Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeings Big Bet  
User currently offlineCactusa319 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2918 posts, RR: 23
Posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2179 times:

Boeing's Big Bet
By Richard Miniter. Mr. Miniter, a Journal editorial writer, edits the
Business Europe column.
The Wall Street Journal

Why is Phil Condit smiling? The Boeing Co. chairman dropped by the Journal's
Brussels office last week to explain why his company has no plans to match
Airbus Industrie's latest headline-grabbing venture -- a bold plan to build
the world's largest passenger plane. "I'm very comfortable with Boeing's
position," he says. He flashes another grin.

If you believe the press clips, Mr. Condit should look like a deer in the
headlights. Airbus's superjumbo jet, known as the A3XX, would theoretically
push aside Boeing's 747-400 as the biggest passenger bird in the sky.
When -- or rather, if -- it is delivered in 2006, the new giant will be able
to carry almost 600 passengers -- 150 seats more than the largest aircraft
today. That means that airlines that fly into crowded hubs, like London's
Heathrow, would be able to sharply expand sales without a corresponding
increase in costs. Airbus brags that the "flying ocean liner" will have
bars, gyms and spas -- even as the low-fare passengers in the back of the
Airbus will have more legroom.

The A3XX seems to be a threat to Boeing even before it is off the drawing
board. Airbus says it has at least 32 orders in hand for the superjumbo
plane, including an order for 15 planes from Singapore Airlines Ltd., a
bellwether plane buyer and the world's fourth largest operator of Boeing's
747 series jets. If Airbus gets just 18 more orders, it will have enough
sales to begin development of its flying luxury liner.

Meanwhile, Boeing's attempts to offer a competing plane -- the so-called
"747X Stretch" -- in the superjumbo category have not taken off. Boeing
doesn't have a single order for the stretch. "Boeing gets blown sideways,"
summed up Business Week. So why is Mr. Condit smiling? The former aerospace
engineer seems too hardheaded to smile without a reason. But he has the
smile of a poker player who is sure he is holding the winning hand, just as
his rival is calling the bet.

"It is more than a private bet," Mr. Condit says quietly. Boeing is assuming
that the air travel market is not going to embrace the superjumbos in a big
way. The case for the Airbus behemoth is a static one; the air travel market
will look just as it does today only with a lot more passengers. Maybe. But
as Mr. Condit puts it: "competition is made up of the opportunity to be

Boeing believes that passengers will continue to drift toward point-to-point
travel. "The market is fragmenting," Mr. Condit says. He points to the North
Atlantic market, where more traffic is direct rather than through hubs in
London, Frankfurt or Paris. That means that on many new, popular routes,
such as Air France's Cincinnati-Paris run, carriers are going to want
smaller planes that are cheaper to operate than the superjumbo. That is
essentially the argument for the Boeing 777. Air France's chief operating
officer, Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, recently told the Avmark Aviation Economist,
a respected airline industry publication, that he saw a lot of "traffic flow
fragmentation" and the need for more Boeing 777-type planes. So even Air
France, one of Airbus's biggest customers, seems to be hedging its bets.

But here's the biggest reason why Mr. Condit is smiling. Although he is too
polite to say it, the more one looks at the Airbus superjumbo, the less
sense it makes. There are reasons to fear that the A3XX might be a bit like
some other heroic projects of the past. The Soviets, remember, once boasted
the world's largest tractor. Just don't try to plow any fields with it.

Consider all of the problems facing Airbus' plane. Less than a dozen of the
world's airports are actually crowded enough to justify the expense of
reconfiguring themselves for the leviathans. So the market is small.
Heathrow, Europe's busiest airport, is one of the few good candidates for
the bird. But the airport authority has yet to get approval for its plans to
build a new terminal to accommodate the superjumbo. The jetways to load and
unload passengers have not been built yet, let alone installed. And
operating the jetways will be tricky because they will have to look like an
octopus with 12 or more different tentacles reaching out to the
double-decker plane. And what happens when 600 hungry, impatient people mill
about in the terminal?

