Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.  
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Seeing that many on the forum believe Boeing is dieing or already dead, here are some interesting excerpts from this weeks Aviation and Space Technology Weekly;

"With the EVA and JAL buys and several more 777X purchases pending, Boeing believes it now 'dominates' the long haul wide body market with its 767 and 777 models, Belyamani said. The 777 is giving Airbus 'a lot of nightmares' as orders for the A340-500/600 'go into low gear,' Belyamani said. EVA's 777X purchase effectively invalidates the carriers previous letter of intent to buy competing A340-500/600 transports. Singapore International Airlines last year ordered more 777-200ERs, actually trading in its A340s for them. Singapore and EVA are considered two of Asia's most progressive, exacting carriers."

"In the critical single-aisle market, sales of Boeing's next generation 737 transport family als have been strong. the 737 has not lost a head to head competition with the A320 so far this year, Belyamani said. Through late June, 737 wins include Sout African Airways, American Trans Air, Kenya Airways and Canada's WestJet Airlines."

"Boeing also has a 'strong middle market' position with its 767 line, Belyamani said. Including the new 767-400 stretch, the 767 is the only 'family' of aircraft squarely in the fast growing segment. Passenger models of the olde A300 and A310 are essentially out of production and Airbus has no 200 seating offering he said. The European aircraft manufacturing consortium doe compete with the 250 seat A330-200. As proposed the A330-100 is a double shrink version of the A330-300, 'I can't believe that would be a good airplane,' Belyamani said. More orders are expected for the 767-400 by the end of the year. The company is gradually moving its 777 interior and cockpit into the 767 line, which covers from the 180-240 passengers in three class configuration. Boeing customer has called the new-look 767-400 a 'mini-777'. Boeing has also noticed a pickup in demand for its stretched 757-300 transport, Belyamani said."

"The 106 seat 717 has added seven new customers to Boeing's order base and is making inroads in the U.S. and China, he said."

"Although Boeing has announced a 747-400 follow-on, the aggressive Airbus marketing campaign for the 550 seat A3XX has piqued customer interest in bigger transports. A recent letter from CEO and Chairman Phil Condit to the leaders of major world airlines explained Boeing's plans for aircraft larger than 420 seats. The proposed offferings, an improved 747-400X and significantly modified 747X and 747X Stretch transports, 'have raised great questions' by airlines as to the A3XX's claimed advantages, Belyamani said. 'The airlines has started seeing these things and are saying 'wait a minute.' Both Virgin Atlantic Airways and Singapore have stated they will look closely at both Airbus adn Boeing designs"

"Boeing's application of over-cabin areas for crew rest, storage and galley supplies offers great efficiences compared with the A3XX double-deck design, Belyamani said. 'A double deck structure is very costly.' to build and, consequently, the A3XX would have a 15% higher operating empty weight/seat ratio compared with the 747X Stretch, he said. This difference is exacerbated in the proposed freighter version of the A3XX. 'Imagine how strong that middle floor would have to be' to carry freight, he said. Correspondingly, a freighter version of the 747X Stretch would accomodate about the same tonnage and volume as the A3XXF but offer about 16% lower ton/mi costs."

"The new 747s also would be faster than the A3XX, arriving as much as 25min. sooner on a 16hr flights than the A3XX. A similar speed difference is believed to be a major reason in Singapore's selection o the 777-200ER over its A340-300s. In short, since the A3XX and 747X and 747X Stretch would use the same powerplants, there would be no adavantages in propulsion efficiency between designs, Belyamani said. The 747 would have better structural efficiency, he said. Boeing also believes its wing root insert and other aerodynamic improvements to the 747X model wings will equal A3XX aerodynamice improvements. Overall, Boeing calculates the A3XX would have about 4% higher seat-mile costs than the 747X stretch"

Definately sounds like a company that is dead. FI 2000 will definately be interesting.




"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
102 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Thanks for the post but I hope other people don't start an Airbus V Boeing war again !

PLEASE DON'T


User currently offlineIlyushin96M From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 2609 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3679 times:

This is interesting, to say the least. Are all of the claims Boeing is making about the 747X vs. the A3XX based on projections? Are both aircraft not to have completely new powerplants? How can it be said the 747X would arrive 25 minutes sooner than the A3XX on 16 hour flights if neither aircraft has flown yet, and their engines aren't even in production?

What is stated about the A3XX second floor on the freighter makes sense - it WOULD have to be very strong to support the weight it would carry. Does anyone know of any current double-decker freighters (ie, C-5 Galaxy, AN124) to compare?

I am eager to see the 747X and A3XX compete head to head in real life. To be sure, this is the first real challenge the 747 has ever had.  


