Gopal From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 112 posts, RR: 0 Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3534 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.
Avioniker From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1109 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3455 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
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2815 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3388 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.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3321 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.
Mirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7427 posts, RR: 63 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
He beat me to it
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
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2712 posts, RR: 48 Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3143 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....
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3008 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?
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17295 posts, RR: 51 Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3009 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: