First Class From Switzerland, joined Jan 2000, 83 posts, RR: 0 Posted (15 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 980 times:
Let's talk about Boeings product strategy:
Boeing seems to be a typical American company: the only thing they have in mind are the quarterly results. So they try to optimize their balance sheets to satisfy Wall Street. Nobody thinks about a clear product strategy.
Or why did they develop a B-737NG instead of developing a completely new 777-style narrowbody aircraft? They were lucky to secure some large orders from US majors. But there is no bright prospect for these aircraft in the future.
Why did they develop the B-767-400? Because they could secure orders from DL and CO in order to satisfy the analysts for a couple of days. No orders followed up to now because nobody wants to invest in old technology.
Then you have the 717. This aircraft is completely out of any commonality with the other Boeing aircraft.
The 747 again lacks of any commonality with other Boeing aircraft. And they once again want to upgrade this old bird!
Boeing seems to make the same mistake McDonnell Douglas did in the past: They only try to satisfy their short-sighted investors and completely forget to invest in the future, e.g. building up a product line with high commonality.
If Boeing don’t change it’s strategy towards a longterm optic, their market share will further diminish and I expect it to be around 30% in five years time.
Twotter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (15 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Boeing did not get to be where it is by being stupid. They also do not give away their airplanes. History has shown that their airplanes will give good service for a long life. I think Airbus has a long way to go in that respect.
Twotter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 841 times:
The past is something you build on. You use it to improve your future. You have to build an airplane that is going to last and sorry to say it, but I just don't see the airbus lasting the way a boeing does.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4728 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (15 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 843 times:
Gee this doesnt sound like a bias posting from an airbus fan now does it??
73NG- 100's for orders from SW,AA,CO and DL and more
764-decent amount of orders from CO and DL
717 orders are starting to pick up from AT and TWA
See as much of a suprise as this may seem boeing is NOT stupid. they are just the oppositeesp i the way that they are not gonna follow Airbus and make a full 2nd deck 747, they have all the plans done but seem like they are just gonna wait it out and see how the A3XX does.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Sonic From Lithuania, joined Jan 2000, 1670 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (15 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 839 times:
I think that Boeing's strategy is very good:
B717: It's a plane for very short distances, and very cheap. But its passenger capacity is medium (not like SAAB or ATR planes). This is a new product, it haven't any competitors (SAAB, ATR is too small but A318/19/20/21 and 737 is medhaul planes (they are more expensive)). B717 is useful for medium density very short distances (Berlin-Warshaw).
B737: It's a medium passenger capacity plane for medium range distances. All airlines (except airlines which use all-Airbus strategy) have this planes (small airlines too). B737 is useful for medium density medium distances (Madrid-London).
B747: It's a huge longhaul plane with very big passenger capacity. All major airlines have it (airlines, which use all-Airbus strategy included!!!). It's the best Boeing's plane without competitors in all the world. Airbus didn't made any planes with very big passenger capacity like this. B747 is useful for transatlantic big density flights (Paris-Detroit).
B757: It's large passenger capacity medhaul plane. It's bigger than B737. In USA it is very popular, because all flights density in this country is big. In Europe most medhaul flights density are medium, and B737 is most useful here. B757 is useful on high density medhaul flights (Los Angeles-Dallas).
B767: It's large passenger capacity longhaul plane. Capacity is like B757, but it range is longer. It's smaller than 747 and most popullar transatlantic plane in large density (but smaller than 747) flights. All small countries airlines, which want to start the transatlantic flights, use it. This plane is cheaper than other Boeing's longhaul planes and it's very good for small airlines. B767 is useful for large density transatlantic flights (Warshaw-New York).
B777: It's large passenger capcity longhaul plane. You can compete it whith B767, but B777 is better. And more expensive too. It's more comfortable, and its range is bigger too. B777 is A340 competitor, but 777 is better. B777 is useful for large density transatlantic flights (Berlin-New York)
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (15 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 821 times:
While you raise some interesting points,I feel you are looking at this from a clinical "charts and graphs" point of view. "New","fly by wire" and all these other buzzwords do not necessarly equate to a better airplane. Technology (such as it is defined for self serving purposes in a debate) for the sake of itself is not a panacea. This is the kind of thinking that gives us A/C like the F100. I can define technology broad enough to say _all_ A/C are obsolete because they have two wings,and a horizontal and vertical stab. The point is,there is more technology in "old" A/C than is readily apparent. As for reliability,the 737 wins hands down--statistically,and from my personal experience as a mechanic for 16 years. The 319/320 are nice airplanes,but are no knights in shining armor. BTW,I agree with your assessment on today's buisness worlds obsession with short term profits to the detriment of long term viability---look for Airbus to go the same direction as they transform themselves from a European jobs program/technology think tank to a "regular" company. I'm not saying it's right,but things are gravitating towards that worldwide.