer left in the world) I think Lockheed, Embraer, and Bombardier would all take a serious look at filling in the gap left by Boeing. I simply think Lockheed would be the most likely to re-enter given how large the company is and the resources/experience they have in building commercial planes.

If Airbus is the only game in town it won't take long for another manufacturer to want to enter the market. This is a no-brainer. But, like I said before, Boeing is not going to exit the commercial market.

[Edited 2003-11-18 04:55:27]

[Edited 2003-11-18 04:57:31]

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

The main thrust of moving Head Office to Chicago was to emphasize that Boeing is so much more than commercial jets.

Hmmm. Boeing said they did it for the tax breaks..?



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

I think Scaled Composites should join up with someone and build an airliner. It would probably have 3 rocket engines, 4 jets, and a piston engine, 2 different fuselages of varying sizes, forward swept wings, and be twice as efficient as anything Boeing or Airbus can put out.  Big thumbs up

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

L1011Fan:

I don't think that Boeing is going to exit the airliner market either. But hypothetically speaking, if the Boeing Board did turn down the 7E7, Boeing would continue building and improving their current airliners (perhaps come up with a 777-100) until they couldn't keep their production lines running (of, this is all hypothetical.) So how do think that Lockheed could do better than Boeing, especially considering that Lockheed has been away from the "game" a while now and would be starting from scratch? I truly find it interesting that you think that it would be possible.




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2468 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Great thread.

I truly doubt Boeing would go under. I don't quite understand what the issue here is. Boeing makes a diverse mix of products and are no where near going under.

Gentlemen, just because Airbus is now ahead does not mean Boeing is gone.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineL1011Fan From United States of America, joined May 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

If the Boeing board does not approve the 7E7 you will be correct. They will continue to produce what they can until the sales dry up. They simply won't vanish overnight from the commercial biz.

Sure, hypothetically I do think Lockheed could produce a commercial airliner again. They have amazing technology in their military planes which could be implemented into a modern day jetliner. But alas, it won't happen...


User currently offlineStarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Thanks for all your interesting replies!

@Bobrayner,
you cant just jump in and start building planes. the industry requires huge amounts of money being invested long before there is any return on it. So if Boeing goes under, Airbus will have a monopoly for at least a decade I'd say (a start-up or existing producer might have developed an aircraft in the >100 pax range).

What are the chances of US government backing Boeing on this 7E7 issue? A loan with low interest rates maybe or something? Does the government have any money to spend on this?



Yours truly - StarFlyer
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6197 posts, RR: 34
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

L1011Fan:

FYI, Boeing builds the wings for the F-22 Raptor, my point being is that the amazing technology you refer to is not exclusive to Lockheed.

Europe also has quite an advanced fighter in the Typhoon, and Dassault was ahead of the pack, design wise, for a while with the Rafael. You can also argue that the Russians were ahead of the west in a few areas of fighter technology but that did not translate into superior airliners.

If Boeing "can't" (hypothetically) make a go of it with the 7E7, it would appear that Lockheed would not even dream about investing the money that would be required to get back into the airliner game from scratch.

So, yes, I agree with you that (hypothetically) Lockheed "could" build an airliner but financial and market realities would preclude it. Don't you think?



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Well everybody guess what. There is NOT A CHANCE IN HELL that Boeing will not build the 7E7. There is NOT A CHANCE IN HELL that Boeing Commercial will go under. The 7E7 and its technologies, spread to other lines, will be the DEATH OF AIRBUS END OF STORY. The A380 won't come close to breaking even so the damned EU is going to come in and "SAVE THE WORLD FROM BOEINGS EVIL TYRANNY........surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre." The EU will help and save Airbus, but they will have no chance. Thanks to the new 7E7 and updated 737, 777, and 747, all Airbus planes become immediately OBSELETE! End of Story.

User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Why doesn´t Boeing join Lockheed-Martin or vice verca
and make a real skunkwork Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Michael/SE



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

L.1011, when I read posts like yours, I get the feeling that the age limit of 13 and older on a.net might actually be too young... grow up and learn before you post further junk like that...


Smile - it confuses people!
25 MIAMIx707 : I hope Mirrodie is right, because if one day airlines are forced to buy only A319s and A330s... I seriously would lose my interest in aviation
26 BCAInfoSys : I agree with Leskova. Even though I'm a Boeing man through and through, I appreciate Airbus as fine aircraft. People like L1011 give Boeing a bad name
27 VC-10 : can you imagine a world without boeing? I can. Here in the UK we have lost Armstrong Whitworth Avro Blackburn Bristol British Aircraft Corporation De
28 Planemaker : Leskova: Well said! Solnabo: Why not have Boeing join up with Lockheed - they have on the F-22 Raptor. And they seem to have joined up with just about
29 MIAMIx707 : lol @ Leskova and L1011... a dose of sense of humor in different styles
30 Tekelberry : The airline industry needs Boeing as much as it needs Airbus. Economics 101. Without major competition, the airlines would be struggling even more tha
31 Post contains images Flyingbronco05 : Topic: Why The Industry Needs Boeing If there was no boeing, the commercial airplane industry would be a monopoly and that is illegal. Enough said
32 Shenzhen : Quote Now Boeing in particular is in trouble. If they do not give the 7E7 a go ahead, the entire market would be left to Airbus. No doubt the 7E7 will
33 Post contains images Mandala499 : Bobrayner (Reply #15)... Hmmm. Boeing said they did it for the tax breaks..? Well, that just proves it! Boeing is much more than commercial jets... Ta
34 StarFlyer : Flyingbronco05:If there was no boeing, the commercial airplane industry would be a monopoly and that is illegal Ahem, NO, monopolies are not illegal.
35 Alessandro : Why don´t people think of Antonov, Beriev, Illjysin, Tupolev and Yakolev anymore? I mean if Airbus/Boeing would be one company the only competition w
36 Irishpower : Boeing isn't going anywhere, neither is Airbus for that matter. 1. Business moves in cycles--right now Boeing is climbing out of the bottom of negativ
37 StarFlyer : No western airline could order Russian aircraft without a significant image loss. Its a fact, a sad one. That's why those manufacturers are not includ
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why The World Needs The A380. posted Fri Apr 1 2005 19:30:17 by Stirling
Just Why The World Needs A VLA posted Thu Dec 21 2000 17:04:08 by Singapore_Air
Why Isn't Southwest The Industry Model? posted Wed Jul 5 2000 17:50:48 by Matt D
Why The Boeing Business Jet? posted Fri Jan 14 2000 02:56:30 by Matt D
I'd Like To See The A380 At Boeing Field posted Fri Dec 1 2006 06:39:21 by Flybynight
LHR:Their Landing On 27L Again, But Why The Break? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 12:17:23 by Lazyshaun
TUI In Germany :the Group Needs A White Knight... posted Sun Oct 15 2006 11:37:06 by Beaucaire
Finally Got Into The Industry! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:38:48 by USAir330
Finally Got Into The Industry! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 07:38:12 by USAir330
787 - From The Ground UP - Boeing Aero Magazine posted Mon Oct 2 2006 21:27:13 by Shenzhen