Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Bristles Over CSeries  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3145 posts, RR: 10
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 12466 times:

An interesting situation to say the least. Bombardier wants to go after B737 customers. Boeing wants to counter but has its hands full with problems with its newest aircraft the B787 and B748 to put it briefly. Had Boeing saved the the B717 that would have been a possibility however then that would have cut into their B737 sales.

Who can best provide the need for this size of aircraft in your expert opinion. Some info below to assist you with your thoughts.


Courtesy: Montreal Gazette

Boeing Bristles Over CSeries

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Bomba...g+exec+suggests/2079254/story.html
______________________________________________________________________________

Courtesy: The Brandon Sun

Boeing Vows To Put Up Fight From Bombardier But Noncommittal About New Plane

http://www.brandonsun.com/story.php?story_id=162514
____________________________________________________________________________

Courtesy: USA Today

Bombardier To Battle For 737 Customers

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...em.aspx?type=blog&ak=68500599.blog

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDerik737 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 333 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 12312 times:

Magill said that Boeing’s 737-600 series managed to sell only about 69 planes and was in the 120-125 seat range, the same niche as the CSeries, implying Bombardier’s plane would be of little interest to airlines.

This guy is the director of marketing for Boeing commercial aircraft?  confused  Perhaps he should go back and study the economics of the -600.


User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3847 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 12144 times:



Quoting Derik737 (Reply 1):
Magill said that Boeing’s 737-600 series managed to sell only about 69 planes and was in the 120-125 seat range, the same niche as the CSeries, implying Bombardier’s plane would be of little interest to airlines.

Hilarious! Thats like BBD saying "nobody wants 50 seaters, ours stopped selling" If someone comes out with a 50 seater with half of the operating costs of the CR2.

I understand a guy from Boeing trying to defend his company, but I dont think its a secret that the 736 economics .....well they suck.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20365 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12106 times:

lf it weren't were so tragic to watch it happening to such a formerly unassailable company, it'd almost be funny. The guys at Bombardier must be having a ball. The great Boeing, suddenly unable to produce aircraft, is unable to compete with the likes of Bombardier.

According to the article:

Quote:
Consequently, some analysts say, the company has its hands full and cannot afford, financially or logistically, to turn its attention before 2020 to refreshing its 737 lineup to battle directly with the CSeries, which is scheduled to be delivered to airlines in 2013.

This means that the reason Boeing isn't doing the 737RS is because they can't afford to, not because they can't.

I think a lot of us were predicting that Bombardier and Embraer would move on the 737 and here is the beginning of it.

The question is whether any of these "RJ" manufacturers has the capital to start R&D on a 150-250 seat plane.


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12063 times:

I would go further and say the C130 can compete with the A318/19 and the B737-6/7.
The C130 in high desity can have 145pax. U2s A319 have 156.
http://www.nowisthefuture.com/En/
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/eas...s/easyJet_Airlines_Airbus_A319.php

If you do not need the range of the A319 the C130 may be a better offering for many airlines and is likely to be a bit cheaper to purchase.
The biggest question to the airlines will be "which aircraft can I make the most money with?" Or can I make more money with 20 C130 than 18 A319s or B737? etc?

There are 3 things that shape an aircraft's performance; weight efficient, aero efficiency (L/D) and engine efficency (SFC).
When considering the C-Series generally to the A & B offering I would consider the following points

Weight efficiency
Is likely to be better due to CFRP wing and smaller fuselage surface area. Althought ngine and support structure will be heavier.
The CSeries aircraft contain 70% advanced materials comprising 46% composite materials and 24% aluminium-lithium.

Aero efficient
Most likely similar (within a few %) to A319 and B737-7

Engine efficient
Most likely to be significantly better. >10% <15%

If I was Jimmy or Tommy I'd take the C130 very seriously. It is going to nibble at your bottom end!!!


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13552 posts, RR: 100
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 12017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the montreal link:
"But Richard Aboulafia, a consultant with Washington’s Teal Group, said that once the 787 is up and running – by 2016, for instance "

Even I'm not that pessimistic on the 787!  Wink
Ok, kidding asside, I assume the article notes that until the 789 is mature, Boeing has too little in engineering resources to launch a new type. 2016 is later than I would think, but then again, I never though the 788 would be as delayed as it has been.