The promised amenities of the superjumbo probably won't materialize. Forget
about the onboard gyms and spas. The original 747, delivered in 1969,
promised bars and dining rooms, too. But within a decade, the upstairs
lounges disappeared. The airlines wanted to pack the plane with seats.
Instead, the Airbus A3XX will probably be packed with unprofitable cargo --
the voluminous luggage of the small town it is carrying through the sky.

But what about all of those "sales"? Those, too, look downright Soviet.
Airbus' board has not given the green light to sell the plane. So their
salesmen cannot offer any "buyer" a purchase order, let alone ask him to
sign it. So what Airbus has are merely expressions of intent to buy -- in
short, a glorified pledge card. Little-old ladies collecting canned goods in
the church basement know that pledges are not real money.

The famous Singapore Airlines order might not be profitable even if it were
real. Airbus says that it needs a minimum of $225 million per plane to break
even on the A3XX. While "there's a monastic vow of silence" surrounding the
deal numbers, "those planes were probably sold at a loss," says Daniel
Solon, a consultant at Avmark International. Informed speculation, by Mr.
Solon and others, puts the price somewhere south of $160 million. Airbus has
not released any sales figures or characterized the sale in the press or in
public statements as "profitable" or "unprofitable." (As a rule, Airbus, a
consortium organized under French law, does not issue detailed financial
statements to the public.)

Mr. Condit was probably alluding to these rumors of Airbus's bargain prices
when he said that the sales probably " were more hype than reality" and that
Singapore Airlines "probably got a great deal." By contrast, he repeatedly
said that Boeing "aims to be profitable on every single product line."

Mr. Condit, of course, could be guessing wrong and Airbus could be guessing
right. But he knows that his biggest competitor is about to embark on a $12
billion adventure to build a possibly unprofitable superjumbo -- while he is
collecting real orders for real planes that become cheaper to build every
day. It's hard to argue with his logic.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently offlineAirCanadaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Good article. It's reassuring to know that somebody sees the light on this issue.

Wait until the Airbus people see this... you are going to get roasted, Cactusa319.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8364 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

I think what Phil Condit is betting on is the fact that A3XX's will only be sold for use on very long, heavily-travelled routes. Because of the increasing emphasis on point-to-point service, this will result in lots of sales of the 777-200ER, 777-200LR and 777-300ER, plus sales of the 767-400ER and the upcoming 767-400 Longer-Range.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1898 times:

I've read the article twice now and am still looking for a more than just a tiny scintilla of unbiased journalism.

Comparing Airbus and the A3XX to "Soviet" style "achievements" is pandering to the most base of American instincts.

I wonder who paid for lunch after Mr Condit's visit to Mr Miniter's office - not the Wall St Journal's Business Europe's budget I'll bet. No that one will end up in an auditor's tray in Seattle.

Boeing is bound to want more point to point services. The US aircraft industry has never benefitted from the Hub System as the greater percentage of aircraft used to feed hubs have been European or Brasilian.

Unwrap the "spin" and what this article really says is that Boeing can make money from its current series of airliners and doesn't want/can't afford to pitch into the super jumbo league at present.

Great, and long may they be successful with smaller aircraft (at least until the airspace becomes overloaded), but why does such a respected journal have to "rubbish" a non-American product in such a craven and mealy mouthed way, especially when Airbus offer so many US produced components on all their aircraft?

User currently offlineShinseki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1875 times:


What kind of idiot expects an editorial piece to be "unbiased"?


User currently offlineWorldTraveller From Germany, joined Jun 1999, 624 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

I can't take this article seriously, really.

Boeing itself claims that there is a market for at least 750 VLA's in the next 20 years, so if they don't build a competitor Airbus will get that market alone, making the the A3XX a hugely profitable investment. What is Condit thinking??

Sorry, but I can't help to feel myself reminded of the days when Airbus unveiled its A320 plans....you know, the "no-market at all" claims from all over the U.S. industry.

Sorry guys, Airbus knows its way into the future...

the WorldTraveller

User currently offlineCAETravlr From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 922 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

I, for one, hope he's right. Will definitely be interesting to see how this fleshes out!

A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her. - W.C. Fields
User currently offlineJr737 From Portugal, joined May 1999, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1866 times:


This is a real good article.

João Roque

User currently offlineThomacf From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 550 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1855 times:

I agree with Boeing on this issue 100%. They are in the drivers seat because it will probably be cheaper to just expand the 747 if this superjumbo is a success. (it won't be though) The one threat could be if airports like Heathrow stop airlines from flying small planes in from more destinations. This will probably not happen but it could down the road. In that case the superjumbo could then fly strictly from places like L.A., N.Y. or D.C. If Boeing is right, this could break Airbuses back. I think that Boeing is in a win win situation. If it's a flop then they win if not they will build a bigger 747 to compete and long time Boeing fans would buy it instead. There still can't be that much point to point traffic yet. Most of the international routes from smaller cities are using 757's and 767's. Ther is still time to expand into more 777's and 747-440's. Then way in the future maybe a superjumbo.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1842 times:


The sort of idiot who knows the difference between good journalism and blatant jingoism, the sort of idiot who knows the difference between editorial and advertorial and the sort of idiot who expects major organs such as the Journal to provide the world with objective comment and untarnished news.

There is every reason for Mr Miniter to push Boeing's case as reportage of the interview with Mr Condit.

There is absolutely no excuse for encapsulating it in a perjoratative attack on Airbus based on half truths and fantasy which I'm sure he didn't get from Mr Condit, or anyone else at Boeing.

As a commentator on items of aviation Miniter, on this showing, knows as much about aviation as the moth that is currently trying to get into my office window.

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2887 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1837 times:

This entire debate, for now, is pointless. Airbus will get its 50 orders and they will officially launch the A3XX. What really matters then is how much money Airbus will spend to deliver what they've promised and how many units they sell above and beyond the inital batch. I have no doubt that this plane will be amazing. Let's face it, Airbus and Boeing make damn good planes. And the newer the technology the better. What I do have my doubts about is the future health of Airbus as a company. I think there's a 50/50 chance this will be a smash hit. The other 50 is the largest corporate bailout in history. We'll all have a much better idea in 8-10 years.

Now let's turn our attention to the usual brain bashing that results whenever this topic come up.

User currently offlineMorecy From United States of America, joined May 2000, 216 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1828 times:

What cracks me up about all this is how we Europeans are portrayed as these bumbling idiots who don't know one end of a plane from another. Boeing builds a 747 and they're great innovators while Airbus forges ahead with the A3XX and they're the village idiot.

The Aviation world has more than enough room for a Boeing and an Airbus to thrive in. Boeing makes great planes and I love them and you know what... Airbus makes damn great planes too and the growing market share proves it. I for one am very pleased to see both Boeing and Airbus succeed because we all benefit from the competition. I guess all the rhetoric is just an integral part of the competition factor.

User currently offlineFqtv From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

This article is a load of crap. I especially didn't like the "why is Mr. Condit smiling?" thread. He's smiling, because he's being interviewed by a member of the press. You can bet he wasn't smiling when Singapore made their A3XX order known.
I don't prefer Airbus or Boeing, I think they're both good companies. I do however, think that Airbus have a good product with the A3XX - if Mr. Condit is smiling because he sees Airbus developing a product with no market, then why is Boeing offering it's 747X for that market? Sure, it will cost alot less than the A3XX's $12 billion, but $5-$6 billion is still alot to invest in a 747 program if the market is fragmenting as Boeing says.
The reporter talked about the 777s and newer 767 that are ideal for point-to point operations. He didn't even mention the A340 or A330, which makes me think that it wasn't a free lunch that the reporter got. It was dinner, followed by a show.