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

I was under the impression from earlier Boeing models that the 747-400X would be powered by four of the "large twin" engines which power the 777.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


User currently offlineF4N From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3623 times:

CX747: Thank you for the very informative post. It would seem that Boeing has indeed learned some lessons. I for one, however, will wait for FIA rather than comment on the article since far too much propaganda and far too much rhetoric has been expended on the Boeing/Airbus issue already, much of it without point or value.

I believe the time has come to simply wait for results.

Regards,

F4N


User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2290 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3599 times:

Belyamani and Leahy are both MBAs (Master Bullsh*t Artists) of the highest order. I crack every time I hear one of these two talk performance figures for planes that haven't even entered pre-production. Ah, salesmen.

Still, Boeing will do what it can to sell 747Xs. Airbus will not have much room to maneuver in if Boeing starts to match sales with the A3XX. Any way you dice it, this is a $60 billion company taking a $5 billion gamble. EADS is a $30 billion taking a $12-18 billion gamble. Even something as uncontrollable as a worldwide recession 3-5 years down the road could turn the A3XX into a massive nightmare.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3602 times:

I think the fact that the Boeing 777 has acquitted itself extremely well on long flights (United flies SFO-LHR/CDG with the 777-200 and China Southern can fly non-stop Guangzhou (Canton) to Los Angeles with the 777-200ER) and the fact the 777 cruises at 0.85 Mach (as opposed to the normal 0.81-0.82 Mach of most long-range Airbus planes) is the reason why the A340 hasn't been selling well lately.

Small wonder why 777 sales are picking up lately. With the start of the 777 Long-Range program, I expect many sales to various airlines around the world; in fact, don't be surprised that we get substantial 777 LR orders from United, American, Delta, British Airways, Japan Airlines, and so on, especially if my guess of within the next twelve months of Boeing reaching an agreement with Rolls-Royce for an uprated Trent 800 rated at over 110,000 lb. thrust to be installed on the 777 LR becomes reality.


User currently offlineFLY Dc JETS From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 199 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3544 times:


"so on, especially if my guess of within the next twelve months of Boeing
reaching an agreement with Rolls-Royce for an uprated Trent 800 rated at over 110,000 lb. thrust to be installed on the 777 LR becomes reality."

Do you pay attention to anything. I work in aerospace, specificallyon powerplants.
Rolls Royce WILL NOT HAVE AN ENGINE FOR THE 777X! Are you unaware of what EXCLUSIVE means. Or did you not read the article I provided of how RR stopped development of the Trent 8110? RR Stopped development of that engine in September. Were you not paying attention at the press conference when Jack Welch, the head of GE and Phil Condit announced the lauch of the 777X. The program is continually referred to as a GE-Boeing partnership. Why do you continue to think that Rolls Royce will be able to offer an engine?
So let me see you have no source, and you have completely chosen to disregard all of the things that have taken place in the two years since Boeing once again studied the X derivative program. So what you have is a poorly formed opinion with little or nothing to back it up. Pretty weak....  


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Salesman crab talk altogether...
Of course Boeing can produce a brilliant 747X. But why should Airbus be unable to make a good A3XX? If Airbus makes a good plane too, then it isn't first time.

Take this sentence about the A3XX as an example: "Imagine how strong that middle floor would have to be' to carry freight, he said."

Who said that an A3XXF shall be a double decker? Well, I guess that it could be an option in case the customer wants it so. The A300ST has a much wider fuselage, but only one floor.

If it has two floors, then it would be natural to distribute the cargo on both decks. Why should the middle deck (and the lower deck) on the A3XX then be more than half as strong and half as heavy as the single deck on the 747XF?

About speed: Current 747s are aerodynamically designed with a maximum speed of M=.84, and A3XX M=.82. On a 16 hours sector (not counting climb and descend) the two flown at MAXIMUM speed will give the 747X an arrival 23 minutes and 24 seconds earlier. But what airlines fly at maximum speed? I would assume that both planes would fall out of the sky with empty fuel tanks if somebody tried a 16 hours sector at maximum speed with any substantial payload.
Maximum speed is mostly dictated by the wing sweep back angle, which is higher on the 747X. But also wing airfoil shape. The name of the game is to accellerate the speed of the airflow on the upper surface of the wing to max. M=.9999 and not one inch more. Speed is great. But a more straight wing offers other advantages: A lighter wing for the same stress. Better low speed (take-off and landing) performance. To allow a bigger accelleration of the wing airflow allows more freedom do optimise the wing airfoil shape for best lift to drag ratio. All that can be translated into bigger payload - which again spells better economy for the owner. That's how it is, assuming that everything else is equal. For the same reason the Boeing C-17A military transporter is also designed with a lower maximum speed in mind than the 747.
Maximum speed is a compromise against economics. If it wasn't, then all airliners would be designed for max. M=.91 like the Gulfstream V biz jet. The G-V is a great plane too, but another sort of compromise. Payload capability is almost nothing, and the user is assumed to be willing to pay for the speed.
A and B just came out with slightly different values. But not nearly as different values as for instance Boeing came out with on two of their very successful planes, the 747 and the 737. Nobody ever blamed the 737 for being an inferiour plane because it has a similar max. speed disadvantage compared to the A320.
The 737 is said to be seriously speed limited by airflow interferance between the engines and the wing. All other airliners have the engines mounted well below the wing to avoid this interferance. That the engines sit so high on the wing has another advantage, that the landing gear legs can be much shorter than on the 320 saving a lot of weight.

