Aither,

Don't turn this into a political thing. And for the record, I don't watch Fox, I watch local news or CNN.

RJ111,

I already discussed the 737NG in another post. 737 operators wanted another 737 to replace or compliment the ones they already had (hint hint, WN). Furthermore, there were FAR more 737 operators than there are 767 or A330/A300 operators. Airbus could (and should) make an A330F, but again, they haven't thought that far ahead. The A300 is old technology, and Airbus needs to realize that. Meanwhile, Boeing's winning the cargo orders. Airbus could easily convert the A330 or A340 to a freigher, but again, they are more focused on driving Boeing out of the market, something they need to realize won't happen. They got their 50%, and they won't get much more. Ask any analyst.

Meanwhile, Boeing's winning the cargo orders

Airbus could easily convert the A330 or A340 to a freigher, they (Airbus) are more focused on driving Boeing out of the market

Meanwhile, Boeing's winning the cargo orders

Well you've tripped up on yourself there.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/23/business/airbus.html . Airbus is indicating 15740km range for the bird.

Regards
ap305

The interesting thing is that A is calling the "upgraded 330" a 350. Why not just improve the 330, like B did with the 737? If they did they could start incorporating improvements as soon as they are ready and probably for less R&D expense.

I don't mind the 350 being a paper plane, but wish they would at least put out an "artist rendition" of what it might look like.

BTW, the 7E7 shares commonality with the 777  

No, it doesn't. None, at all. Zero percent.

N

Gigneil, don't they have the same cockpit???

In as much as the 777, 737, and 767-400 have the same cockpit, yes, but the 7E7 will even have different FBW rules.

Airbii have a lot of commonality not just because of the cockpit, but because of the FBW rules and other ancillary systems.

N

Wingman...i totally agree......they have spent TENS of billions of dollars in R&D, the BumbleBee 380 has yet to fly, it will take MANY years for them to break even on that (they will not sell a total of 250-350 with the next 5 years)..and yet, out of the blue, they going to have another $3.5 billion to spend on ANOTHER airplane???? As an investor (I'm not invested in either competing companies), something smells fishy here!

Re last A300/310 order: Air Hong Kong for 6 A300-605RF sometime last year. First one already delivered.

BTW, thank´s for bringing up the subsidy issues once again. Let the WTO rule and see what they think about this whole affair.

Ah - concerning protection: ever thought about what the "Jones Act" is? It protects a dead industry in the United States... a far long dead industry. Ask them what the US government has pumped into them capital wise over the past decades.

Instead of calling it a paper-plane why not call it a computer-plane because nobody drafts an airplane on a draftboard any more. Welcome to the 21st century.

Instead of this A vs. B war why not sitback and enjoy what comes out of this. All the new technology going into aviation has a directly result of why we don't pay $5,000 on Y from NRT-ORD. Instead we can travel as low as a few hundred dollars which is in grasp for a large majority of the public.

In the future, I can travel at 6,000ft or lower cabin pressure instead of 8,000 ft and be more well-rested when I arrive at the destination airport after a-12 hour flight.

Competition is always good. Aircraft building has become a very int'l flavor. A Boeing plane may have less American content than that of an Airbus in the near future. There are a ton of American companies that rely on sales of Airbus aircraft, many people on this net just see Boeing as an American plane and Airbus-French, which is very untrue.

You didn't answer my question. When was the last major order PLACED for either the A300 or A310? Airbus could easily shut down the line and FINISH PRODUCTION of aircraft still on backlog.

Remember that I said your previous post was the most ridiculous and laughable in this thread? Well strike that comment. This one just made that one look quite smart...

The last major order was the UPS order for 60 frames, couple of years ago. In that order, UPS specified that they wanted the planes delivered at a rate of about ten per year. Why? Because most are meant for expansion, and UPS doesn't need all those planes immediately. So tell me, WHY should Airbus build all these planes now, say at a rate of 30 per year, to then STORE 50 of them for 1 - 5 years (because UPS doesn't want them NOW, they want them in 5 years!)? Why would Airbus PAY for the construction of these planes now, when they won't see any money for them for several years??? They'd be ridiculously stupid to do that.

