CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 3:09 am

Seeing that many on the forum believe Boeing is dieing or already dead, here are some interesting excerpts from this weeks Aviation and Space Technology Weekly;

"With the EVA and JAL buys and several more 777X purchases pending, Boeing believes it now 'dominates' the long haul wide body market with its 767 and 777 models, Belyamani said. The 777 is giving Airbus 'a lot of nightmares' as orders for the A340-500/600 'go into low gear,' Belyamani said. EVA's 777X purchase effectively invalidates the carriers previous letter of intent to buy competing A340-500/600 transports. Singapore International Airlines last year ordered more 777-200ERs, actually trading in its A340s for them. Singapore and EVA are considered two of Asia's most progressive, exacting carriers."

"In the critical single-aisle market, sales of Boeing's next generation 737 transport family als have been strong. the 737 has not lost a head to head competition with the A320 so far this year, Belyamani said. Through late June, 737 wins include Sout African Airways, American Trans Air, Kenya Airways and Canada's WestJet Airlines."

"Boeing also has a 'strong middle market' position with its 767 line, Belyamani said. Including the new 767-400 stretch, the 767 is the only 'family' of aircraft squarely in the fast growing segment. Passenger models of the olde A300 and A310 are essentially out of production and Airbus has no 200 seating offering he said. The European aircraft manufacturing consortium doe compete with the 250 seat A330-200. As proposed the A330-100 is a double shrink version of the A330-300, 'I can't believe that would be a good airplane,' Belyamani said. More orders are expected for the 767-400 by the end of the year. The company is gradually moving its 777 interior and cockpit into the 767 line, which covers from the 180-240 passengers in three class configuration. Boeing customer has called the new-look 767-400 a 'mini-777'. Boeing has also noticed a pickup in demand for its stretched 757-300 transport, Belyamani said."

"The 106 seat 717 has added seven new customers to Boeing's order base and is making inroads in the U.S. and China, he said."

"Although Boeing has announced a 747-400 follow-on, the aggressive Airbus marketing campaign for the 550 seat A3XX has piqued customer interest in bigger transports. A recent letter from CEO and Chairman Phil Condit to the leaders of major world airlines explained Boeing's plans for aircraft larger than 420 seats. The proposed offferings, an improved 747-400X and significantly modified 747X and 747X Stretch transports, 'have raised great questions' by airlines as to the A3XX's claimed advantages, Belyamani said. 'The airlines has started seeing these things and are saying 'wait a minute.' Both Virgin Atlantic Airways and Singapore have stated they will look closely at both Airbus adn Boeing designs"

"Boeing's application of over-cabin areas for crew rest, storage and galley supplies offers great efficiences compared with the A3XX double-deck design, Belyamani said. 'A double deck structure is very costly.' to build and, consequently, the A3XX would have a 15% higher operating empty weight/seat ratio compared with the 747X Stretch, he said. This difference is exacerbated in the proposed freighter version of the A3XX. 'Imagine how strong that middle floor would have to be' to carry freight, he said. Correspondingly, a freighter version of the 747X Stretch would accomodate about the same tonnage and volume as the A3XXF but offer about 16% lower ton/mi costs."

"The new 747s also would be faster than the A3XX, arriving as much as 25min. sooner on a 16hr flights than the A3XX. A similar speed difference is believed to be a major reason in Singapore's selection o the 777-200ER over its A340-300s. In short, since the A3XX and 747X and 747X Stretch would use the same powerplants, there would be no adavantages in propulsion efficiency between designs, Belyamani said. The 747 would have better structural efficiency, he said. Boeing also believes its wing root insert and other aerodynamic improvements to the 747X model wings will equal A3XX aerodynamice improvements. Overall, Boeing calculates the A3XX would have about 4% higher seat-mile costs than the 747X stretch"

Definately sounds like a company that is dead. FI 2000 will definately be interesting.

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Aer Lingus
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 4:06 am

Please Not Another One!

Thu Jul 06, 2000 3:14 am

Thanks for the post but I hope other people don't start an Airbus V Boeing war again !

PLEASE DON'T
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 4:12 am

This is interesting, to say the least. Are all of the claims Boeing is making about the 747X vs. the A3XX based on projections? Are both aircraft not to have completely new powerplants? How can it be said the 747X would arrive 25 minutes sooner than the A3XX on 16 hour flights if neither aircraft has flown yet, and their engines aren't even in production?