Cheers, fqtv

P.S. I'm not partial to Airbus (I've only actually ever flown in an Airbus 3 times). I just hate biased journalism - even in an editorial, you have to weigh up the pros and cons of yóur argument before you draw a conclusion. You can't just wittle on about the pros.

User currently offlineEva744 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

It is just nationalism, you have to support the country and businesses that you grew up with. 747 was the only plane for a lot of children because that was all the movies portrayed in the US. Euros love the Airbus, Americans (US citizens) love Boeing. Simple.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1818 times:


Almost spot on but the success, or otherwise, of the A3XX and its effect on the overall Airbus picture may not be known for 25 years or more.

First, the sales of the other Airbus types, if maintained at the current healthy levels, will help offset any short term losses during the early development and in service period.

If the travel market continues to boom, the aircraft will sell well and the more "user friendly" versions will come along, especially when the impacts of the airspace bottle kneck and "green" policies kick in and restrict the number of flights.

Where Airbus will be really vulnerable, in the short term, is if there is a major downturn in airline fortunes due to crises, oil price hikes and labour costs.

These hit airlines at times in the 1970s and 1980s and caused some heart stopping moments for Boeing 747 production at a time when the company needed orders, cashflow, and to maintain its experienced labour force.

If airlines slow down their orders, even for a short time, Airbus will have to be very careful. Then there may be the need for a massive bailout.

All things being equal, the aircraft should sell well, should be a 25-35 year build programme and, only in the latter stages will we see the real effect on Airbus (and the aircraft manufacturing industry as a whole).

User currently offlineShinseki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1812 times:


Oh dear, corporate ethics less than pure as driven snow. Shock and horror! What is the world coming to...   This just in...objective news organizations don't exist.....

Its called capitalism baby and Noel Forgeard can take Miniter out to lunch tomorrow and get his dribble some equal time. Whether or not he chooses to do so is quite another matter.

This "blatant jingoism" as you call it is hardly limited to aviation and is common to editorial pages everywhere. Don't like it, don't read it.
There are choices out there.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1793 times:


Don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

I probably have had more experience of capitalism, the effect of corporate ethics (or the lack of them) and jingoism in any one year of my business life than you have had in all of yours.

Try running balanced international conferences for a living and making a success of it.

Objective news organisations may not exist but editorial in major international business journals are supposed to give some balance. You seem to be saying you accept as normal output which equates all news organisations to Pravda under the Soviets or the organs of Saddam Hussein or any other dictator you can think of.

The piece is total crap journalism which doesn't deserve the ink and paper wasted on it - not because it gives a biased view purporting to be from the perspective of one company (known as advertorial) but because it is full of errors and, as I said before, unwarranted perjoratative comments.

You may be happy to put up with such pap, but when it is presented as backing for an unproven case (i.e. Boeing has got it right, Airbus is wrong), it deserves hammering.

User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2887 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1784 times:

Here's my attempt to defuse what will inevitably turn into another flaming thread from hell.

This is just an editorial piece. The writer is simply trying to paint a scenario that would prove Boeing correct in its assumptions. The writer is not slamming Airbus, Russians or anyone else. We can't even be sure he's an American. Besides, it doesn't matter what nationality the writer is. Businessweek is also a US-owned publication which is refernced in this piece as saying "Boeing is being blown sideways". Nationalism is not part of the equation. Anyone that knows US-owned business publications like the Journal, Fortune, or Businessweek knows that they routinely attack US companies. Where companies are from has nothing to do with anything. This writer probably doesn't give a rat's ass about Boeing or Airbus. He just wants to write a piece that will get noticed.

So let's not turn this into the usual ignorant arrogant American bullshit and just focus on the issue. Is Boeing correct or is Airbus correct? We won't know the answer for 8 or 10 or even 25 years. Simple as that.