Boeing shut down the 757 line nearly two years before production actually ended

So? Airbus still has, I repeat, SIX years of backlog on the A300. Why would they announce the line's shutdown, and thus prevent any potential other customers from ordering additional frames, even if only a few (Air Hong Kong, for example, is known to be seriously looking at confirming its 4 options). WHY? It would make no sense!

but the 7E7 will even have different FBW rules



Gigneil,

Can you elaborate on how the 7E7's FBW system will differ from that of the 777?


2H4

I will have to dig up that Flug Review article. Walt Gillette detailed a variety of differences in the way the 7E7's FBW would handle.

Does any one know if the A350 cockpit is the same as the A330??

I would imagine it would be similar to the A380's cockpit as much as possible.

N

I propose a new category of aircraft design states to distinguish the 7E7 from the A350. We should call the former a paper plane (or computer plane as someone else suggested) and we should call the latter a vapor plane until they get to a more advanced stage in their design.

(they will not sell a total of 250-350 with the next 5 years)..

Although its still too early to tell, they've already sold (Not all firm) about 150 so i dont see why shipping another hundred at the rate of 20 a year is out of the question. Just wait until some of those options are exercised.

"The last major order was the UPS order for 60 frames, couple of years ago. In that order, UPS specified that they wanted the planes delivered at a rate of about ten per year. Why? Because most are meant for expansion, and UPS doesn't need all those planes immediately. So tell me, WHY should Airbus build all these planes now, say at a rate of 30 per year, to then STORE 50 of them for 1 - 5 years (because UPS doesn't want them NOW, they want them in 5 years!)"

A V. B aside, I seem to recall that UPS no longer wants these aircraft. Not due to any problem with them, but that they no longer need the expanded capacity.

A V. B aside, I seem to recall that UPS no longer wants these aircraft. Not due to any problem with them, but that they no longer need the expanded capacity.

Yeah, that rumor was floating around these boards about six months ago or so, since then it seems to have died down... Airbus is still delivering the planes, and UPS is still taking delivery of them, so I wonder what ever became of that rumor.

Well, it was reduced shorthaul capacity commensurate with the downturn of the US economy.

As the economy is improving, demand for UPS services in the domestic sector is improving.

N

in the 50's and 60's, Boeing bet its very existence with each major aircraft rollout. This was true of the 707 and it was true of the 747. But what EADS is about to do today would be the equivalent of Boeing launching the B-52, the 707 and the 747 back to back to back within a 5 year time period. It is not only inconceivable on commercial lending terms, it is also unsustainable and ultimately destructive to the industry.

Then how do you explain Boeing launching 757/767/747-400/733,734 within seven years? According to your analysis, Boeing should be bankrupt by now.

"About the 7E7 technology, the economics are not so impressive considering all the “technology hype” around this aircraft . Most of the economics come from engine also available to Airbus. After all, it seems the light materials are not mature enough to provide a breakthrough. So the A350, even if not 100% new, may very well be a good challenger (especially with all the Airbus commonality stuff)."

For the most part, your opinion and no more, especially on the composites. Of COURSE, an airframe of 50% composite construction will be significantly, perhaps substantially lighter than one of mostly traditional alloys. Why else would Airbus have committed to the RISK of giving the challengingly large A380 airframe 25% composite construction? It cuts weight, pure and simple. Paart of the A380's economics advantage over the 747-400 is in it's larger scale but composites were needed to keep weight managable. The 7E7 must go farther with composites, competing in an existing size niche. And 20% better fuel efficiency over current jets in that class is quite significant. "Most" of those savings aren't just from the new-tech engines, the lighter half-composite airframe substantially contributes to this. It wasn't long ago people were crowing about how all the A380 new-tech trumped the 744 and its now shelved 'X' stretch. Even the lately proposed 'Advanced' can't compete directly, despite all of its improvements over the 744. The same argument applies here; an A330 derivative, however tweaked, will not be an even match for a clean sheet, newer technology and appreciably lighter 7E7. As Boeing did with its 747X proposal 4 1/2 years ago against the A380, Airbus is now trying to do with a nebulous A350; specifications for which are still extremely in flux. It sounds like a worthwhile upgrade of the A330 which should prove fairly successful, considering its relatively low development cost. But a 7E7 killer it won't quite be and as Concordeboy pointed out, exceeding the 7E7's substantial range is a tall order, considering the huge gap they must close between it and the A332.

