Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Time For Boeing To Be Bold  
User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1560 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10675 times:

Boeing are under serious threat not only in the VLA market but now also their 777 cash cow. Below is a link to a well writen article by a former Boeing employee and a NASA link where the BWB scale prototype can be seen flying. This former Boeing official argues cogently that Boeing need to develop this aircraft now if they are not to loose the "top end" of the aircraft market that they have enjoyed for so long.
I agree with the article,I know that many will not. Time will be the judge.

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/Rudy071007.pdf



http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/improvingflight/bwb_main.html

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30877 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10665 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The BWB will make a great freighter and will likely first see service in that role - most likely as a USAF "heavy lift" platform to replace the C-5M Galaxy.

If Boeing launches it as a passenger plane - and especially to compete with the A380 - I'm going to be buying EADS stock something fierce.

I do not know why Boeing thinks the market can support 1000 VLAs all of a sudden. I expect it's just marketing BS to try and make the market look so big that airlines feel they need both the A380-800 and the 747-8I, but so far airlines seem to be taking a much more cautious stance and buying only a small number of VLAs and making them all A380-800s.

Even if Boeing can definitively prove that a BWB would whip an A380-800 or -900 across the board in economics and do so in the double-digits, I do not believe they can do so within the next decade, which at that point enough airlines will have committed to the A380 and done so in enough quantity that they will "live with their decision". I just cannot see them - much less their stockholders - writing-off one 11-figure investment just to immediately commit themselves to another.


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10623 times:

The priority after the 787 program should be Y1. I do not see Boeing commiting the resources to build a BWB ahead of Y1 since the airlines have started pushing for a new generation single aisle plane. The VLA market is fragmenting anyway with the 388 the platform of choice for pax and the 748 for freight.

The next battle will be Y1 vs NSR when the engine technology is ready.



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineJTR From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 113 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10592 times:

Before Boeing embarks on any more projects, they need to get the current ones in the pipeline finished. Once 787s are delivered and the 777F and 748 projects are winding down, then we can talk about Y1; Y3 is a long way off.

User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10576 times:

Nobody has yet come up with a compelling solution to the problem of carrying pax in the wings of a BWB - how are you going to ensure you give them a smooth ride? Would I ride in the wings of a BWB? Yes but I would want four point harnesses and no hot drinks anywhere near me. The moment forces will make for a very unpleasant ride if things are anything other than flat calm - any bumps and you will be rising and falling several dozen feet. Might not be so bad if you are sat by a window, but if you arent? Puke bag central. I just do not see a way of solving that problem unless they plan to seat the pax down the centreline - no windows and rows 30 across?

A BWB that big will not be practical on current runways/taxiways/gates due to its collossal wingspan.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineA520 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10396 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4):
Nobody has yet come up with a compelling solution to the problem of carrying pax in the wings of a BWB - how are you going to ensure you give them a smooth ride? Would I ride in the wings of a BWB?

My impression is that the transition between todays aircraft and BWB will not be a one step process but rather a gradual evolution. The wing roots will become longer and the wing thicker with time, while the tube will become "cigar-shaped" with a width limited to may be 3-aisles in the central part before increasing further.

In this way, evacuation solutions will be developed gradually as well. Parallely, flying trajectories will evolve to reduce steep angle change of direction, and passengers will get accustomed to fly further away form windows.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12424 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10372 times:

Planes can turn while staying flat - it's called a skidding turn. I should know - I've done it often enough!  Smile It's just not very elegant nor as efficient as a banked turn. Who knows what ways can be invented to optimise a flat turn, especially with the degree of computer control available these days. Planes don't spend a huge amount of time in turning flight, and the places where turning is needed the most, takeoff and landing, are already done with the cabin secured.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10356 times:

Caling Boeing in trouble doesn't make the BWB any more practical as a passenger aircraft.