But all this talk about one plane being 4 or 5 percent better or worse than the other, as long as they havent flown yet... Both planes will probably run into the same old story as the MD-11 when it was new, that the manufacturer had to pay large sums back to the customers as compensation because the product did not meet the over-optimistic specifications in the sales contract.

Why did that Mr. Belyamany mention that SIA traded in their 340s for new 777s, when he doesn't mention that SAS did the opposite with their 767s?

Thanks CX747 for dealing the info with us. It is always nice to be informed about what words are around. But that article is simply not intelligent enough to be treated seriously. It simply fails to meet the avarage IQ on this forum. It would be a fine article for Washington Post, but otherwise...
Regards, Preben Norholm



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineN-156F From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

Interesting, to say the very least. Boeing's begun the "Don't buy Airbus- they're just a bunch of dumb Frenchman who exist thanks to government subsidies" campaign, and Airbus will once again begin its "Bigger and better" argument. Every figure Boeing puts out will be countered by Airbus, and Boeing will then proceed to counter every Airbus figure on the press. Don't forget that companies rate aircraft using methods most favorable to their a/c, by the way.
Well, if we can make it through the huge-scale flame war about to erupt, we'll be in for the ride of our lives on A3XX and 747-500 in the next 5 years or so. I look forward to both.


User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Preben,

Thanks for the detailed expalantion, at least your post appeared factual and interesting. A lot of people forget the dynamics involved in flight.
mb


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3477 times:

Actually, the max operating speed for the A3XX is Mach 0.89 from the Airbus website looking at the figures for the A3XX-100, so this appears to be a much faster ship, I would venture that it cruises around Mach 0.83 or 0.84.
Aside from that, I too had a good laugh (or maybe I should have yawned (G) reading that post from Aviation Week. That's 'Bellyacheiany' in his forte'. (G)

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that's music to my ears....  

Long live Boeing,


Eat Canadi>n Bacon,
~Dazed767


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

BTW

To correct something regarding the Aviation Week article:

According to the latest Airways Magazine with a -large- feature article on Singapore Airlines; The carrier is considering retaining 6 of it's A340-313E fleet.

I view that as a move to give the carrier a decent amount of flexibility and some commonality with it's A340-500 purchase. It could cut several ways for SIA if they were so foolish to get rid of all of the A340-313E's, particularly if they find their way to one of their biggest competitors, Cathay Pacific.

Of note, what is posted here in this thread from that AWST article says -nothing- of the huge MAS order that is anticipated. I found that interesting. Folks, 'the Opera isnt over and the fat lady hasnt sung yet'.

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineSv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3455 times:

I thought Boeing usually gives conservative estimates that they end up exceeding. Maybe its the Douglas influence with the MD-11. Anyway has Airbus failed to meet specs?

sv11


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Actually MAC the MAS order was mentioned in the "Taiwan't EVA Air Orders Seven Boeing 777Xs."

"Belyamani said he expects to announce another four customers by the close of Farnborough. Amont those seriously considering the 777X are: ANA, GECAS, Emirates, Air France, Cathay Pacific Airways, Qantas Airlines with Malaysian Airline's order not expected till October."

As for SIA keeping 6 A340s, I read that also. They are the only magazine reporting such info so we will have to see. Airliners did an article on SIA this month also and did not mention the airline keeping 6 A340s. Aircraft Illustrated ran an article on SIA and said all A340s were to be disposed of as the 777-200ERs came on line. It will be intersting to see what SIA does with their A340-500s once the 777-200LR and 777-300ER are launched. EVA Air seems to have changed their tune after seeing the new numbers.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3450 times:


Isn't it just a move to please AI? I mean SIA may not want
to allienete its relationship with AI completely. They may
need good deals in the future, or at least need to scare
Boeing a bit?

Janos


User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3460 times:

CX747

In addition to the Airways Magazine article, I've heard talk of the SIA retention of A340-313Es elsewhere on the net. I've heard figures ranging from 10 to possibly retaining the -whole- A340 fleet and pressing forward with the 777 purchases as well. The whole sum of things is, they need the capacity.

If you look at it, it makes sense to keep them particularly with the A340-500 coming online. The A345s will serve nonstop markets to Europe and the USA from SIN. The A343 could continue on in thinner routes as well as it's regional role it's flown. It does *very* well in a multitude of roles and gives them flexibility with the Asian economy on the mend and traffic picking up.