User currently offlineAA-SAN From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

I just love listening to adults sound like total fools arguing over something as stupid as this!!! Keep up the good work, and I'll keep on laughing  

User currently offlineShinseki From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1785 times:


I can't imagine what's worse...putting up with your tedious drivel another minute or devoting a life to putting together balanced international conferences (i.e. free vacations for airline execs)

Feel free to take up your greivance with the WSJ itself. I don't particularly agree with the piece either but I do recognise the right of the newspaper and its author to print it, however biased.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

If you think informed comment and the expression of a desire for balanced reportage is tedious drivel I suggest you go back to the wonderland where you live (where airline execs treat conferences as holidays) and continue to revel in the ignorance you so obviously enjoy.

When I see an informative, balanced and productive argument from you, supported by facts and references I will treat your posts with some respect. Until then I will assume you are just another nerd haunting forums like this for an argument.

User currently offline2381983 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1713 times:


User currently offlineLowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

I just finished reading this thread, and PhilB, let me put it to you this way: You are doing the exact same thing! So PhilB, 'when I see an informative, balanced and productive argument from you, supported by facts and references I will treat your posts with some respect. Until then I will assume you are just another nerd haunting forums like this for an argument.'

User currently offlinePhilly phlyer From United States of America, joined May 1999, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1670 times:


Lowfareair is correct. Read some of your comments above and think about "balanced" and "informative" comments.

In your first or second post, you stated that "US manufacturers have never benefited from the Hub system." I assume that you've never been to Atlanta Hartsfield, Cincinnati, Dallas/Fort Worth, Chicago O'Hare to name a few. Delta and American have some "modest" hubbing operations at these airports at which the use a few of their 737s, 757s, 767s and MD-80s. Continental has fair sized hubs in a few places using the same type fleet. Last time I checked, Northwest, United and US Airways still flew a few 737s, 757s and DC9s out of their hubs. It sounds like the US manufactures have profited a little.

That comment and others that followed did not show much balance. If someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them an "idiot" or "ignorant" as you so delicately put it. It only means they have evaluated the situation differently.

Airbus and Boeing both have made their decisions. Boeing's risk is that it may concede a market that is bigger than it believes. Airbus' risk is that it will invest $12 billion (or more) in R&D in a market that will not be as big and in the process, let the A320/330 lines age another 5 years without significant improvements (all significant R&D will be in the 3XX). Only time will tell who is correct. The fact of the matter is that both manufacturers are loosing out on the fastest growing market (RJs).

Take a Prozac, calm down and get a good nights sleep.

User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (15 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 1630 times:

Lowfare air,

When I was a child of your age, I was taught to treat my elders with respect.

To quote my own riposte back to me and accuse me of not backing my statements with facts and sources proves either that you have read very few of my posts or that you don't understand what you are reading.

Philly phlyer,

As a matter of fact I've been to all the major and many of the minor US hubs, with the exception of Chicago.

You obviously don't know the history of the hub and spoke network.

Whilst Boeings and MDD aircraft obviously fly the trunk sections hub to hub and now fly many of what were the "lighter" spokes, my contention is correct as the aircraft feeding the hubs through the eighties and nineties, with the exception of the odd DC3, CV580, Gulfstream 1 and M4-0-4, (neither of which were ordered of the production line for hub and spoke service) have all been produced outside of North America.

Find a US built aircraft in this lot:

ATR42, ATR72, BAe J31, J41, Casa212, Canadair RJ, DHC6, DHC7, DHC8, EMB110, EMB120, EMB135, EMB145, F27 (Ok the odd Fairchild built version), F28,
SAAB b340, Short 330, Short 360.

These are the aircraft around which the hub and spoke system was built, without which it could never have operated and (Fairchild F27 excepted) not one of them produced a bean for a US airframe manufacturer.

I hope you understood that because, reading the rest of your post, you haven't understood the thread.

It was Shinseki who, a whole two days after joining the forum, called me an idiot in his first post. I have not called him an idiot.

You also don't understand the use of the word ignorance.

To quote the Oxford English Dictionary:
want of knowledge; lack of wisdom; lacking in manners.

It was the last meaning which I used in my post - totally justifiably given the language Shinseki used.

As to your medicinal suggestions, please prove your medical qualifications and I might listen to you, until then, please keep your advice to yourself.

25 Fanoftristars : OK, I want to change the subject a little. PhilB: I have a question for you because I respect you frame of thought and your knowledge of the industry.
26 AA-SAN : PhilB: You have an argument, please exclude the "I'm an adult and you're a child, respect me or else" bull. I have gone out of my way to not check use
27 Post contains images PhilB : Fanoftristars, A very interesting question. BA reckon up to 60% of their longhaul traffic is interlining through Heathrow but a breakdown on which is
28 PhilB : AA-SAN, The post from Lowfareair was extremely rude, innaccurate in its direction and I wouldn't take that type of comment from my 26 year old married
29 Lowfareair : PhilB; If you want me to respect my elders, then respect young-middle age people. Like said before, an editorial is an opinion, not fact. And of cours
30 AA-SAN : PhilB, you completely misunderstood the point of my post. I do agree with you that there are a lot of cheap shots being thrown around here, and most o
31 Fanoftristars : Thanks PhilB for the information and thought. For the record, I have always found your post interesting and factual, that is why I asked you for your
32 Post contains images D L X : 600 hungry passengers may be a slight overexaggeration, but to criticize the point borders on nit-picking. The fact is, there could be 600 passengers
33 PhilB : Lowfareair, Respect from anyone person to another, irrespective of age, is earned. I cannot respect someone who is impolite to the point of offensiven
34 Lowfareair : I didn't mean to come off that way, but when I see stuff like that happen, I get mad. I reread ALL the above posts, and see that there is a little mor
35 PhilB : Thanks Lowfareair, You should keep questioning, there's nothing wrong with that and adults aren't perfect and they do take liberties with younger peop
36 Philly phlyer : I know more than a little about the history of the hub and spoke system and while the commuter aircraft are an important element for the "light spokes
37 PhilB : Philly phlyer, Thanks for being so patronising. As a matter of fact, the routes that now support mid sized aircraft are, (with exceptions where the av
38 Kangar : If Boeing would get up off their arses and build a realistic competitor, it would suit them better. Fragmentation only works for the US, not for Europ
39 Philly phlyer : As to my being patronizing, I'm only taking my lessons from you - Old Jedi Master. As to your assertions, we will continue to disagree, You've made up
40 D L X : For those who think that fracturing only occurs in the USA, let me offer a counterargument. Fracturing is occuring worldwide. Egyptair didn't always f
41 Lowfareair : I agree with DLX in that the success of either can't be measured yet. 6 months ago a lot of people thought that the 753 was a failure, but now they go
42 PhilB : Philly phlyer, Its 1.40 in the morning here and I've just got in. I'm out tomorrow and I wantto answer you in full as you make some interesting points
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...
EAS Update: Big Sky, Mesa Bid For ART, OGS, MSS posted Thu Nov 23 2006 12:06:36 by FCYTravis
Manchester Big Rig Evacuation Exercise posted Wed Nov 22 2006 22:32:11 by Ammunition
EVA Shelved 777-200LR Order, No Big 77F Order .... posted Mon Nov 13 2006 23:47:06 by Jimyvr
New 06/07W Route Map: US Big 3+LH/ Iraqi 1977 posted Mon Nov 13 2006 07:39:56 by Jimyvr
Mair Aims To Expand Big Sky Airlines posted Sun Nov 12 2006 03:54:44 by KarlB737
Big Week For Boeing posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:19:07 by CO738
Big Planes With Small Economy Sections! posted Fri Nov 10 2006 01:15:15 by Vasu
Tomorrow: A Big Day For Angolan Aviation posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:20:53 by JMO-777
Big Lufthansa Sale Nov.1 posted Wed Nov 1 2006 00:58:11 by PHLstudent
Same Price But Big Difference In Service! posted Sat Oct 28 2006 12:14:42 by RootsAir