Quoting KarlB737 (Thread starter):
Had Boeing saved the the B717 that would have been a possibility however then that would have cut into their B737 sales.

 no  The 717 wasn't selling even before Boeing bougth the line. But the 717 lacks the range of the C-series which is part of what hurt the 717 (lack of transcon range). Only my opinion... as nice as the 717 is... it is too old of a design to be competitive.

The E-jets would have killed off the 717.

Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 2):
Hilarious! Thats like BBD saying "nobody wants 50 seaters, ours stopped selling" If someone comes out with a 50 seater with half of the operating costs of the CR2.

 checkmark  Except they're only talking a 20% fuel burn reduction and some MX cost reduction.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
I think a lot of us were predicting that Bombardier and Embraer would move on the 737 and here is the beginning of it.

The question is whether any of these "RJ" manufacturers has the capital to start R&D on a 150-250 seat plane.

 checkmark  However, the 150 to 250 seat range would force an 'allergic' reaction by both Boeing and Airbus. I think the C-series should be grown to a proper 150 seater (2-class) wtih transcon range. But going heat to head with the 738 or A320 would be a battle of attrition Bombardier and Embraer would not survive (today).

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well the 737 and A320 families are trying to span a very wide range, so it's no surprise they're not perfectly optimized for each role and are susceptible to new models.

BBD didn't stretch the CRJ frame to 110-130 seats because even at 100 seats it's stretched pretty thin (based on the lack of sales). Instead they started with a brand new design that wasn't weighed down by the legacy of the CR-200.

If Boeing and Airbus do decide to stay in the 125 or less market with their new models, they will take into account the fact that they now face real competition in that market segment.


And seriously, what are Airbus and Boeing salesfolks supposed to say? "Yup, our A318/736 are overweight pieces of crap. Only an idiot would keep buying them over the new Bombardier and Embraer products. We're just lucky customers like SK and F9 were stupid enough to buy them. Man, we really pulled the wool over their eyes! What n00bs! We laughed ourselves silly all night at the bar after we conned them into buying the planes!"  Silly


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11965 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
The question is whether any of these "RJ" manufacturers has the capital to start R&D on a 150-250 seat plane

The Chinese do. They want to call it the C919.
A more fitting name might be C319 - Chinese 319!!!

The problem with COMAC is I believe they have the technology to design a paper airplane, they have more than the capital to fund it, they are more than capable at manufacturing to a drawing, but they don't have a good recorder at doing the complex integrated engineering industrialization work.
But then the west have A380 & B787?


User currently offlineOlympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 11799 times:

As much as I dislike the phrase "small is beautiful", when applied to civil aviation today it may be the reality.
The paradigm has changed. With fuel costs, airfare, shrinking economy, etc, there will be less passengers taking to the skies.
Boeing, and Airbus must get back into the +100 seat market with a new aircraft. Light, efficient, spacious, and loaded with new technologies.
Otherwise, they will lose significant market share in the civil aviation market.



Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8776 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 11662 times:

The CSeries is something that Boeing is not going to directly compete with.

The 737 is (slightly) compromised by the fact that it is very old, 6 abreast and scalable to almost 200 seats. That way, it will never be the perfect 120 seater, by 2010+ standards of technology and optimums.

Bombardier is trying to build the perfect 120-140 seater. It is what the 737 used to be, but (almost unwittingly) no longer is. 5-abreast is, and has always been, slightly more efficient for carrying under 150 passengers. The C-series will bring that into full view.

And there is nothing Boeing can really do about it.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20365 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 11430 times:



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 5):

checkmark However, the 150 to 250 seat range would force an 'allergic' reaction by both Boeing and Airbus.

With what money? They can't afford to start a new project now. They have two projects they can't seem to get into the air and all those projects' bills, penalties, write-downs, and taxes. BCA isn't exactly raking in the doughl at this very time. I'm not familiar with the Airbus cash situation, but I have to think that if they had the resources to build an entirely new A320RS, they'd be trying to push it as hard as possible.

E or B should jump at this opportunity and try to sweep the market, which is quite large, out from under the feet of the giants. Back in 1952 there was enough market for more than two major airliner manufacturers, so why isn't there today?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11410 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing is not nearly as fiscally crippled as some people seem to dearly wish.  sarcastic 

As for Bombardier, they're struggling to get the market to buy the C110 and C130. And they've been struggling to get the market to buy it for years - including when Boeing and Airbus were both securing 73G and A319 orders by the hundreds. So I don't exactly see the market exactly jumping at a C150, C170 and C190.