Would SIA buy the 777X though? With another engine maker to add to the mix? and knowing how they seem to prefer RR and PW?...I'm holding off on that one. First, they are just digesting their 777-200ERs and -312s they are flying or awaiting delivery on. Seperately, I truly think they will order the A330-100 to replace the A310s (they have a need to get a replacement soon) and they will go for the 16 A3XX's made mention of in recent weeks.

Boeing and GE have to really sell several carriers on the virtues of the new exclusive GE engine that will be on the 777X. I believe this is why sales so far have been quite honestly, slow and that's why it's taking an air show to get interest going or announcements set forth in it. To me, comparing this to the original 777 offering seemed to be a much bigger event. Sales then appeared to be much faster and furious than the latest model being offered.

I'd really like to see what happens with the MAS competition because the implications are far and wide for that carrier, we are talking about 40 A32X *plus options* and then 18-20 widebodies *plus options*. Marc Shaeffer's site comments on it as being favoring Airbus for the whole thing, so it appears Boeing is either saying something MAS told it, or Boeing is deflecting mention of what it knows. I believe the decision will be revealed at FIA. Time will tell though. Additionally, another carrier that is rumored to be postponing a widebody order is SAA, I've heard a decision wont be made until 3Q 2001 per a post by Russell Short on the Airliner orders e-group.

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineDeltaAir From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1094 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Everyone needs to remember, its been mentioned before that the GE deal expires in November or December of this year. RR already has the 110,000 lbs. Trent ready.

User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3443 times:

DeltaAir

That may very well be true that RR is working on a derivative of the Trent to the size needed, but will it be allowed on the 777X? The terms of the exclusivity seemed to be -quite precise- that the GE90-110/115 are to be the powerplants "period" from what was said at the press conference held by Phil Condit and Jack Welch a few months ago.

If Boeing allows this to go forth, what types of penalites would Boeing have to pay GE to lose it's exclusivity on the 777X? Jack Welch seemed like he was very confident of this exclusivity's permanence.

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3447 times:

Ahh MAC ever the Boeing pessimist. You state that 777X sales have been "honestly slow". So I guess that would put the A340NG at enimic? Hmmm I guess the JAL order (8 777-300ERs) and EVA order (3 777-200LRs and 4 777-300ERs) doesn't mean anything. Or that fact that EVA negated its signed LOI with Airbus for the A340-500/600s. Boeing has stated time and time again that they are taking their time with the 777-200LR/300ER. What they are doing is gathering a very large order book so that at FI they can blow away the A340NG by outselling it or close to outselling it after the A340NG had an almost 2 year advantage in getting to the market first. That information has been in the magazines and on the web for months. Heck, since the 777X's inception its been understood that most of the announcements would be kept for Farnborough or shortly before then. Farnborough will definately be interesting.

Now, onto the GE exclusiveness deal. While some in the media have portrayed this as a major dilema, in all reality, it is not. Many of the airlines supposedly up in arms over the deal have stated that while it may be easier to sell them RR engined or PW engined 777Xs, all that it takes is to show them HOW the GE deal benefits them. Cathay Pacific doesn't seem to mind that their possible order for 777-300ERs have GE engines hanging on them. Also, why doesn't anyone ever point out that the A340NG also comes with a sole engine choice in the RR Trent 500? Or the fact that the A340-300 program survives with the underpowered exclusive CFM burners? Actually that goes back to CX. How on earth do they operate the RR powered 747-400, 777-200, 777-300 and A330-300 and the CFM powered A340??? The GE contract was only for a certain amount of time after the programs "commercial launch". Now with all above being forgotten, the GE deal could be the reason why some of the airlines have yet to announch their 777X orders. They are waiting to announce it when the engines they prefer are "publicly" available and not just in closed door meetings with Boeing. If several of the airlines have decided to order RR or PW powered 777Xs, breaking the exclusive contract with GE may be profitable for Boeing. If memory serves me correct, wasn't a certain Jumbo Jet available with only one choice for some years?



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

Ahh MAC ever the Boeing pessimist. You state that 777X sales have been "honestly slow". So I guess that would put the A340NG at enimic? Hmmm I guess the JAL order (8 777-300ERs) and EVA order (3 777-200LRs and 4 777-300ERs) doesn't mean anything. Or that fact that EVA negated its signed LOI with Airbus for the A340-500/600s. Boeing has stated time and time again that they are taking their time with the 777-200LR/300ER. What they are doing is gathering a very large order book so that at FI they can blow away the A340NG by outselling it or close to outselling it after the A340NG had an almost 2 year advantage in getting to the market first. That information has been in the magazines and on the web for months. Heck, since the 777X's inception its been understood that most of the announcements would be kept for Farnborough or shortly before then. Farnborough will definately be interesting.

Now, onto the GE exclusiveness deal. While some in the media have portrayed this as a major dilema, in all reality, it is not. Many of the airlines supposedly up in arms over the deal have stated that while it may be easier to sell them RR engined or PW engined 777Xs, all that it takes is to show them HOW the GE deal benefits them. Cathay Pacific doesn't seem to mind that their possible order for 777-300ERs have GE engines hanging on them. Also, why doesn't anyone ever point out that the A340NG also comes with a sole engine choice in the RR Trent 500? Or the fact that the A340-300 program survives with the underpowered exclusive CFM burners? Actually that goes back to CX. How on earth do they operate the RR powered 747-400, 777-200, 777-300 and A330-300 and the CFM powered A340??? The GE contract was only for a certain amount of time after the programs "commercial launch". Now with all above being forgotten, the GE deal could be the reason why some of the airlines have yet to announch their 777X orders. They are waiting to announce it when the engines they prefer are "publicly" available and not just in closed door meetings with Boeing. If several of the airlines have decided to order RR or PW powered 777Xs, breaking the exclusive contract with GE may be profitable for Boeing. If memory serves me correct, wasn't a certain Jumbo Jet available with only one choice for some years?



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineMAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3444 times:

CX747

I'm looking at the market the way it -is- quite frankly, not puppeting off some Boeing perspective or Airbus perspective. I call it an -enlightened- perspective because I've *worked in management and operations* with heavy jets thank you.

15 777X (plus potentially 30 777X by ILFC) versus over 60+ A340NG. This has got to bother Boeing.

For one, let me get this off my chest: The Boeing of today is not the Boeing of yesteryear. "This is not your father's Boeing" was the title of an interesting WSJ article on the SPEAA strike earlier this year, it was quite eye-opening to read and told of the way the company operates these days. To me after reading it, the "heroic" or "epic" stature people give it carte blanche, needs a real -swat- on the behind. One major reason why I'm a critic of Boeing is the hubris they have displayed to a market that needs and lives by dynamic change. And some of the things Boeing has conducted itself with (the 737 rudder problems) have soured my opinion of that company. Added to that to me they appear to have goofed up or fouled the ball; from finally having to be dragged through losing business and then apologizing to customers for not listening (The UAL A320 choice), production delays (737NGs), rudder problems on one particular airplane (737s) they refuse to admit to, on and on.

The hubris was and still seems to be incredible. It seems somewhat similar to a certain software company based in same city?

For too long they rested on their laurels as thinking everyone would flock to them and now we have -true- competition they havent ever seen. Overall they seem quite comforted and impressed with themselves in their own arrogance.

It's taken them several years if not a decade and a half to -somewhat- figure their competitor across the Atlantic.

Reading their recent history has told me that they -react- to Airbus overall.

Airbus indeed appears to -listen- more to it's customers. Donald Douglas captured that element with the great line of airplanes he created, Airbus seems to have learned from that and built upon that philosophy. Innovation and doing things better always appeals to me, particularly with aviation. I worked around some of the most innovative airplanes ever built, so the desire for something that pleases -all- or as best as possible is going to get a round of applause from me.

The competition we now see is an outstanding thing for the aerospace industry.

Do you know why EVA negated it's LOI with Airbus? Due to poor financial results overall last year, not by virtue of the A340NG aircraft itself, and furthemore, EVA acknowledges that this does by no means exclude Airbus from future aircraft purchases. Did we forget to mention that?

Airbus has sold over 60 A340NGs with several more on option to Virgin, ILFC, Lufthansa, Singapore, China Eastern, Aerolineas Argentinas, Air Canada, Swissair since it was launched early last year. What I believe has taken it's time in the order process is the results of the RR engine tests airlines are awaiting to see because bottom line, particularly with fuel costs in mind and performance, is what airlines are looking at. So far..the results are excellent according to RR. Remember, this engine only began flying a few weeks ago also! Watch and see what occurs over the next few months.

RR has a bit of everything going for them at the moment, they have a massively popular Trent engine core that can be worn on the 777, A330 and now scaled down to a smaller engine on the A340-500/600.

I truly believe the A340NG is going to be a good seller no matter what propaganda you or I believe in. The RR engine is exclusive to the A340NG indeed, my question is, what were the competitor engines offered on the A340NG in the same weight and thrust class? Why were they not opened up for choice? What made Airbus make them an exclusive engine for it?

One major difference I feel is with the RR Trent: it doesnt have the chequered history the GE90 -does- have. (BA sources I have stating it's the ~worst~ engine they have ever seen in their airline existence!-) That's why I believe carriers contemplating the 777X have been on the fence I believe. I think longer term, the 777X may be a good seller for Boeing as well, -particularly if they offer a choice of engines on it. MAS's chairman has publicly said they desire a choice of engines. Most operators do. But that choice is up to Boeing.