What is stated about the A3XX second floor on the freighter makes sense - it WOULD have to be very strong to support the weight it would carry. Does anyone know of any current double-decker freighters (ie, C-5 Galaxy, AN124) to compare?

I am eager to see the 747X and A3XX compete head to head in real life. To be sure, this is the first real challenge the 747 has ever had.  
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 4:24 am

I was under the impression from earlier Boeing models that the 747-400X would be powered by four of the "large twin" engines which power the 777.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 4:31 am

CX747: Thank you for the very informative post. It would seem that Boeing has indeed learned some lessons. I for one, however, will wait for FIA rather than comment on the article since far too much propaganda and far too much rhetoric has been expended on the Boeing/Airbus issue already, much of it without point or value.

I believe the time has come to simply wait for results.

Regards,

F4N
 
wingman
Posts: 2829
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 4:59 am

Belyamani and Leahy are both MBAs (Master Bullsh*t Artists) of the highest order. I crack every time I hear one of these two talk performance figures for planes that haven't even entered pre-production. Ah, salesmen.

Still, Boeing will do what it can to sell 747Xs. Airbus will not have much room to maneuver in if Boeing starts to match sales with the A3XX. Any way you dice it, this is a $60 billion company taking a $5 billion gamble. EADS is a $30 billion taking a $12-18 billion gamble. Even something as uncontrollable as a worldwide recession 3-5 years down the road could turn the A3XX into a massive nightmare.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

777's -are- Great For Long Flights

Thu Jul 06, 2000 5:43 am

I think the fact that the Boeing 777 has acquitted itself extremely well on long flights (United flies SFO-LHR/CDG with the 777-200 and China Southern can fly non-stop Guangzhou (Canton) to Los Angeles with the 777-200ER) and the fact the 777 cruises at 0.85 Mach (as opposed to the normal 0.81-0.82 Mach of most long-range Airbus planes) is the reason why the A340 hasn't been selling well lately.

Small wonder why 777 sales are picking up lately. With the start of the 777 Long-Range program, I expect many sales to various airlines around the world; in fact, don't be surprised that we get substantial 777 LR orders from United, American, Delta, British Airways, Japan Airlines, and so on, especially if my guess of within the next twelve months of Boeing reaching an agreement with Rolls-Royce for an uprated Trent 800 rated at over 110,000 lb. thrust to be installed on the 777 LR becomes reality.
 
FLY DC JETS
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 1:13 pm

RAY Chuang

Thu Jul 06, 2000 8:04 am


"so on, especially if my guess of within the next twelve months of Boeing
reaching an agreement with Rolls-Royce for an uprated Trent 800 rated at over 110,000 lb. thrust to be installed on the 777 LR becomes reality."

Do you pay attention to anything. I work in aerospace, specificallyon powerplants.
Rolls Royce WILL NOT HAVE AN ENGINE FOR THE 777X! Are you unaware of what EXCLUSIVE means. Or did you not read the article I provided of how RR stopped development of the Trent 8110? RR Stopped development of that engine in September. Were you not paying attention at the press conference when Jack Welch, the head of GE and Phil Condit announced the lauch of the 777X. The program is continually referred to as a GE-Boeing partnership. Why do you continue to think that Rolls Royce will be able to offer an engine?
So let me see you have no source, and you have completely chosen to disregard all of the things that have taken place in the two years since Boeing once again studied the X derivative program. So what you have is a poorly formed opinion with little or nothing to back it up. Pretty weak....  
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 8:19 am

Salesman crab talk altogether...
Of course Boeing can produce a brilliant 747X. But why should Airbus be unable to make a good A3XX? If Airbus makes a good plane too, then it isn't first time.

Take this sentence about the A3XX as an example: "Imagine how strong that middle floor would have to be' to carry freight, he said."

Who said that an A3XXF shall be a double decker? Well, I guess that it could be an option in case the customer wants it so. The A300ST has a much wider fuselage, but only one floor.

If it has two floors, then it would be natural to distribute the cargo on both decks. Why should the middle deck (and the lower deck) on the A3XX then be more than half as strong and half as heavy as the single deck on the 747XF?