KEESJE, on the subject of RISK, you forgot that its largely the hallmark of the A380's performance/economics improvement over the 744. At the end of the day, RISK, per se, wasn't what killed the Sonic Cruiser; rather, it simply wasn't the type of airplane really needed in a cost-driven industry.

RJ111:

Please explain. Boeing IS currently winning cargo orders because Airbus HAS NOT come up with a new freigher to sell. The A300 can't stay around forever, and eventually, airlines are going to realize that it's old technology.

Scorpio:

If I'm correct, UPS did not want those aircraft, but Airbus threatened to impose a massive cancellation fee on them, making it nearly impossible to get out of delivery. Airbus SHOULD have developed the A330 with a freighter in mind, because no matter what you want to say, the A300 is not going to last forever, as I mentioned above. Instead of pumping money into labor and materials costs to continue running the A300 line, they could be using some of their profits to develop new technology. Four orders isn't going to keep the line open much longer than it already is, and there is little probability of seeing a major A300 order any time soon. That would be like an airline ordering a lot of 767s. The only airlines who would even CONSIDER the A300 are cargo airlines, and with the massive amount of older aircraft being converted, that isn't likely either. Airbus needs to take a risk, get a new freigher, and shut down the A300/A310. Boeing shut down the 757 line because the chance of a major order was slim. Sure, some airline may have wanted a few more, but not enough to convince Boeing of keeping it open. Airbus is in a similar situation with the A300.

Recall your original comment that started this argument: "Perhaps from very successful earlier products? They have done excellent work at the same time when their competitor across the pond has been focused just to close the production lines of slowly selling aircrafts."

The A300/A310 is a slow selling line. Three orders here or four orders there just don't cut it. According to Airbus' order records, there are 54 outstanding A300 orders, 50 of which are to UPS, the other 4 to Air Hong Kong. Furthermore, there are over 100 delivered aircraft no longer in operation. These have either been destroyed or are sitting out in a desert. This is the same reason why the 757 line was killed. Lots of second-hand airframes available, and only a handful of customers with outstanding orders. So before you call my comments ridiculous, why don't you do a little research.

http://www.airbus.com/doc/media/ordersndeliveries/orders_n_deliveries.xls

A300's time is up. It's time to call it quits.

Oh, and one last thing. The UPS order for 30 frames was placed in 1998 and 60 in 2001. By my count, that was nearly 7 and 4 years ago, respectively, not 2.

http://www.ups.com/content/ae/en/about/news/2001_news/20010109engAirbus_n.html

Have fun!   

[Edited 2004-11-25 02:13:28]

Its very simple

Airbus could easily convert the A330 or A340 to a freigher, they (Airbus) are more focused on driving Boeing out of the market

If they were so focused on driving Boeing out of the market (incidently Mr Outspoken Leahy himself said it would be unlikey that either manufacturer would get more than a 60% share of the market) would they not notice Boeing apparently "winning the cargo orders".

Regardless i dont think Boeing is really winning the cargo orders for that aircraft size, the only plane they offer is the 767F, a plane which cant even take side by side LD-3's downstairs. And i also belive Airbus are making an A332F, BR potentially launching it.

Anyway why are you so obsessed with Airbus shutting the A300 line down? There's no real disadvantage leaving it open for a while, it will probably be closed when the last UPS planes are delivered. From what i can see you're just arguing about something completely pointless.

