Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
No Transporter For Boeing  
User currently offlineGopal From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 113 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3809 times:

In a the recent EAA airshow in Oshkosh, WI, I was able to view the Airbus super transporter, the "Beluga" up close and personal. I was wondering what kind of airplane Boeing uses to transport finished subassemblies from plant to plant ? OR does Boeing not have a need as planes are built start to finish in the same plant ? We were told that the cargo bay of the transporter is even larger than that of An-124. Also wonder if they are going to come out with a freighter version of 777 in future.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

i doubt that a freigher 777 will come out. the 747 was deisgned to carry freight. that's why it has the hump.

also, from what i know, boeing;s manufacturing is all in washington at boeing field. they don't need to carry stuff between different plants like airbus.



"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3756 times:

Actually, Boeing use trains and boats and trucks.... And yes, they do have components to ship around, although probably not quite as large ones as Airbus

Bombardier uses an An-124.



User currently offlineMITaero From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Ikarus is correct.. final assembly is done in Everett and Renton, WA, but parts are made other places (including Japan).

User currently offlineAvioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3730 times:

The 737 fuselage is assembled in Wichita and transported intact to Renton via rail. The 757 is still shipped in sections.
Watching a -900 go by outside Pancho's restaurant's windows in Parkville MO is shocking at the least.



One may educate the ignorance from the unknowing but stupid is forever. Boswell; ca: 1533
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3663 times:

Yeah I saw a -400 a few years back in the railyards down by the Argentine District down where 635/70 go thru (got lost trying to find Mickey's Surplus). At the time I was wondering why it was there, as Washington is the other direction.

T.J.
T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3655 times:

http://www.railpictures.net/ features photos of the "Boeing Train". Really just a picture of BNSF hauling 737 fuselage assemblies to Renton fron Kansas.

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

Boeing's plant have ocean access so most parts comming over from Japan arrive that way.

American Railroads are designed for larger standard trains then their european counterparts, so shipment of complete cabin sections (737-900) is possible and done that way.

This is one of the reasons why I can't comprehend Airbus having a lower cost of production then Boeing. Ships and Trains are probably the two cheapest forms of transport on the planet.

It must be cheaper then designing, building, operating and maintaing a fleet of four unique aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

L-188: Well, the reason why it is cheaper for Airbus is because they cleverly outsourced the designing, building of the 4 aircraft to a custom-founded subsidiary company. That way, Airbus just paid the price of purchasing 4 aircraft and the maintenance, but the design & construction were done in a seperate company that, I believe, no longer exists. Some clever accounting, I suppose.

Now once the planes are there, transporting a large section from here to there is costly, more so than on ship or train, I would guess, but in the overall aircraft production cost it becomes negligible. If Airbus really does have a lower cost base, (which I do not know anything about), then their employees are probably more skilled and productive (read: they have less employees and more automized processes, and train their employees to higher standards so less waste & mistakes occur).

If you hire&fire as Boeing does you can deal with boom&bust quite well for a while, but it the long haul, you are likely to have less skilled employees (because you cannot invest years in their training) and less motivation, so eventually you end up with more employees per plane produced. And the zero-defects thing is harder to achieve, too.

DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Boeing or Airbus nor am I familiar with their books and efficiencies, I am merely stating thoughts & considerations, not based upon any numbers I have available at the moment.

Regards

Ikarus


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3523 times:

Guys, Airbus has 5 Belugas now. The fifth is all white with a #5 painted on the main cargo door. Delivered in '01 I believe.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © EDDL Photography



And here are some photos from railpictures.net of the "Boeing Trains":

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=21757

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=19595

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=17643

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=16930

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=11342

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=11195

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=10390

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=10388

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=10387

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=8103

B4e-Forever New Frontiers


User currently offlineMirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7443 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3503 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

He beat me to it  Big grin

Whilst in Seattle in 99, I also witessed the 737 fuselage on a railcar.

Being an avid rail and Aviation enthusiast, it was the perfect marraige of two hobbies. search under mirrodie as photographer at another aviation website and you'll see my pics of the 737 flatcar with fuselage.



Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

i doubt that a freigher 777 will come out.

Actually, Boeing has been toying with a freighter based on the 772LR airframe/engines as an eventual 90T replacement for the MD11F.

Flight International has reported that UPS, LH Cargo, and EK Cargo have demonstrated interest... with the latter reportedly stating its prefered specifications to Boeing in the summer of 2002


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Airbus also sells spare Beluga capacity to the outsize freight market, probably a nice little earner on the side for them.

User currently offlineSabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2714 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3418 times:

For more info on ATI - Airbus Transport International, the commercial airline which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the world's leading aircraft manufacturer Airbus and operating a fleet of 5 A300-600ST designed for special cargo flights on behalf of its mother and third parties, check this link....

http://www.airbustransport.com

PS: For those of you who don't really have a clue about the huge size of the cargo hold of the Beluga....
http://www.airbustransport.com/cargo.html


[Edited 2003-08-11 19:34:18]

User currently offlineOsteogenesis From Germany, joined May 2003, 647 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3315 times:

Does Airbus sell the Beluga?

User currently offlineIkarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3283 times:

Osteogenesis: They were thinking about it - if anyone had been interested, they might have. But who else wants a high volume low weight non-pressurized freighter? The Antonovs and Ilyushins take care of a lot of high volume, high weight capacity, it's only really the bulkiest things that would require a Beluga, and that's too small a niche.

PS: What happened to Cargolifter - the zeppelin they (not Airbus) were talking about a few years ago? Did they go bankrupt (as I would have expected) or are they still working on it?


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3284 times:

The fact that Boeing has to transport 737 and 757 fuselages via rail is one of the reasons why they want the Dreamliner plant to be near a year-round deep water port. I guess having a few yokels along the route playing shooting gallery with the railcars made Boeing rethink Wichita for future projects. Of course the original outsized cargo plane was a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser:


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic No Transporter For Boeing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Operations Manuals For Boeing/Airbus posted Thu May 18 2006 22:28:28 by JulianUK
Pushing On With Fuel Leak, No Need For Equip. posted Tue Apr 11 2006 13:18:21 by Eilennaei
Why No LD2 For Acft Beside 767? posted Sat Sep 3 2005 22:14:07 by A342
Why No Douglas Competitor To The Boeing 727? posted Mon Jul 31 2006 21:51:50 by 747400sp
Boeing Employees Registering For Airbusworld.com posted Wed Jun 7 2006 14:57:16 by Matell
Why No Bigger CRJs For NWA Airlink? posted Wed Nov 30 2005 08:27:01 by AirWillie6475
Boeing Aircraft: V2 On MCP Speed For T/O posted Mon Jun 27 2005 21:24:43 by AM
Why No C-130 Aircraft For Cargo Airlines? posted Fri Mar 18 2005 01:19:54 by PPVRA
Question For Airbus And Boeing Pilots posted Sat Nov 27 2004 09:43:25 by AirxLiban
Why No RPM Display For Big Jets? posted Sat Jan 5 2002 12:29:42 by Trent_800

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format