Further, the so-called 777 killers are 6-8 years away, and Boeing will have their own 77E replacement shipping by then in the 787-10. Similar to how the 739ER is enough to replace most 757 missions, the 787-10 will do the same for the 77E, which of course does leave room for a more capable smaller Y3 in the far future I suppose.

So what's the concern? That Boeing loses out on the VLA passenger market between now and 2016? Airbus will make zero dollars on VLAs during that period. Zero.

That Boeing will lose out of 77W sales? Possibly, but they've already said they will respond, and basically have until 2017 to deliver that plane. The A346 being first to market didn't really hurt 77W sales, after all.

The most pressing needs at Boeing are to get the 737RS on offer, the 787 flying, and the 748 built.

Getting some impractical BWB design into passenger service is not a pressing issue.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10336 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
- I'm going to be buying EADS stock something fierce.

..I wouldn't be too sure if I were you.. stirthepot ..maybe you can use your hard-earned money on other stocks instead... Wink Like Air Carriers  duck  liar ..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Even if Boeing can definitively prove that a BWB would whip an A380-800 or -900 across the board in economics and do so in the double-digits, I do not believe they can do so within the next decade, which at that point enough airlines will have committed to the A380 and done so in enough quantity that they will "live with their decision". I just cannot see them - much less their stockholders - writing-off one 11-figure investment just to immediately commit themselves to another.

..the article stated 30% better performance on fuel burn alone..that's huge...but I still think we'll be seeing a BWB freighter version first...

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 4):
Nobody has yet come up with a compelling solution to the problem of carrying pax in the wings of a BWB - how are you going to ensure you give them a smooth ride? Would I ride in the wings of a BWB? Yes but I would want four point harnesses and no hot drinks anywhere near me. The moment forces will make for a very unpleasant ride if things are anything other than flat calm - any bumps and you will be rising and falling several dozen feet. Might not be so bad if you are sat by a window, but if you arent? Puke bag central. I just do not see a way of solving that problem unless they plan to seat the pax down the centreline - no windows and rows 30 across?

...I know there was a good discussion regarding this particular problem in the "techops." section..you might want to try it there.

I



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTom12 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 1078 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10304 times:

What is Y1??


Tom



"Per noctem volamus" - Royal Air Force Bomber Squadron IX
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12424 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10295 times:

Quoting Tom12 (Reply 9):
What is Y1??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Y1

[Edited 2007-11-02 09:49:32]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6875 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10141 times:

Reading the article, the author makes a serious misstatement of historical fact in saying that the air force made a large order of KC-135's in 1954. At that time the order was for 25 and Boeing was told in no uncertain terms that those would be the only ones Boeing would ever sell, as Lockheed had won the competition. It wasn't until years later, when Lockheed dropped the ball, that the large order was realized.
As to the prospects for the A380, I do agree that Boeing will answer it eventually, but it should by no means be their top priority. They have the 748 to keep Airbus honest on pricing, even if they never sell another pax model (which I believe they will, although not a lot of them.) The 748F will make the line profitable, and the A380 will not make any money unless the market changes drastically. Things can and do change, and if demand for VLA's picks up Boeing will most likely deal with it; but I do not believe that they should right now.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9984 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I do not know why Boeing thinks the market can support 1000 VLAs all of a sudden. I expect it's just marketing BS to try and make the market look so big that airlines feel they need both the A380-800 and the 747-8I, but so far airlines seem to be taking a much more cautious stance and buying only a small number of VLAs and making them all A380-800s.

I think that the simple answer is that after failing to launch the "old" 747-500, 600 & 700 (concept), Boeing had nothing to go head-to-head against the A380 and therefore chose to frame the market battle into a "P2P" vs "H2H" contest... all the while knowing full well that demand in the VLA category would be real. As the ex-Boeing salesman says...

"Continuing claims by Boeing management about the much better prospects for the 787
vs. the A380, such as those made recently in Bangkok by the Boeing VP of Marketing,
Randy Tinseth, I believe, do not reflect reality and may well do more harm than good to
Boeing's reputation than necessary, because the two aircraft were developed for totally
different markets
.