My original problem was with someone saying that all Boeing does is shut down lines. I wouldn't have continued, but when someone says my thoughts are ridiculous, I feel it's necessary to defend myself. An A332F is what Airbus needs, I hope they are considering it. I say Airbus is focused on driving Boeing out because as soon as they realize Boeing is on to something, they rush to outdo them. They could take more time to come up with a better product if they had more confidence in themselves. If they don't need to fight Boeing so hard to keep market share, then there is no need to rush to beat them to the finish line either. Their aircraft will get them there.

Rj111, i doubt BR will be a launch customer of an A332F. Just becuase they operate A330s. Yes, they have MD-11Fs, but the 777F carries more payload, further at a lower cost.

The A300 is a great cargo carrier, and i for one don't want to see them go, but does anyone know the schematics of an A330F?? What will the range be (obviously less than the PAX versions), MTOW increament??

..."The bigger version of the A350 (-900?) will definetly replace the 343 and Airbus will finally have a twin-engined aircraft to compete with the 777"...

A new highly efficient Airbus twin as a direct competitor to the 772ER - that could be very interesting.

.."Airbus can do whatever it wants with the A330, but with a lower percentage of composite materials in the aircraft, and for the simple fact that it is a variant model, it will be next to impossible to compete with the B7E7"..

The performance gains for the 7e7 are indeed impressive - but the aircraft has to be built and then flown before these gains can be realised.

Boeing will be assembling the 7e7 (Airbus style) - the first time they have done so on a major program. Granted - Airbus have been doing so for years but never with the introduction of new technologies on such a grand scale. Boeing will be relying on subcontractors to produce wings, fuselages etc half a world away from their Seattle plant using radically new technologies that have never been applied on such a large scale. These outsize components will then be transported to Seattle for assembly and flight testing.
The aircraft then has to be certified by the FAA and JAA - the first time either body has certified an airliner sized pressurised aircraft with a composite fuselage. Given the use of new materials and radically new construction processes for a pressurised aircraft that will carry 250 passengers at 500 knots at over 35,000 feet it is quite likely that certification will be a long drawn out process - neither body (FAA/JAA) will be cutting any corners.

Boeing will be acutely aware of the above issues but it doesn't change the fact that what they have taken on is a daunting task.

The fact that they feel the need to invest/risk $8B to remain competitive is an inditement of the quality of the management at the helm during the 1990's - a bit of extra R&D then would have been paying dividends now.
Boeing have never had an aircraft program run into serious trouble - while it is unlikely the 7e7 would fail it could easily run very late or over budget. $8B could easily blow out to $10B or $12B.
If the 7e7 program ran into serious trouble I wonder how the anti-subsidy proponents would feel about Boeing receiving $3B-4B in assistance to bail them out.

Whatever performance gains are promised for the 7e7 the aircraft has to fly before they can be realised.

Its not over till the Fat Lady sings and she is nowhere to be seen at the finishing line in Seattle at this point in time.

Cheers,
StickShaker

I was chatting to a friend of mine last night who is one of the line managers at British Aerospace in Broughton who make the wings for Airbus. He said that Airbus are evaluating whether they can convert the jigs used to make the A300 wings into ones used to make the A350 wings. If they can, they will consider closing down the A300 line, especially as the orders are few.
Please remember this was word of mouth and not hard fact, but he is a reliable guy and worked at Brit. Aerospace/AIRBUS for a long time.

FriendlySkies,

Seriously, you don't get it, do you? I don't remember anyone saying Airbus should NEVER shut the line down. However, announcing a shutdown now would quite simply be dumb. When you have a decent backlog (as Airbus does for the A300, 6 years is quite a bit) there simply is NO NEED to shut down the line. Airbus is not actively marketing the plane, they're keeping around because the line is still open for the UPS order, and if anyone else wants some, they'll build 'em. Simple as that. Now what use would it be to keep the line open for these six years, but not accept any new orders? It's lost revenue and profit!

If I'm correct, UPS did not want those aircraft, but Airbus threatened to impose a massive cancellation fee on them, making it nearly impossible to get out of delivery.