And indeed, the 747 was offered only with the PW powerplant on it..but this idea of "oh it will certainly happen with the 777X"...Oh really? How sure are we?
The economics -then- are far different now. Today things are leaner and meaner. Many say that the development of a choice of engines for the 777 was a "bloodbath" for the engine manufacturers. Cost structure to develop a 747 engine by GE or RR then was far different to develop and field an engine now. The costs of putting a competitor's engine on the airframe must be agreed to by the manufacturer and engine maker, who pays for what? Why pays for the manuals and service agreements? Who pays for the flight testing? Who does the risk sharing? Particularly if an exclusive contract was signed with a different manufacturer. These are just the beginnings of a complicated effort to put an engine on an airplane. Then you have to get shareholders into the mix. I truly think, in the bigger picture of things, Boeing should have left the choice of engines an open one for the 777X and today we'd be seeing orders upon orders for it, but they felt the earlier experience of three engines was too much of a drain on them and the seperate manufacturers. So they selected one.

They may get a roll of orders in the next few weeks, but what is surprising is, EVA Air didnt wait for FIA, nor did JAL. There was much said about this big effort to show a massive 777X order list at Farnborough..and how it will "blow away Airbus" Then in the weeks and months before the show we see a trickle of customers announce their intentions.

The A340-300 survives on it's CFM "burners" due in part to an extensive CFM engine repair network established around the World, take a look at how vast and far the CFM engine operates from the 737-300 to DC-8-71 and then you'll figure out why it was chosen as a sole engine in the A340 as well as the 737-300-through-900. Another reason why RR is enjoying a spate of return business is due to their emphasis in Asia, where they actively advertise their products also.

Regards
MAC


User currently offlineUdo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3401 times:

Thanks MAC, you posted well as usual!

And by the way thanks to CX747 for his explanation why Airbus will crash due to the frustration caused by the fact that Boeing is permanently outselling of their planes..

Over here we comment those future 'statements' like CX has done this way:
Never praise the day before evening!


Regards
Udo


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (14 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3392 times:

Hey MAC_Vet, unless I'm mistaken we haven't seen you around here for ages. If you've been away, welcome back! If you've been here all along, then I obviously have a situation.