In addition to the 3 points that the gentleman raises regarding "reversing the trend," he fails to mention the single point that will drastically "reverse the trend" in relatively short order... consolidation - not just in the USA but across borders.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFlysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9850 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 12):
Boeing had nothing to go head-to-head against the A380 and therefore chose to frame the market battle into a "P2P" vs "H2H" contest... all the while knowing full well that demand in the VLA category would be real. As the ex-Boeing salesman says...

The A380 has sold less than 200 units 7 years after its launch. Airbus has stopped trying to determine at what point break-even on the program is going to happen. It is believed to be close to 500 units for that to happen. In the meantime, Boeing has sold 760 of the 787's 1 year before EIS. Who do you think made the right decision?  Yeah sure


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9592 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9816 times:

The article makes some good points and is rather truthful even though it doesn't have any sources or references.

My biggest problem is that the paper is concerned on leading in sales. But it is not concerned about profits. Ok, yes Boeing could build a plane that would trounce the A380, but is it economically feasible? Yes it probably would sell, but the development costs of a blended wing body design are astronomical. Could the costs ever be recovered? I want to see that article take on the financia aspect before I will believe that Boeing needs to build a BWB design. Sure Boeing could win a market, but if it costs the company its solvency, then its not worth it.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9791 times:

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 13):
The A380 has sold less than 200 units 7 years after its launch. Airbus has stopped trying to determine at what point break-even on the program is going to happen. It is believed to be close to 500 units for that to happen. In the meantime, Boeing has sold 760 of the 787's 1 year before EIS. Who do you think made the right decision?

Airbus did! Because they have the biggest plane, and bigger wins. Always. Big grin

All Boeing has done with the 748 is steal the VLA Freighter market right back from Airbus (well, the 777F helped too). Since a large number of the 1000 VLAs over 20 years are going to be F's, sounds like a cost effective plan. And the 748I, though not selling in high numbers, will have orders trickle in eventually (A380 line sells out, 744s get old, what do second tier airlines do then?). Not sure if it's cost effective, but I would assume it will eventually break even. And of course, it does keep A380 margins down, which is one reason the break even keeps going north. If margins were good, it would have stabilized in the 420-450 range.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinePnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2235 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9693 times:

The sonic cruiser isn't dead just because it was before its time. The extra efficency and speed may come about if the projected growth in aviation continues and oil costs continue to escalate.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3393 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9596 times:

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 16):
The sonic cruiser isn't dead

This part is correct, Its not DEAD, its just not actively being developed. Boeing has been reported to still have a small staff keeping at investigating emerging technologies, and to keep running numbers on Speed Vs Cost.

Its a shame that so many look at the fuel burn of the Sonic Cruiser and cry "It would NEVER WORK". Yah the fuel burn per hour was high, but given that it cuts hours and hours off the competitions slow as 3 legged sloths A340 and A330, the overall trip fuel burn wasn't unreasonable. Coupled with the massive savings in every other cost an airline sees when operating a flight, from capital, to crew costs, in the days of $30 a barrel oil it was hands down cheaper to run than the 787, much less the "old" planes it would compete with in the market place.

Of course, Premium travel tanked with recession taking the bottom of that market away at the same time the high end was getting murdered by private jets and fractional jets. Fuel prices doubled. Risk in the industry went from "high" to "insane", which is why the sonic cruiser was placed in holding for a conventional low risk plane that is hands down better than the old stuff in ANY market, not just the good ones. Or in the ones where fuel costs were a foot note compared to capital and crew costs.


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9544 times:

Quoting Flysherwood (Reply 13):
The A380 has sold less than 200 units 7 years after its launch.

Who do you think made the right decision?

Watch yourself.. I got banned for 2 weeks for saying something just like that last year...



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 35
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 18):
Watch yourself.. I got banned for 2 weeks for saying something just like that last year...

He shouldn't get banned but on the one hand his post is "flame bait" as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post that he is supposedly responding to, and on the other hand makes his post on its own makes no sense.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineFlysherwood From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 1115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9298 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 19):
He shouldn't get banned but on the one hand his post is "flame bait" as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post that he is supposedly responding to, and on the other hand makes his post on its own makes no sense.

How so? I responded to your comment about the P2P vs. H2H. You did say Boeing had nothing to respond to the A380, didn't you? And how is it flame bait when I am stating the truth of the situation?


User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9278 times:

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 19):
He shouldn't get banned but on the one hand his post is "flame bait" as it has absolutely nothing to do with my post that he is supposedly responding to, and on the other hand makes his post on its own makes no sense.

I disagree.. The first post comments that Boeing needs to develop a VLA soon, or loose its market edge. Boeing years ago looked into this with the 747-500 (as you noted) and saw no market. Flysherwood just commented on what looks to be true so far, after nearly 7 years of sales the total for the A380 is only 169. Far below the break even numbers.. far below expectations, below what could be called a sucess and as for right now, Boeing looks to have made the right choice.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 462 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8445 times:

If Boeing takes their time and makes certain that the 787 is "right", they will have a "cash cow" that will rival the 777 and the 73NG for many years to come.

It will be a game changer.

The A380 is the new "queen of the skies" and will sell well now that it is finally in service. I see another 1,000 sales over the next decade.

The 748i is simply an extension of the 748f program, just a way to find an additional 100 ships to ease their way past "break even".

But the real "cash cow" battle is the successors to the 73NG and A32X narrow bodies.


User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7370 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8444 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 21):
Far below the break even numbers.. far below expectations

Why do people assume that Airbus would sell even the original break even figure of 270 prior to entry into service? 169 orders now with 20 or so more to be firmed up makes it around 190 sold in 7 years i.e. 27 a year. Even if they only garner 15 A380 sales for 15 years would mean a minium production run of 415 units. The fact that the only cancellations have been induced by Airbus not willing to develop a freighter at this time, and deferral by other airlines until such times as either their network or hub airport is sufficiently developed for it suggests that the looks to be an aircraft for the short to medium term, with several repeat orders already from some launch customers, and with the "green issues" coming into play, even the long-term as some tree-huggers may perfer to see 3 "smaller" aircraft be replaced by 1 A380-900, even on routes which frequency ought to be the determing factor on a routes success.


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8324 times:

When u say Boeing need to be bold.... would an all composite aircraft (or mostly all composite!) be being bold?? I mean the 787 i think is a first in this area (please tell me if im wrong- the area would be in commercial transport also.)
You also have to remember that Boeings mission statement is not the same as Airbus.

I do beleive that Boeings idea is to fly point to point so that people can travel without having to stop- ala 787... 767 replacement but also has the range to open up a lot of routes that would of been too expensive to use a large aircraft which would be needed for the range.
Airbus have the idea of Hub to Hub travel.... So do to this you want to move as much as possible- hence the A380. the A380 can move masses and then people can connect on using feeder aircraft (such as the A320 family)

Both companies have completely different ideas... however that does not mean that they will also try and pinch sales from each other....
My own thoughts here is actually Airbus wanted to prove that they could make a complete double decker aircraft that could compete squarely in the face of the 744 and be better!! They have suceeded with this in the A380... Will we see Boeing make a bigger, better aircraft??? I dont think so but i would expect that there will be a new VLA from boeing maybe in the next decade but lets get the projects in the hangars and drawingboards off into the air before they tackle this...


25 SkyyMaster : I will probably be flamed for being one of those "tree huggers", but IMO, A & B ought to at least be giving some semblance of research into alternativ
26 D328 : A380 is not ane will never be the new Queen, the B747 will always be the Queen of the skies.
27 EMBQA : Because most people can add. Let's say I'm a company and I'm going to produce a thing called the 'Widget'. It will take me several years to design an
28 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Your right..its probably impossible for Boeing to have built an "A380-esque plane....I guess Boeing doesn't really have any experience in the VLA dep
29 Stitch : Not entirely true. The 747-500 and 747-600 did have interest from the Asian carriers, however when the "Asian Financial Flu" set in, those carriers n
30 Rwessel : Ugh. That'll just make things worse. Instead of a gentle transient vertical motion, you'll subject the passengers to a sustained horizontal accelerat
31 Tdscanuck : They're under some threat in the passenger VLA market, although the size of that market is quite small compared to the midsize widebody so, from a bu
32 Planemaker : If you truly think that the 787 is a response to the A380 than you know very little about commercial aviation. If that is the case, then your post wa
33 Mestrugo : Say WHAT!? The Connie is the real queen of the skies, sonny!
34 Scbriml : Well, the airlines, press and general public would tend to disagree with you. The A380 will be called the new queen of the skies by many outside the
35 MSYtristar : That's not the correct definition of it, though, so those people would be wrong. The 747 will always be the true "Queen of the Skies". Just because a
36 EBJ1248650 : Isn't it too soon to be even suggesting Airbus's A380 won't hit the break even point? Boeing didn't think the 747 would sell more than 600 units over
37 Abba : - and before that Boeing needs to develop the 7810 and 7811.
38 Buddys747 : It's a totally new aircraft compared to the 744, no wonder. You buy a brand new car, it's going to be better economics than one that's 15+ years old.
39 EMBQA : Then tell us why it can't be...??? and size can not be used as a factor
40 Scbriml : There's no right or wrong about it. The airlines, the press and the public do and will call the A380 the new queen of the skies. You just need to get
41 MSYtristar : I don't have anything to get over my friend. You can't have two "Queen of the Skies". You just can't. I'm sure a new nickname can be bestowed upon th
42 Post contains links and images Scbriml : There's the old one, and now, a new one. Every Queen in history has a successor. Good luck trying to convince the airlines, the press and the public
43 Post contains images MSYtristar : Oh I know. I've seen the press. Just another reason why the media generally doesn't know what they are talking about. Perhaps "Queen of the Skies 2"
44 EMBQA : ...and when the last 'Queen' goes to Marana for storage, it will be a Northwest DC-9 crew flying them home.
45 Planemaker : It should be very obvious to someone with more than a passing interest in commercial aviation. And, furthermore, to say that "size cannot be used as
46 Jacobin777 : How about "King of the Skies"? Nothing wrong with that (not even "derogatory" like many here on A.net believe "Whalejet" is)....as there will be new B
47 Tdscanuck : It's not really double in a 747 because all of the rates are slower. Your body only picks up accelerations, not velocities. If you double the radius
48 BravoGolf : Ditto He probably has never seen or heard Connie doing a low pass. Why do a BWB? Get rid of the extra drag and go straight to a flying wing.
49 EMBQA : I'm just not going to go any further with this as we all have our own opinion on this subject and feel strongly about it. I guess time will tell. Will
50 Planemaker : I'm sorry but can't you read? This isn't a 787 vs A380 thread at all.
51 Parapente : Interesting arguements. I guess in truth the die is cast.Boeing did decide to go down the lower risk derivative 748 route and right now who is to say
52 Scbriml : Long-term, yes. Just now, the A330 is doing a very poor impersonation of being dead.
53 Parapente : Quite right re the 330.I assume that Boeing takes the same view to the 777.There is perhaps no rush,but an inevitable end