Unless you have inside knowledge, which I doubt, that's all rumors and hearsay. Of course there would have been cancellation fee. It's stipulated in the contracts.

Airbus SHOULD have developed the A330 with a freighter in mind,

What makes you think they didn't? An A330 freighter is KNOWN to have been studied by Airbus, and is still being studied. But it's not in the same league as the A300. It's either bigger (-300) or has far more range (-200) and thus fills a different niche.

because no matter what you want to say, the A300 is not going to last forever, as I mentioned above.

Where did I say it would?

Instead of pumping money into labor and materials costs to continue running the A300 line,

What makes you think this line is losing money?

they could be using some of their profits to develop new technology.

Like the profit from keeping the A300 line open while there still are sufficient orders?

Four orders isn't going to keep the line open much longer than it already is,

...but if you were in chargen they wouldn't even GET those four orders. Revenue and profits lost forever...

Boeing shut down the 757 line because the chance of a major order was slim.

They shut the line down because they were eating up their backlog. Fast. The A300 backlog is nowhere NEAR as low as the 757's was at the time Boeing decided to axe it...

Airbus is in a similar situation with the A300.

No it's not. Boeing was at a point in the 757 program where they had only 2 choices: shut the line down, or get more orders fast. They couldn't do the latter, so they decided on the former. Airbus is nowhere near having to make that decision, that moment will only come, if no new orders are booked, in 3 - 4 years.

The only airlines who would even CONSIDER the A300 are cargo airlines, and with the massive amount of older aircraft being converted, that isn't likely either.

By that logic, should Boeing also shut down the 747 line?

Recall your original comment that started this argument: "Perhaps from very successful earlier products? They have done excellent work at the same time when their competitor across the pond has been focused just to close the production lines of slowly selling aircrafts."

I didn't write that.

Three orders here or four orders there just don't cut it.

*sigh* OK, little hypothetical question. You are an aicraft manufacturer, and one of your lines is kept open mainy to produce planes for one airline, which has a large order for it. Another airline comes to you and says, "Hey, we'd like to buy a few of those too!" What do you say?
a) OK, we'll build 'em for you, and you keep the line open for a few more months, and rake in the profit from those few frames;
b) No. Please take your money elsewhere.

Furthermore, there are over 100 delivered aircraft no longer in operation.

Almost all of which are A300Bs, an earlier version of the plane. There are also hundreds of 747s and 737s not longer in operation. By your logic, should they also be shut down?

So before you call my comments ridiculous, why don't you do a little research.

Please don't have the audacity to call me out on my factual knowledge on this. I know my facts, better than you do.

By my count, that was nearly 7 and 4 years ago, respectively, not 2.

No doubt you'll now inform me where I ever spoke of '2 years ago'...

Rj111, i doubt BR will be a launch customer of an A332F. Just becuase they operate A330s. Yes, they have MD-11Fs, but the 777F carries more payload, further at a lower cost.

What are you talking about? The A332 burns much less fuel than the 777 (The A333 also burns less too), not suprisingly as the A332 is a lot smaller, which is why it cant manage as much payload.

Read this thread

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1515582/4/

i>Paart of the A380's economics advantage over the 747-400 is in it's larger scale but composites were needed to keep weight managable. The 7E7 must go farther with composites, competing in an existing size niche. And 20% better fuel efficiency over current jets in that class is quite significant. "Most" of those savings aren't just from the new-tech engines, the lighter half-composite airframe substantially contributes to this. It wasn't long ago people were crowing about how all the A380 new-tech trumped the 744 and its now shelved 'X' stretch. Even the lately proposed 'Advanced' can't compete directly, despite all of its improvements over the 744. The same argument applies here; an A330 derivative, however tweaked, will not be an even match for a clean sheet, newer technology and appreciably lighter 7E7. As Boeing did with its 747X proposal 4 1/2 years ago against the A380, Airbus is now trying to do with a nebulous A350; specifications for which are still extremely in flux. It sounds like a worthwhile upgrade of the A330 which should prove fairly successful, considering its relatively low development cost. But a 7E7 killer it won't quite be and as Concordeboy pointed out, exceeding the 7E7's substantial range is a tall order, considering the huge gap they must close between it and the A332.

