Dtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
Before you bury Boeing & the 7E7 for lack of orders, remember that in the mid/late 60's Boeing gave birth to a sickly child with only one customer and competition in the category with at least four other manufacturers (MD, Aerospatiale, BAC, Hawker Siddeley), and yet they produced the most widely used commercial aircraft since the DC-3/C47.
Granted I don't have a crystal ball, but let's wait and see. I think Boeing concept of smaller more efficient aircraft, offering more service and frequency may be a better strategy in the long run.
Cwapilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1166 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3395 times:
"Won't be Among the first" is not "have no plans at all to order the aircraft."
Aside from the mention of Eurowhining about the almost certain orders of both carriers (eventually), there is nothing interesting there, except if your hobby is to do nothing but gather up every negative tidbit you can about Boeing. That a debt-ridden carrier is delaying a purchase until they are in a better financial position is better news for Boeing than the likes of Sabena was for Airbus. Since we are playing the "if we get more orders than you for one year, we are the leader" game sponsored by Airbus, I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing is waiting to tally orders in 2004, so as not to repeat the same embarassment of losing to the second place team 2 years in a row. I am sure that, out of over 50 airlines participating in the design process, the whole program does not hinge upon JAL. Besides, let's go by the "leader's" standards...a successful Airbus launch takes 2 to 3 years to garner 100 orders. I can understand, though, why the standards for a world-class, industry-leading company like Boeing would be set higher. You should give them at least 30 days after offer to get an order instead of 1.
(Please note the oozing amount of sarcasm spread throughout. This thread's intention is purely FLAMEBAIT!)
Southside Irish...our two teams are the White Sox and whoever plays the Cubs!
Manni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3316 times:
I'm not burying Boeing's 7E7, in fact I'd love to book a flight on one of them as soon as they are up in the air. For months, so called insiders, have been speculating and bragging about JAL being one of the launch customers of the 7E7, and Boeing being motivated to build the 7E7 after talks with Japans biggest carriers. Now, only one day after the go ahead of the Boeing board, for the 7E7 program, this news hits the industry. I'd say a desillusion atleast. Hopefully ANA will save Boeings ass.
Airmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3282 times:
Just as some people were commenting about JAL and ANA not going for the A380 a few days back, the truth is they have not ruled out the possibility of operating A380, it is one Airbus aircraft that will definitely be part of their fleets.
TWISTEDWHISPER From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 711 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2842 times:
I don't understand this bun fight between EU->US->EU->US
Yeah, so what if JAL won't buy the 7E7 right now. I haven't seen the order going to Airbus either...
Boeing should be thankful for the competition Airbus provides, and vice versa.
Imagine a world where only Airbus OR Boeing exist, and imagine the products, the quality and the design. Take Aerospatiale-British Aerospace for example; They built the Concorde, and had no competitors in the civil supersonic aviation market. And look what it resulted in: One design, with very few improvements or changes, and very little research (if any?) on further supersonic airplanes for civil use. Should another company have had another supersonic airplane my guess is that the concorde would have looked a little different than it currently does, plus we would probably still have supersonic traffic.
Conclusion: competition is good, and it benefits both Boeing and Airbus.
Also, if an airline has 450 airplanes of one make, they would hardly go and buy 10 planes from a competitor, now would they? I mean, then you'd have to train all the maintenance staff and maybe the pilots to, and that costs money, right? Maybe I'm wrong, but I makes sense to stick with one make?
And should it be that an airliner cancels its order of this and that many airplanes from this and that airplane manufacturer, I hardly believe that it would be because they think that the competitors product is better... maybe it fits their purpose better, but that's it....
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2680 times:
Sounds more like to me JAL is saying, we'll be ordering it once we solve some of our financial problems. It would only make sense that finances must be in order before spending billions on new aircraft.
Then again, I'm not surprised by the title of this thread or by who posted it. Just another cheap shot @ anything made in the United States by one of the biggest U.S. haters on this forum.