Good post, vintage stuff. Couldn't agree more.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
25 FLY DC JETS : The Trent 500 is not an exclusive engine it is the sole powerplant, but the deal is not exclusive. There was no competition. PW was going to offer an
26 MAC_Veteran : Outstanding post DCJets! Now that clarifies things much better doesnt it? (Grin) I remember the PW offering, but I forgot about their demand for exclu
27 Post contains images CX747 : Yet again you write a post that goes off topic and allows you to continue to rant on how you don't like Boeing or Microsoft or the United States. Boei
28 MAC_Veteran : Since when did this become a United States issue? When there's nothing else to use, I suppose this is the root of everything isnt it? We cant challeng
29 CX747 : You forgot to talk about the A320 prototype crash and what went on there? Also, while this particular time I did bring up the politics, they have been
30 CX747 : MAC, you forgot to mention that besides the economic downfall in Asia, the other little reason that EVA went with the A340NG in the first place was th
31 Wingman : I have to agree with CX on this one MAC. You're dislike of anything American or made in the US is plainly obvious. It is clear from your posts that yo
32 MAC_Veteran : That's ridiculous Wingman, patently absolutely ridiculous. The problem is, if you disagree with some things an American company does, in the world of
33 CX747 : Wingman, I thank you for the verbal backup. MAC, none of what Wingman had to say was ridiculous. Ridiculous would better define most of your anti-Amer
34 MAC_Veteran : The simple fact is CX747, in your posts, anything that Boeing does is absolutely AOK, nothing to challenge, nothing to dispute. It's as pure as the wi
35 CX747 : Again, another long winded post that scuttled the questions we have asked. If you would like to discuss the problem the rudder on the 737 had that is
36 Post contains links Eg777er : Airbus bribes got deals in Saudi? You must be joking! As far as I remember the Saudi Arabian Airlines deal was won by Boeing and MD thanks to a large
37 MAC_Veteran : CX747 Not trying to decline answering the question, rather exposing a full answer to some of these accusations you lay at me and indeed, expect a "lon
38 Mx5_boy : Mac, I have read the articles you referred to in your posts and found them very interesting, to the point where I printed out various NTSB reports and
39 MAC_Veteran : Eg777er You might want to check out this last weeks posts in the Independent newspaper from the UK on this very subject. The URL is http://www.indepen
40 Kangar : I find it sad that this pan nationalistic drivel dimension is dragged into this topic, whatever the "side" who does it. I thoroughly enjoy checking ou
41 Singapore 777 : While it is most certainly true that the 777X has the better performance figures overall, who can tell? These are just figures! The plane itself is no
42 GUNDU : Singapore 777, I do not agree.The exclusivity deal will expire in December, and RR has a Trent 8115 somewhere.The 777 will in time be offered with the
43 Na : Hi Gundu, where did you read or hear the GE-exclusivity will end in December? I just read a news statement of todays date where Condit says the GE-exc
44 FLY DC JETS : The GE deal was to have ended in December of 1999 if Boeing did not launch the aircraft. However, Boeing chose to renew the deal and keep GE as the ex
45 RayChuang : However, I don't expect the GE90-110/115B to be the only engine on the 777 Long Range versions for long, especially if a number of airlines insist on
46 MAC_Veteran : Gundu, What you are describing is the Taiwan of old. The US does NOT have a monopoly on Taiwan any more and for good reason. The simple FACT is, Taiwa
47 FLY DC JETS : Please look it up before you continually drag up the BS that RR is going to bring an engine back into development that has already ceased. ROLLS ROYCE
48 Wingman : When I referred to the alleged bribes in Saudi Arabia, I meant that Airbus tried. The interesting thing about Echelon is that word from the press has
49 Mlsrar : "Since when did this become a United States issue? When there's nothing else to use, I suppose this is the root of everything isnt it? We cant challen
50 MAC_Veteran : Ahh we have a 'live one' here! This is going to be fun! Mlsrar wrote: ------------------------------- You seem to have a monochromatic dispersion when
51 MAC_Veteran : Per my preceding post I attach a text copy of the editorial posted in the Asian Wall Street Journal on 9 August 1999 detailing the shenanigans that oc
52 TEDSKI : I think Boeing should break off the exclusive engine deal with GE and also offer versions of the P&W 4000 and RR Trent 800. This I think will double t
53 MAC_Veteran : That would be a good thing for Boeing to do and quite wise to offer a spectrum of engine choice in that program; however looking at what Boeing's Phil
54 Mlsrar : 'Live One' To what do I owe the honor of having my "side" being dispersed as ignorant. I would have had higher hopes of you thinking on a less superfi
55 Boeing747-400 : CX747, great topic. There's some interesting info on there. To Everyone: I'm afraid that if the conversation keeps up, it will turn into another flami
56 TEDSKI : If Boeing is sticking with the GE90 for the 777X, then P&W and RR should offer more their engines to Airbus for their family of aircraft so P&W employ
57 MAC_Veteran : Hahahahaha I'm glad to see I've gotten to you. I'm now referred to as a Cherub and a pontificating one at that to the masses. And it irritates you! Ha
58 Post contains images Boeing747-400 : WOW!!!!! How off-topic can you people get???????
59 Post contains images Jomama : Words, words, words.
60 MAC_Veteran : I believe if Boeing carries forth with this GE exclusivity, they could possibly really shoot themselves (which they have done in the past mind you). T
61 Magyar : >> When I referred to the alleged bribes in Saudi Arabia, I meant that Airbus tried. The interesting thing about Echelon is that word from the press h
62 MAC_Veteran : Thanks for the kind words! I'm glad that some view my posts as a catalyst to get people thinking and searching for new sources of information that is
63 MAC_Veteran : Hey CedarJet Indeed, long time no see! I've been on and off here a bit but I finally had enough with some comments people are making (Is it a recurran
64 Marair : Why cant you people ever stick to the topic.
65 Boeing747-400 : I agree Mariar. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Regards, B744