The reason 747 is having a hard time with the 380/777-300/340-600 is not that it didn’t have enough composites but it had design flaws. The 747 was designed as a freighter and not as a passenger aircraft, so the 747 can’t effectively compete with new generation aircraft that are designed to use internal fuselage volume much more efficiently. If you want to list the design problem of 747-100/200/300/400, the list will be quite extensive. Its engines are too old, the belly cargo capacity is too little, little commonality with existing/future aircrafts, insufficient range, high maintains and acquisition cost and so on. When 747 was a monopoly, it sold well because airliners didn’t’ have a choice. But today, even if you lunch a 747XXX with 100% composites, it will still have some inherited flaws. Now the 747ADV programs are trying to solve some of the problems like commonality and new engines , but you can’t just wipe out all the problems of
747 without redesigning the fuselage itself.

Now let’s try the same analogy about the 350 and 7e7. The 330 was disigned as a passanger aircraft with sufficient belly cargo capacity. it does not suffer from an inherited design problems like the 747. According to Tom Waggener, Boeing’s marketing director, it (boeing) would spend whatever time it takes to ensure that the engine or engines attain the requisite 40 percent of the airplane’s efficiency gain. If you factor in the bleedless engine concept, it would be much higher than 40 because the other system that would require to “bleed” the 7e7 take weight and need electricity to operate. But chances are the 7e7 might be expensive to manufacture and difficult to maintain with its radical new technological improvements. But a newer, lighter more efficient 330 with brand new engine and wings will be much more efficient than current 330’s, airbus has a good idea about 350’s manufacturing costs and airlines can make a decent guess about its maintains costs. At the end of the day, 7e7 might be just a few percentage points more efficient than the 350, but airbus can always lower the price of its 350 to make it completive against the 7e7 as it did with the 340-600 against the 773ER.

That thread you linked was posted in Arpil, but the 777LRF has just been launched, and i have heard Boeing has gotten some calls from certain airlines about the 777LRF, and is in talks with some of them.

When i meant at a lower cost i meant everything put together, and notice i said 777 in comparison to MD-11. But it still carries much revenue more payload than the A330F, further.

AirbusCanada,

If you factor in the bleedless engine concept, it would be much higher than 40 because the other system that would require to “bleed” the 7e7 take weight and need electricity to operate.

Engines are not really my area, but the A350 is supposed to have the same/similar engines as the 7e7.

But chances are the 7e7 might be expensive to manufacture and difficult to maintain with its radical new technological improvements.

From my limited experience with composites I would say that maintaining the composites will not be difficult at all. On the manufacturing point, I don't know how Boeing is going to do it but I also don't think it would be that huge of a deal to manufacture it cheaply(new processes, made in China etc...)

At the end of the day, 7e7 might be just a few percentage points more efficient than the 350, but airbus can always lower the price of its 350 to make it completive against the 7e7 as it did with the 340-600 against the 773ER.

Sure, however the operating costs cannot be transferred to the airlines.

More composites = smaller engines, less weight, less fuel burn, more range, smaller landing gear(reduce weight)...

PPVRA



[Edited 2004-11-26 03:07:05]

but the A350 is supposed to have the same/similar engines as the 7e7


It will be the same engine, but it will be the bleed version, not the bleedless one.



More composites = smaller engines, less weight, less fuel burn, more range, smaller landing gear(reduce weight)...

I agree. but then again

more composites=higher manufacturing and acquisition costs, higher maintains costs (new equipment/training etc), long term uncertainty.

we can go both ways.



From my limited experience with composites I would say that maintaining the composites will not be difficult at all. On the manufacturing point, I don't know how Boeing is going to do it but I also don't think it would be that huge of a deal to manufacture it cheaply(new processes, made in China etc...)


Actually most of the 7E7 will be constructed in Japan, Italy and Australia. I know one specific case, where Emirates negotiations with Boeing about a possible 7E7 order did not go too far because its’ maintains dept. was concerned about maintaining an aircraft with such high composite content.

Looks like you have a very good idea about composites. Now can how much weigh saving can the new composites provide compared to latest aluminum alloys or GLAIR and at what costs?



[Edited 2004-11-26 03:49:36]

It will be the same engine, but it will be the bleed version, not the bleedless one.

So that's a plus for the 7e7, if you factor in that added weight from the batteries I still don't think it would make a real difference when taken in the weight saved by the composite fuselage.

higher manufacturing and acquisition costs

That's also a factor, but a lot of time/money will be saved in the assembly line possibly making up for most of these extra costs. Agree with the rest that you said, at least in the initial stages while airliners don't really know what to expect.

Looks like you have a very good idea about composites. Now can how much weigh saving can the new composites provide compared to latest aluminum alloys or GLAIR and at what costs?

Good point. However, I doubt it would be enough to match the composites.

But in the end, even if both aircraft weigh relatively the same, the A350 will still lack the bleedless engines.

Any idea when airbus would make public some specs/images of the A350?

PPVRA

Now can how much weigh saving can the new composites provide compared to latest aluminum alloys or GLAIR and at what costs?


Remember...composites provide many more benefits than simply weight-savings.

- Composite surfaces can be made much smoother (i.e.: tens of thousands of exposed rivet-heads are gone), which obviously reduces drag.

- The bending/stiffness properties of composites can be tailored to exacting specifications. A composite structure can be made to be incredibly stiff in one dimension and very forgiving in another. In addition, emerging nanotechnology will allow the properties of a given composite part to be even more specifically tuned and more finely adjusted than is currently possible with any metal.

- Repair will prove to be faster than even today's most refined aluminum repair methods. A properly repaired composite part will retain more strength and will last longer than an aluminum or GLAIR part repaired after being damaged in a similar way.

- The production and manufacture of most composite parts will become faster, more economical, and more efficient than that of existing metals.


2H4

2H4,

I second that. Composites is the future.

PPVRA

there is no argument that composites are much more superior than most existing metal. The question is , is it cost effective?

just like titanium is much better than aluminum, but it's not cost effective.


but as the prices of composites goes down, eventually all the aircrafts will be 100% composites, the question is not if, but when!!!!!!!!!!

there is no argument that composites are much more superior than most existing metal. The question is , is it cost effective?

Yes I think they will prove to be cheaper than aluminum. While lb per lb of composite might be more expensive, though people have told me the opposite is true, because composites assemble so quickly huge amounts of labor cost are saved. Look at the final assembly time of the 7E7, just three days. That probably wouldn't be feasable with an aluminum aircraft.

Also, composites are more durable, which in the long-run saves money.

Scorpio:

It's obvious we're never going to agree on this. IMO, by leaving the line open, Airbus is setting themselves up for the possibility of not being able to shut it down. If more orders come in, they will have to build them. Eventually they will reach a point where they need the line for a new aircraft, and they can't shut it down. Now, the chances of this are slim, but are still present. Anyway, why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

If more orders come in, they will have to build them.

And thats the last thing Airbus want to do, build and sell more planes!

Anyway, why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

To be honest i think we should just agree you're wrong.

Hell fire burning with sulpher brimstone....
leaping lava leaving no one alive.....
burn baby burn....
may no A.nettter be left untouched...

A v B

let the flame wars contuniue...


Your truly,
Beezelbub...(aka Lucifer)




 

If more orders come in, they will have to build them.

Oh the horror! The horror!

Eventually they will reach a point where they need the line for a new aircraft, and they can't shut it down.

And which new aircraft would that be? A380 gets a new assembly line, A400M will be built in Spain and A350 on the A330/340 line. What other plane could Airbus develop in the near future that's going to need the A300 line?

How about this: Airbus shuts down the wline:
-When they run out of orders, or;
-WHEN they need the line for something else.

Since neither is the case right now, there's no use shutting it down.

Anyway, why don't we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

I think I'm going to second Rj111 on this one...

Airbus position on the B7E7 and their half learted challenger sounds so much like the Kerry campaign.
Flip-flopping all the time. No morals, certainly no guts and no glory.
W

Airbus position on the B7E7 and their half learted challenger sounds so much like the Kerry campaign.
Flip-flopping all the time.

747-5/600X?
Sonic Cruiser?
Anyone?

Pot, meet kettle.

No morals, certainly no guts and no glory.

Yes, that explains why they've been all over Boeing in the last few years...

But thank you for yet another very useful and insightful contribution.

Hey Scorpio,

Unlike Airbus, Boeing actually has to payback its creditors. All of them. None on a contigency basis. No "repayable" loans. They have to pay back all of their loans. Real loans that are made on commercial terms like with other real companies.

Airbus is basically unconstrained by risk. Airbus rolled out a proposed competitor to the Sonic Cruiser (or the art department did anyway) yet I never hear you effete Europeans ridiculing them for it. Unlike Airbus, Boeing actually did begin engineering work on the airplane and quit when airlines did not respond.

"Flip-flopping all the time. No morals, certainly no guts and no glory." and that`s why my dearest friend Bush was elected and the rest of the world will have to suffer another periot under his dictatorship.

"Unlike Airbus, Boeing actually has to payback its creditors. All of them. None on a contigency basis. No "repayable" loans. They have to pay back all of their loans. Real loans that are made on commercial terms like with other real companies.

Airbus is basically unconstrained by risk. Airbus rolled out a proposed competitor to the Sonic Cruiser (or the art department did anyway) yet I never hear you effete Europeans ridiculing them for it. Unlike Airbus, Boeing actually did begin engineering work on the airplane and quit when airlines did not respond." It`s ok...don`t cry any more....poor Boeing is so innocent...

Sorry, I didn`want to take part again in any A v B but I couldn`t stand.
And now kill me...

Hey N,

Unlike Airbus, Boeing actually has to payback its creditors. All of them. None on a contigency .. yadda yadda yadda .. actually did begin engineering work on the airplane and quit when airlines did not respond.

Let me repeat from my first post here:

'Let me respond the way the American government has been doing on all kinds of issues as of late: It's OUR way to do this. Don't like it? Tough.

Now where's that dead horse picture when you need it?

Hirnie,

Go read Wingman's posts above. They sum up the story very well. And compared to machinations of the EU and Airbus, I would say that Boeing is pretty close to immaculate.

It is the EU and Airbus that regularly cry and complain in foreign countries when they don't get what they deemed to be their fair share of business. Such as when Romano Prodi lodged a formal complaint with PM Koizumi when ANA (a private firm) selected Boeing (another private firm) 737NG to replace A320 airplanes. Or when the EU threatened trade retaliation against Taiwan for selecting GE engines for China Airlines A330s rather than RR.

The bottom line is that if Airbus were a real company, they would not be getting "launch aid" for yet another commercial airliner. Airbus is a successful firm now and has no justifiable need for free money or cut-rate loans. Yet the EU will not tolerate the risk of having a single job they transferred from Long Beach, Everett, and Renton with billions of dollars being eliminated.

The EU's arguments against Boeing are essentially a bunch of smoke and mirrors to protect their ongoing version of the Tennesse Valley Authority.

Don' you guys ever get tired of having the same discussions that always end up A vs B or Europe vs USA?

Scorpio,

I would not care if the EU were buying health care for its citizens with all this largesse. Because it does not affect Americans.

But the EU giving Airbus free money does affect Americans. Just wait until our Congress turns its guns on Airbus by passing a law with the goal that Boeing regains its 1992 market share. That will certainly be "tough" on free-loading Europeans who gladly took advantage of American military protection during the Cold War. And now call that that shield the protected you at night an "unfair subsidy" and use that bogus argument to screw American workers and shareholders.