In plain and simple words, Boeing didn't pay attention to competition and also didn't care about it.
The world is changing very quickly but Boeing enormus and gigantic dimension makes it not easy to have quick moves and decisions.
The question here is not about the aircrafts wich are good ofcourse, but a question of management.
I know some of our american friend will say that is not fair to compete with the subsized Airbus but instead of ALWAYS saying that you should come with ideas on how to improve Boeing and stop the "let's kick Airbus, ah ah ah"
October 30, 1999 [Posted by Hmmmm....]:
Boeing doesn't have the initiative, the spark, the chutzpah, they once did. Instead of being led by bold engineers with a vision of the future, as they once were in the golden years, 1955-1970, Boeing is now led by timid shareholders, short-sighted executives, and sharp-penciled accountants with a vision only for the quarterly report. Rather than yesterday's vanguard of American ingenuity and industry, today's Boeing is nothing but the rotting carcass of its former self, existing day to day from past glories, squeezing out a meager living on the scraps that Airbus leaves behind, hoping to sell yesterday's model yet again tomorrow. The once great juggernaut of commercial aviation is now fearfully reticent to take the next step, wallowing in the constant indecisiveness reserved for those with so little to gain and so much to lose. Bill Allen is rolling in his grave.
October 30, 1999 [Posted by Jetpilot]:
The stretched 747 just may be the final nail in the coffin. What a joke. They couldn't think of anything better? (I personally like that one )
I also believe there were some good one's about the impossibility of Boeing working on secret project (which turned out to be their .95M jet). If someone could post the link to that one, I'd be most obliged.
It's amazing what we all thought two years ago and how much we got right and how much we got wrong.
If there are any more nastalgic posts that qualify, please post them.
I've been wondering where Phil Blinkhorn is lately. I miss his posts. He was in aviation consulting I think and brought quite a vantage-point to the debate. Thanks for posting that trip down memory lane.
Amazing how these all seem to -quite- apply lately too..(G)
I happen to think that UAL is a great airline. It is 51% employee owned, unlike most other airlines. That means management can't do anything with out the employees approving it first. I think that there was a merger between Continental and UAL (or UAL and some other airline) but it didn't happen because the employees didn't like the idea. I just read about it in the paper.
About all those foreign airlines that you folks compare to UAL (IE: British Airways), remember that they are government owned. That means they can afford to have their aircraft sit and burn up fuel on the runway and give you all first class service in coach.
I highly resent any comments about the crew's professionalism. Have we all forgotten the crash of UAL232 in Sioux City, Iowa back in 1989?
I also want to thank most of you for bringing up these comments. However, instead of complaining here, why don't you send a letter via US mail to their company. A paper letter holds a lot of weight, although it doesn't seem it. That way they know where they messed up and I do believe they will try to rectify their mistake.
Ah... how naive I was back then. Now I wouldn't even begin to recommend writing to an airline!
I had quite a battle with Hmmm... last year in Tech/Ops when he accused me of being a phony pilot...I haven't seen him post here since I scanned copies of my logbook and lisence for everyone to see. Unfortunatley that one is deleted...probably for the better though...
However, my favourite post of all time came from the Non-Aviation section. This silly comment caused an en-masse coming out process of the members on this forum. Before that, gay issues were rarely if ever discussed.