Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
HEY BOEING......why No Regional Jets  
User currently offlineClipperaurora From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 96 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

With all the money that Bombardier and Embraer are making on regional jets these days, and with Airbus beating boeing in the larger aircraft orders, why don't they try to grab some of the regional market.....

I bet that AMR group would have prefered to use boeing aircraft for regionals, as well as Continental (all boeing fleet) and possibly many others

your thoughts?


//////// FLY THE FLAG
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTechrep From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

Boeing should have bought the Dornier 728 project when they had the chance. With already $1.5B invested, all the employees/tooling were still intact, they clearly had a turn-key program.

Clearly the 50-90 seat market is the fastest growing segment and investing in Russian projects will not be accepted by the mainstream.

TechRep


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

I'd say that Boeing is smart enough to not enter yet another battle field at a time where the, quite bloody, battle is already raging...

They do a great job at building planes for 100 pax and more, they've got their hands busy at developing the B7e7 - why get into yet another field?

Anyhow, they're - if I recall correctly - cooperating with one of the Russian design bureaus on he development of a regional jet, so they are - indirectly - involved in RJs...

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Well Bombardier might not be arround for such a long time any longer,since their debt-papers have been rated "junkbonds". Making tramways ,trains and aircraft in the same group does not seem to work very well together.
Boeing have a joint venture with Suchoi on devlopping a regional jet ,but doubts make be permitted as to the viability of the project.
Focus of Boeing is clearly on military business and yields obtained from basically unchallenged Department of Defence procurements.There is some competition for Boeing in the US for mil business but uncomparable less than in the civil aviation sector.And Bush 2 will defenitely not cut dramatically in mil-spending- so good times ahead for Boeings defence division.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

"With all the money that Bombardier and Embraer are making on regional jets these days...

Actually, Bombardier Regional Aircraft hasn't made a profit for the past 3 years. Also, regional aircraft sales are almost all dependent upon concessionary government financing. It isn't worth it for Boeing to go there.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinePlanesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 4119 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

Thats like saying, HEY CESSNA......Why no ultra long range, super dooper triple decker jumbos? Ultimately, Cessna make small private aircraft, Embraer and Bombardier make regional jets and Airbus and Boeing make passenger jets. So why change their business plans?

-Stephen


User currently offlineDogfighter2111 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1968 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4670 times:


Boeing are in the larger a/c business, they always have been. Apart from when the started, but there first A/C was big for the day. A lot of airlines fly long-haul or have large PAX numbers, so they require the larger A/C. Ever since the larger Boeing A/C started operation, they have kept upgrading there larger jets, like the

B720

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dré Peijmen



B707-100

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard



B707-200

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence



B707-300

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yrjö Mäkelä



B707-400

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerhard Plomitzer



Mike


User currently offlineEuropean From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

The should make a Boeing 1-11!

Or a

Boeing E170


European


User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Isnt the 737-600 the closest thing boeing has to an RJ?


Equally Cursed and Blessed.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Isnt the 737-600 the closest thing boeing has to an RJ?

No... the 717-200 is a true "RJ." The defenition of RJ has been blurred in the last few years, it use to mean a 50-100 seat aircraft that would fly less than 1000 nm. The 717 is of this vouge, it doesn't have long-range capability but it's designed for short, rapid cycles with little down-time. The E170-E190 are more for long-ranged point-to-point flying than they are for true regional flights.

Airlines are trying to replace some mainline aircraft with less expensive "RJs," which is why the E190 is attractice, it has the range to fly many sectors a 737/A320 would fly. The 717 is still an excellent regional aircraft, but is either too large or too heavy to fit the newer niche created by the E170/E190


User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4523 times:

Technically, at one time they did. Boeing owned de Haviland Canada (builder of the Dash 8 and Dash 7) until it was sold to Bombardier in 1992.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineCatatonic From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1155 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4482 times:

the 737-600 and the 717 hold roughly the same amounts of passengers give or take 1 or 2


Equally Cursed and Blessed.
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6116 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4469 times:

"The 717 is of this vouge, it doesn't have long-range capability but it's designed for short, rapid cycles with little down-time. The E170-E190 are more for long-ranged point-to-point flying than they are for true regional flights."

The 717-200 the has the same range as the E195. BTW, I am curious as to how the E-jets are not "designed for short, rapid cycles with little down-time."  Smile



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

The Boeing 717 is tough metal. Nothing in the Airbus, let alone Embraer, product lines has that kind of known service longevity. E-jets seem ok so far, but they are all young.

E-jets have longer range. They are not as heavily built. In time, they may be durable... or maybe not. One thing we do know is the 717/DC-9 is indestructible. Its balanced design results in high performance. But of course, for a variety of reasons (mainly crew pay), the E-jets are more attractive to airlines lately.

While it may not be fair to call the E-170 flimsy, compared to the B 717 it almost certainly is. Ask a mechanic, he'll tell you about American planes versus Airbus / Embraer. The word "disposable" comes up often when discussing Airbus / Embraer.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

The word "disposable" comes up often when discussing Airbus / Embraer.

Yes, on a.net... but not in that real world that you can get into, once you log off the internet...

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineFrontiers4ever From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 173 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Why invest in the RJ market. I predict it will die soon enough. Its going to not be worth it in a couple of years.

-Frontiers4ever



Until you prove, your right, your wrong
User currently offlineRegional757 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3032 times:

Ya I agree. Things that grow in an airline and aircraft eviroment don't seem to stay that way for long. Pretty soon the regional aircraft will start reaching the max. and will not be growing as fast. The demand will start to decrease so I think its better that boeing sticks with what it has mastered. Great job Boeing! Keep up the hard work.

User currently offlineZKSUJ From New Zealand, joined May 2004, 7084 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

HEY AIRBUS.......why no Regional Jets  Big grin

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 No Regional Jets In CA? posted Fri Jun 2 2000 00:12:12 by Travelin man
Why No Logo-jets From Skyteam/Oneworld? posted Sun May 14 2006 20:06:58 by LH492
Why No Regional Airlines For LCCs. posted Mon Aug 22 2005 20:10:10 by AirWillie6475
Boeing & Airbus Regional Jets posted Tue Sep 26 2000 05:48:11 by SEVEN_FIFTY7
Why No Hawaiian Regional Jets? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 19:08:06 by A388
Why No T-tail/rear Eng. Boeing Aircraft Since 727? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 20:19:54 by 1337Delta764
Why No More Large Twin-jets? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 11:24:57 by TopJet001
Why No Single Engine Jets? posted Sun Jul 30 2006 22:36:13 by Adam1115
Why No 777-style Pivot Bins On Boeing Narrowbodies posted Mon May 8 2006 21:38:44 by 1337Delta764
Why No Boeing 757-100? posted Sun Sep 25 2005 11:13:26 by AirworldA320