54 Olle : Sp what will happen with USD 200 for a barrel of oil? We might se this in 7-8 years from now....
55 Post contains images Stitch : But isn't a plane, like a ship, always a lady? I have no emotional attachment to the 747, but why not call the A380 the "Empress of the Skies" becaus
56 D328 : I've seen pics and adore that plane. I had a lapse of judgement for a moment. Connie is the best looking plane ever built. Very elegant, only wish I
57 Post contains images Jacobin777 : It's been a banner year for A330 sales... ugh......I didn't take that into consideration.. ......that being said, never wrong with starting somewhere
58 Post contains links and images Mariner : Usually, yes. But down here, the Australian and New Zealand press sometimes call it "The Big Fella" (fellow), which Sydney ATC gave to it: http://www
59 SEPilot : Your point on the 747 is quite valid, but the difference is that the 747 was introduced near the beginning of the jet age, and offered much better CA
60 OB1504 : People don't assume it, but you have to admit that the A380's sales performance (150+ in 7 years) pales in comparison to the 787's sales performance
61 Tdscanuck : True, but the sales performance of 787's pales in comparison to Cessnas' too. It doesn't really mean anything when you're comparing products built fo
62 OB1504 : When you look at it with regards to which company made the "right" decision (P2P vs H2H), though, the sales totals make it seem like Boeing did.
63 Tdscanuck : I agree with you there. Boeing targeted a segment of the market that's going to pay of a lot more profit in the medium-term than Airbus did. However,
64 Planemaker : What "right" decision? What "decision" did Boeing have?
65 Post contains images Stitch : What "right" decision? What "decision" did Boeing have? With the preface that the following is just an observation, and not intended as a critique, c
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...
Is It Possible For Boeing To Offer B777-300F? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 04:02:56 by AirCanada014
Time For SIA To Get A New Paint Job? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 11:57:24 by JBLUA320
Length Of Time For Miles To Post To A FFacct posted Mon Oct 16 2006 05:37:08 by ASTROJET707
AA/TW Merger:Time For AA To Change The Livery? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 04:44:42 by QantasA330
It's Time For THY To Divorce Worldinfocus! posted Mon Feb 27 2006 18:12:26 by Bahadir
Any Chance For Boeing To Catch Up This Year? posted Fri Jun 29 2001 07:51:21 by United Airline
Is It Possible For Boeing To Offer B777-300F? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 04:02:56 by AirCanada014
When Is It Time For A 732 To Retire? posted Sun Aug 7 2005 02:21:22 by Fpofllflyboi
ITS Time For PIA To Replace Their Ageing Fleet posted Wed May 2 2001 18:48:01 by GF-A330
It's Time For THY To Divorce Worldinfocus! posted Mon Feb 27 2006 18:12:26 by Bahadir
Reasons For Needing To Be At Top Of Standby List.. posted Wed Oct 15 2003 06:44:06 by Zrs70
AA/TW Merger:Time For AA To Change The Livery? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 04:44:42 by QantasA330
When Is It Time For A 732 To Retire? posted Sun Aug 7 2005 02:21:22 by Fpofllflyboi
"Activists" Pushing For ATL To Be Re-named posted Tue Jun 24 2003 05:43:24 by Tu154m
Reasons For Needing To Be At Top Of Standby List.. posted Wed Oct 15 2003 06:44:06 by Zrs70
Time For SIA To Get A New Paint Job? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 11:57:24 by JBLUA320
"Activists" Pushing For ATL To Be Re-named posted Tue Jun 24 2003 05:43:24 by Tu154m
Any Chance For Boeing To Catch Up This Year? posted Fri Jun 29 2001 07:51:21 by United Airline
Time For SIA To Get A New Paint Job? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 11:57:24 by JBLUA320
ITS Time For PIA To Replace Their Ageing Fleet posted Wed May 2 2001 18:48:01 by GF-A330
Any Chance For Boeing To Catch Up This Year? posted Fri Jun 29 2001 07:51:21 by United Airline
AA/TW Merger:Time For AA To Change The Livery? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 04:44:42 by QantasA330
ITS Time For PIA To Replace Their Ageing Fleet posted Wed May 2 2001 18:48:01 by GF-A330
AA/TW Merger:Time For AA To Change The Livery? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 04:44:42 by QantasA330