User currently offlineBravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11343 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
As for Bombardier, they're struggling to get the market to buy the C110 and C130

That's cuz no one can buy a C110 or C130 from Bombardier....but they can buy a CS100 or a CS300 if they like ; )

Kidding aside, I think if you compare the order books for all of the OEMs for the last year or so you'd find that customers are scarce all over for all aircraft programs. So perhaps the CSeries is an also ran, or perhaps it truly is the next generation. But assessing its commercial success (or lack thereof) in a world where no one is buying anything really isn't the right benchmark.


User currently offlineFLALEFTY From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 488 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11329 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
With what money? They can't afford to start a new project now. They have two projects they can't seem to get into the air and all those projects' bills, penalties, write-downs, and taxes. BCA isn't exactly raking in the doughl at this very time.

Good point!

As for BCA, when Boeing bought MD, it seemed that the MD management scheme took over at BCA. That is, no more "bet the company" on a clean-sheet design, like the 777. The 787 and 748 programs are being run like cost-plus government contracts. If the BCA programs go off cost or schedule, just write it down, and take a quick hit on Wall Street, while booking guaranteed profits from their (STL-based) defense segment.

Okay, some of you will argue that the 787 qualifies as a "bet the company" design. But I challenge that because the BCA has parceled-out the financial and technical risk to multiple (mostly-foreign), risk-sharing partners. Plus, too much is made of the technical risks of building an all-composite airframe (see Burt Rutan) .

BCA and Airbus have become fat, slow-moving bureaucracies. It's time for new competitors to come in and shake things up.


User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11288 times:

Where are the nostalgia folks (you know, those who wish the L-1011 or DC-8s were still in service....) wishing that Boeing would simply put the 737-100 back online with a few avionics upgrades. Perfect C-Series competitor.... Maybe Lufthansa would buy a few.


smrtrthnu
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11272 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Bravo1six (Reply 12):
But assessing its commercial success (or lack thereof) in a world where no one is buying anything really isn't the right benchmark.

Which is why I noted that Bombardier has been trying to sell these planes for much of this decade. They launched the C110 and C130 in March 2005, but couldn't generate any real interest from customers. Meanwhile, Boeing and Airbus were selling 73Gs and A319s by the cart-load.

So Bombardier had to shelve the program in January 2006. And on the shelf it sat for close to two years until they finally decided to try again in February of 2008. And even then, they had to wait until June to get a sniff of interest from LH who, after leaving them hanging for nine months, finally decided to actually order the plane - though only half as many as they had originally intended. At that time, they became the CS100 and CS300.


User currently offlineBravo1six From Canada, joined Dec 2007, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11193 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
And even then, they had to wait until June to get a sniff of interest from LH who, after leaving them hanging for nine months, finally decided to actually order the plane - though only half as many as they had originally intended.

The LOI with LH was for 30 firm, 30 options. The firm order is for 30 firm, 30 options. LH ordered exactly the number of aircraft that it said it intended to order.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9549 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
This means that the reason Boeing isn't doing the 737RS is because they can't afford to, not because they can't.

 checkmark 

If anyone wonders what the side effects of screwing up A380 and B787 are, it is that A and B don't have the resources they were planning on having to launch new programs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 9358 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

And yet both companies somehow manage to still bring in ten to eleven figures a quarter in revenues.

I am confident that both Boeing and Airbus could fund a narrowbody replacement if they desired to. They just don't desire to because they're not influenced by the same things fans are.

It's not like they have to withdraw USD10 billion / €10 billion in cash from their bank account the moment the board approves the program. And both companies credit ratings remain strong enough that they are able to secure loans on the commercial market at attractive rates.

Both the companies and their customers have said they need serious, double-digit improvements across the board from these new families before they will launch and order them. JL wants a 50% improvement over their current 737NGs! Many others are talking 25%.

And when you consider all the improvements Boeing has been extracting from the 737NG the past few years and the new improvements Airbus has in the pipeline for the A320, both families already are / will soon be percentage points better, which only sets the bar for their replacements higher.


User currently offlineHawkerCamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8907 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
It's not like they have to withdraw USD10 billion / €10 billion in cash from their bank account the moment the board approves the program. And both companies credit ratings remain strong enough that they are able to secure loans on the commercial market at attractive rates.

Also manufacture nowadays and perhaps more so in the future don't provide all the investment themselves. They take risk sharing partners, RSP, who contribute to R & D and industrialization.

I think it would be very interesting to know how much of the B787 investments came from Boeing cash or BCA loans. It is quite conceivable that the B787 has received >1/2 its development and industrializationns costs from the RSP and part of what Boeing would term RSP investment is in fact Japanese and Italian government subsidies.

