Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8171 posts, RR: 54 Posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2352 times:
The main reason Boeing have fallen so far behind is because while their competitor has been offering new state-of-the-art designs, Boeing have been rehashing old designs such as the 737NG, 747X, 757-300, 767-400, all to no great effect (737NG has done OK, others have all been complete failures).
The reason they've been doing this is the 'Shareholder Value' craze which swept Wall St. All that mattered was the share price. If the share price was strong, Wall St loved them. I think there was a hostile takeover bid by a corporate raider in the early 90s as well which cemented in Boeing's collective mind the importance of a high trading value.
Now the shareholder value thing has been shown to be the nonsense that it is (wait for another WorldCom-size scandal in the pharaceutical industry any day now), investors will (one hopes) be more willing to see a company make long term capital-intensive investments necessary for developing new product lines of the scale of the A320 or A380. That's what Boeing need, they'll never sell more than a dozen 747XERLRwhatevers, the 767-400 is dead in the water and the 757-300 probably isn't looking any better.
Boeing need some new products fast or they may as well stick to making things that blow people up. The 777 alone won't keep them in the civil industry any more that the L1011 kept Lockheed in the civil industry. Very sad to see such a once-great name disappear, which is surely what will happen if they don't start spending some money and committing to some major new product lines. Will the shareholders allow it? Hopefully after recent scandals, they will.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1372 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Boeing need some new products fast or they may as well stick to making things that blow people up. The 777 alone won't keep them in the civil industry any more that the L1011 kept Lockheed in the civil industry.
Yet you yourself said the 737NG was doing "OK".
Very sad to see such a once-great name disappear, which is surely what will happen if they don't start spending some money and committing to some major new product lines.
What do you call the Sonic Cruiser and Yellowstone designs?
Airbus is selling two families: 320 and its derivatives, and derivatives of the 300. Boeing is selling five families, if you count 737 and 757 as one (same fuselage barrel). Airbus is working on a new design, as is Boeing.
Phxinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
"The main reason Boeing have fallen so far behind is because while their competitor has been offering new state-of-the-art designs, Boeing have been rehashing old designs such as the 737NG, 747X, 757-300, 767-400, all to no great effect (737NG has done OK, others have all been complete failures)."
Are you kidding me? The 777 is more advanced than anything Airbus currently offers and the 737 is the best selling aircraft in the world, period.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2460 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
The 777 is FBW, and while I am certainly in no position to go into detail on the technical aspect, I would venture to say that between a design almost entirely developed in the 1980s and a one created in the 1990s, the newer aircraft will be more modern simply by virtue of its age. The 777 was a trendsetter in many ways, and more than delivered as promised on most aspects. I'm not sure if the same can be said about the A330/340.
Personally, on a route where a 777 is available over an A340, I will take the 777, but on a route where there is a 767 and an A340 available, I will take the A340. My preference lies with the best suited aircraft for the particular route that I am flying, so nobody can call me an Airbus or a Boeing basher. I think both brands have their distinct strengths and weaknesses. However, all bets are off when it comes to a route where I can get on a CO aircraft.
And the 737 has sold over 4,000 examples with 5,000+ ordered overall. Even though the A320 may seem to be a more comfortable aircraft to the passenger (marginally, IMO), I just don't think there is a market for Airbus to sell 5,000 examples. And knowing the pace that Airbus moves at, by the time A320's get old, there will be a new Airbus type to replace them.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2172 times:
You make some very good observations. When I worked for Boeing it was frustrating to hear all the Wall Street eggheads slam Boeing and sing the praises of the tech companies. Granted, Boeing was having production problems. However, it had a huge backlog, billions in assets and a name synonymous with commercial aviation. What did these tech/internet companies have, some computers and two guys playing Doom. I think a lot of the talk of shareholder value comes from the McDonnell Douglas people. When MD was still MD that was their mantra, shareholder value. While I can understand the importance of stock price MD focused on it to their detriment.
They never invested in the facilities in Long Beach or updating their product line. That would have meant spending money which cuts down on profit which can bring down the stock price. So when the cold war ended and MD lost early in the JSF competition they were left with an antiquated commercial production facility and a product line the could not compete with Boeing or Airbus. My fear is that the MD way of doing business (not investing in your commercial product line) will prevail. The fact that a lot of the higher ups at Boeing are ex-MD execs only makes me worry more.
With that said I really would,nt call the 737NG a rehashing of the Classic 737. While it has the same fuselage the similarities pretty much end there. The avionics are completely different, the interior has been redesigned, and it has a new wing, vertical and horizontal tail.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2164 times:
The 777 is more advanced than the A320/30/40 just like the A330 is more advanced than the 767. Why, because the 777 was designed after the A320/30/40. The 777 has FBW, computerized checklists, a newer wing, LCD displays while the A320/30/40 have CRT's, touch sensitive screens etc. A friend of mine who used to work for UAL worked on A320, 747-400, 737, 767 and the 777. He said the 777 by far was the most advanced airliner he ever worked on.
As for the 737, it still is the best selling commercial aircraft in the world. The day when the A320 passes up the 737 in the total order column then it can claim the prize.
P.S. It was not my intention to turn this into a BA vs. AB debate.