66 Wingman : Magyar, I did read that in past press reports on Echelon, some of the more detailed ones from Reuters. These are all allegations at this point with no
67 TEDSKI : I hope Boeing gets a slap in the face from current operators of 777-200/300s that are powered by RR Trent 800 or P&W 4000 series engines who don't wan
68 CX747 : Most if not all of the airlines do not have a problem with the GE "exclusive" deal.
69 FLY DC JETS : "Most if not all of the airlines do not have a problem with the GE "exclusive" deal. " Man your sources sure suck. Well, I'll give you a list of airl
70 Singapore 777 : Again, may I point out that SIA will NOT be ordering the 777X because of the exclusivity. It doesn't want 3 different types of engines on its planes.
71 Eg777er : Cathay Pacific used to say that the way to make a profit was to take a Boeing aircraft, hang Rolls Royce Engines on it and paint the tail green! The l
72 747ALITALIA : I'm sorry about those of you that don't agree with this statement but.....hey get a reality check all of you- I FULLY agree with "Fly DC jets" post. W
73 Sammyk : You almost contradict yourself in your post. First you say that Cathay has a high level of commitment toward the RR engine. Then you say that they alr
74 TEDSKI : Hi Sammy, don't be surprised if Cathy Pacific goes for the RR Trent A340NG instead of the GE90 777X. Because the current A340-200/300 had only the CFM
75 TEDSKI : Don't be surprised if United because they have P&W JT9D or 4000 series engines on their current widebody aircraft except the DC-10, will chose either
76 Post contains images Sammyk : Tedski, first of all, its CathAy, not Cathy. At first I thought it was a typo on your part, but you seem to be rather consistent about it. Anyhow... I
77 TEDSKI : Well, you read the other replies from everybody else they too don't like the GE90. Especially if the fan blades are made from composites rather than d
78 TEDSKI : How about a GE90 powered Concorde so they will be compatible with BA GE90 777s? HA HA
79 MD-90 : 727's don't use JT-8D 219s. Delta might be interested, since their MD-88's use them. And why cluster them? Just sprinkle them out on the wing, engine
80 CX747 : I am sorry that many of the members don't agree with me. Thats fine. Just to let you know, I am taking names and counting heads so that when the airli
81 Post contains images Sammyk : I wasn't suggesting that 727s had the specific model mentioned, just saying that both have JT8s. What the level of compatibility is between them, I am
82 Sammyk : CX747, I don't remember disagreeing with you. Did you put my name in your posts topic by default? Sammy
83 D L X : Geez, I go on vacation and World War 3 breaks out! Anyways, I just thought I would point out a few things. GE90/777X exclusivity: GE put a serious amo
84 TEDSKI : The only thing I can say is that GE better improve the quality of the GE90 on the new 777X so there won't be any major flight delays or groundings bec
85 777x : Tedski, As the GE90 was a new design engine, it was bound to have some problems at introduction - if you need any proof, just look at the problems the
86 Sammyk : Tedski, why is it you forget when Cathay Pacific (and Dragonair too??) had to ground A330s when they had problems. Supposedly Rolls-Royce wasn't very
87 CX747 : No, you are not one of the names I have down. Your name came up as the topic by default.
88 Kangar : At the end of the day folks, why does anyone really care who gets the orders? What difference does it make if someone said Boeing would not get an ord
89 MD-90 : Personally, I was very surprised that BA ordered the GE90 for their 777's. You have to wonder what kind of deal GE gave them to order it. Rolls-Royce
90 LBSteve : Great posts MAC_Veteran! It's always refreshing to hear form you. Don't ever change.
91 Post contains links and images LBSteve : http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,341271,00.html The above article is off topic but if you do read it pay attention to the v
92 Mlsrar : Well, pontificate or not, you haven't 'gotten to me', given that I've matured beyond the point of infantile thought, I won't be hamstrung into a creto
93 Mlsrar : ----------- Man your sources sure suck. ----------- Glad to see that you've mastered the art of a counter in an argument. Also warms my heart to find
94 FLY DC JETS : "With that post, I've never seen such a complimentary slap to one's own intellect. For someone who writes with such onmiscience, you seem to have a c
95 CX747 : MD-90: British Airways ordered GE-90s on their original 777-200s and 200ERs because GE purchased BA's engine overhaul facility in Wales for 272 millio
96 Mlsrar : Since I'm unfamiliar with the process leading to engine selection in airframe development, I guess the 2 years I worked for IS at Hamilton/Pratt/Unite
97 FLY DC JETS : If it felt like a slap in the face than that is exactly what I intended. I really did not mean any insult by it, but I wanted to make my point. Though
98 Pratt-Whitney : LET's get back on topic.
99 UAL747-600 : How about some 2000 Numbers. The numbers below reflect the first 6 months of 2000. Orders Boeing 322 58% Airbus 242 42% Deliveries Boeing 234 63% Airb
100 CX747 : Supposedly Delta Airlines is going to place a large follow on order for either the 777-200ER or 767-400. On this info I am only the messenger as it wa
101 Archie Bunker : Earlier this year John Leahy was predicting 60 percent market share in the near future...I don't think so!
102 Post contains images Pilot1113 : I want to take a step back here and view the whole picture. This is an exciting time in aviation. You've got the two aerospace giants battling the big
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...
Airbus & A3XX Funding Problems posted Mon Mar 27 2000 19:27:08 by DeltaAir
Airbus & Boeing Freighters & Conversions posted Wed Feb 14 2007 19:29:29 by Rheinbote
Aircraft Deliveries Airbus & Boeing, Bottom Line.. posted Thu Nov 23 2006 00:04:08 by Keesje
Boeing Takes Lead As Airbus Order Book Nosedives posted Wed Jul 5 2006 02:16:58 by BoomBoom
Airbus & Boeing Names posted Wed May 10 2006 06:30:28 by WunalaYann
Airbus & Boeing Marginalizes Their Products posted Mon Mar 20 2006 18:43:31 by OyKIE
Would Airbus & Boeing Ever Consider RJ's? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 05:35:27 by AviationAddict
A380: Airbus & Boeing Interiors? posted Thu Feb 23 2006 12:44:40 by LHB727230Adv
How Boeing Cut Short Airbus's Rule As King... posted Fri Dec 16 2005 19:03:45 by Qxeguy
Why Do Certain Airlines Buy Airbus &others Boeing posted Fri Sep 17 2004 18:18:48 by Bigpappa