Airbus traditionally provides ~1/3, takes ~1/3 from governments and ~1/3 from RSP.


User currently onlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

Magill said yesterday his company would defend its B737 series in that segment fiercely against the CSeries and any other intruder. Airbus makes the same claims about its A320 line of smaller aircraft

MegaLOL
This guy needs a reality check. Sounds exactly the same like the Boeing guy who once said of A320 at 1985 Paris Air Show that they will fiercely defend 737 against it and they will make sure the market refuses it after four years. I'm so happy Boeing failed there.

73G is a solid product, but once CS300 is proven, it will become endangered species. Airbus is in a better position this time - it is easier to hang GTF under A319s wing. Boeing needs to act. NOW.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20365 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8468 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
And yet both companies somehow manage to still bring in ten to eleven figures a quarter in revenues.

How does that compare to their expenses? There are 10 figures in that $1,000,000,000 they just wrote down for the 748.

As I said, a few hundred million here, a billion there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8216 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21):
How does that compare to their expenses? There are 10 figures in that $1,000,000,000 they just wrote down for the 748.

The vast bulk of monies for the 787 and 747-8 programs have already been spent.

Also, much of the monies being written down well be used to reduce Boeing's tax burden so when it comes time to pay that future tax bill, it's going to be a good bit smaller, so less cash will need to be withdrawn from the bank account to pay it.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8159 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
BCA isn't exactly raking in the doughl at this very time. I'm not familiar with the Airbus cash situation, but I have to think that if they had the resources to build an entirely new A320RS, they'd be trying to push it as hard as possible.

But I think you're forgetting that Airbus and Boeing are selling loads of A320s and 737s even with this 'looming threat' of Bombardier's CSeries and Embraers E-Jets. Boeing and Airbus stopped selling high numbers of 110-130 seaters not because there was a better alternative, but because the 150-200 seater 320 and 737 family aircraft are more efficient per seat. How many 110-130 seaters does the market need? Naturally Boeing and Airbus are going to be on the defense, but it will be a while yet before Airbus and Boeing need to worry about the A320 and 737. After all, what engine technology is available, or will be available, in the 150+ size segment that A and B couldn't adapt to their planes to hold off would-be competitors until A and B can produce something significantly better than the A320 and 737??



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineOlympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8159 times:

Funding can be obtained. However, human resource is not so easy. It is not like there are aerospace engineers waiting to be assigned to projects.
Both A&B need to develop the +100 seat aircraft in the near future or lose market share.



Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
25 Stitch : I doubt the GTF alone will suddenly put the A319 on equal footing with the C Series based on what the pundits on this board are claiming for the C Se
26 EA772LR : This is a critical comment IMHO. If this is true, then this surely buys the 73G and A319 time to fend off threats on the market. For operators with m
27 DocLightning : That is true, but money is still being spent at breakneck speed as they rush to get the 787 in the air and yet the 787 has yet to produce a cent of r
28 Manfredj : I'm wondering why people don't get the grasp of this. It's not the end of the world for Boeing and doesn't mean they can't afford new endeavors. As m
29 DocLightning : Because it's not just a small delay in the 748. It's also a 3 year delay in the 787 and now, rumors that there might be a FURTHER delay because the f
30 Post contains images Stitch : I must commend Matt Cawby on his Photoshop skills then.    Also, the 787 must be generating some revenue since airlines need to make deposits and B
31 Kaitak : Boeing has said in the past (indeed, just as Airbus has done recently) that the replacement for the 737 (or A320) will be split into two types. Now, B
32 KarlB737 : Hey, I originally thought wouldn't it be nice to see a re-engined B737-200 to fit the size need. But I am probably the only one that would like to se
33 DCA-ROCguy : A key issue that hasn't come up yet is how scope will affect any of these manufacturers' plans. Since the retirement of true two-class, 100-seat mainl
34 Post contains links and images Mrocktor : No, it was not a possibility then and it would be much less of a possibility now. The 717 was sold at (or under) cost prior to being discontinued bec
35 DocLightning : YICK! A 727, sure, but a 737-200? The flying jellybean! Yes, but the revenue that it is generating must be falling far short of what was planned at t
36 Kaitak : I don't see why; maybe it might require some competition clearance, but at the end of the day, it's two manufacturers coming together to sell their p
37 TSS : Hmmm... announcing the Boeing-Bombardier C717-III/300! "BB713" for short, of course.
38 DocLightning : Isn't that "agreeing not to compete?"
39 Stitch : In 2001, Boeing teamed up with Sukhoi and Ilyushin to work on a possible joint regional jet design. They also helped Sukhoi develop the RRJ. So teamin
40 Flighty : That is exactly what they did. Watch if Boeing builds a new 130 seat optimal aircraft. I doubt they will. I agree with you that Bombardier should hav
41 MSNDC9 : Or Airbus for that matter which is why BBD should pounce on the opportunity to throw a 16+(120-124) seat CS500 on the table to see if any smaller net
42 Par13del : I thought the same thing as I read the post in the thread, you beat me to it. UP would then be able to upgrade those that they presently have in serv
43 BMI727 : If Boeing is really going to replace the 737 with one airframe, something will have to give. Either they settle for less than optimal performance on
44 EA772LR : I agree that Boeing will have to sacrifice one end or the other, and in this case with all of the new competition in the lower end of the market, and
45 Par13del : So when those competitors in that market decide to move up - which is the only way for them to go after they perfect their product - Boeing and Airbu
46 EA772LR : No but neither Boeing nor Airbus have the capital to tackle the 110-250 seat markets. There is no hole in the 100-150 seat market, there is in the 20
47 Eightball : With Airbus and Boeing busy with their current widebody projects, this seems to present an interesting window of opportunity for Bombardier and Embrae
48 Antoniemey : Not if it's an actual joint venture with Boeing Engineers working with Bombardier Engineers and the final assembly locations of the different sizes j
49 F9Animal : I miss the 717, and wish it had continued. However, it is what it is. I think the 737 is hard to really compete against. Boeing continues to make it a
50 Woodsboy : The 717 would have undoubtedly been able to hold its own had there been interest from Boeing to address a few issues that now seem to be pretty simple
51 413x3 : he works in marketing, thats the job area of people with no actual skill set like engineering, research, planning, etc.
52 Stitch : There was a very simple way to save the 717. Have airlines place orders for it. But they didn't. And when Boeing did kick around ideas for larger and
53 AirNz : Yeah, so?......and note that engineers, researchers, planners etc. don't have much skill in actually being able to do much else either (selling an ai
54 Flighty : So you think Boeing would do just fine if they issue press releases that are a bunch of baloney, and don't tailor Boeing's product line for actual cu
55 Beeweel15 : Well they can dust off the plans and give it a try again.
56 Post contains links and images Eightball : I wonder whether or not the 717-300 would have been a more efficient performer than the MD-90. I say this because SV began receiving their MD-90's aro
57 Lightsaber : Nitpick, the MD-90 did not meet performance goals. Hence its poor sales record. The wing loading was too high for efficient operation. I'm trying to
58 Eightball : I see. Well, that further explains why SV is now replacing their MD-90 fleet with an A320 fleet.
59 Kaitak : Could you explain this a little more? I'm afraid I don't understand the link.
60 BMI727 : I don't think that Boeing was too disappointed about dropping it, but the airlines made it awfully easy for them. AA kind of had themselves in a corn
61 DocLightning : It's his job to know it all, AND it's his job to sell it. And that is a skill that few engineers have. I guess if it were that way. But the way the O
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, Boeing Clash Over Jumbo Freighters posted Fri Jul 21 2006 17:35:47 by NYC777
Boeing's Victory Over MDD, Lockheed - Inevitable? posted Sun Jun 18 2006 06:55:57 by AerospaceFan
Boeing Flys Over On Evening Of 9-11-2001 posted Thu May 4 2006 05:02:26 by L1329II
Boeing Rolling Over Airbus In Orders posted Thu Apr 27 2006 20:58:37 by MrComet
Malaysia Airlines Boeing 747 Over Climbing? posted Mon Aug 8 2005 04:42:46 by Sepang
Boeing 747 Over DAB, Help posted Sat Jul 17 2004 01:10:43 by HaveBlue
Airbus And Boeing Argue Over Production Rates posted Mon Jul 22 2002 16:27:00 by Singapore_Air
Airbus Vs. Boeing: Rumble Over Tokyo posted Fri Mar 23 2001 22:44:43 by Cruising
Boeing Wins Over Airbus In 2000 posted Mon Jan 29 2001 17:25:11 by Singapore_Air
Boeing Strike Over, Launch Of New Plane Expected posted Fri Mar 17 2000 21:31:20 by DeltaAir