About speed: Current 747s are aerodynamically designed with a maximum speed of M=.84, and A3XX M=.82. On a 16 hours sector (not counting climb and descend) the two flown at MAXIMUM speed will give the 747X an arrival 23 minutes and 24 seconds earlier. But what airlines fly at maximum speed? I would assume that both planes would fall out of the sky with empty fuel tanks if somebody tried a 16 hours sector at maximum speed with any substantial payload.
Maximum speed is mostly dictated by the wing sweep back angle, which is higher on the 747X. But also wing airfoil shape. The name of the game is to accellerate the speed of the airflow on the upper surface of the wing to max. M=.9999 and not one inch more. Speed is great. But a more straight wing offers other advantages: A lighter wing for the same stress. Better low speed (take-off and landing) performance. To allow a bigger accelleration of the wing airflow allows more freedom do optimise the wing airfoil shape for best lift to drag ratio. All that can be translated into bigger payload - which again spells better economy for the owner. That's how it is, assuming that everything else is equal. For the same reason the Boeing C-17A military transporter is also designed with a lower maximum speed in mind than the 747.
Maximum speed is a compromise against economics. If it wasn't, then all airliners would be designed for max. M=.91 like the Gulfstream V biz jet. The G-V is a great plane too, but another sort of compromise. Payload capability is almost nothing, and the user is assumed to be willing to pay for the speed.
A and B just came out with slightly different values. But not nearly as different values as for instance Boeing came out with on two of their very successful planes, the 747 and the 737. Nobody ever blamed the 737 for being an inferiour plane because it has a similar max. speed disadvantage compared to the A320.
The 737 is said to be seriously speed limited by airflow interferance between the engines and the wing. All other airliners have the engines mounted well below the wing to avoid this interferance. That the engines sit so high on the wing has another advantage, that the landing gear legs can be much shorter than on the 320 saving a lot of weight.

But all this talk about one plane being 4 or 5 percent better or worse than the other, as long as they havent flown yet... Both planes will probably run into the same old story as the MD-11 when it was new, that the manufacturer had to pay large sums back to the customers as compensation because the product did not meet the over-optimistic specifications in the sales contract.

Why did that Mr. Belyamany mention that SIA traded in their 340s for new 777s, when he doesn't mention that SAS did the opposite with their 767s?

Thanks CX747 for dealing the info with us. It is always nice to be informed about what words are around. But that article is simply not intelligent enough to be treated seriously. It simply fails to meet the avarage IQ on this forum. It would be a fine article for Washington Post, but otherwise...
Regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 8:43 am

Interesting, to say the very least. Boeing's begun the "Don't buy Airbus- they're just a bunch of dumb Frenchman who exist thanks to government subsidies" campaign, and Airbus will once again begin its "Bigger and better" argument. Every figure Boeing puts out will be countered by Airbus, and Boeing will then proceed to counter every Airbus figure on the press. Don't forget that companies rate aircraft using methods most favorable to their a/c, by the way.
Well, if we can make it through the huge-scale flame war about to erupt, we'll be in for the ride of our lives on A3XX and 747-500 in the next 5 years or so. I look forward to both.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 8:47 am

Preben,

Thanks for the detailed expalantion, at least your post appeared factual and interesting. A lot of people forget the dynamics involved in flight.
mb
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Prebennorholm/A3XX Speed

Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:06 pm

Actually, the max operating speed for the A3XX is Mach 0.89 from the Airbus website looking at the figures for the A3XX-100, so this appears to be a much faster ship, I would venture that it cruises around Mach 0.83 or 0.84.
Aside from that, I too had a good laugh (or maybe I should have yawned (G) reading that post from Aviation Week. That's 'Bellyacheiany' in his forte'. (G)

Regards
MAC
 
Dazed767
Posts: 4968
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:10 pm

Ahhhhhhhhhh, that's music to my ears....  

Long live Boeing,


Eat Canadi>n Bacon,
~Dazed767
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:25 pm

BTW

To correct something regarding the Aviation Week article:

According to the latest Airways Magazine with a -large- feature article on Singapore Airlines; The carrier is considering retaining 6 of it's A340-313E fleet.

I view that as a move to give the carrier a decent amount of flexibility and some commonality with it's A340-500 purchase. It could cut several ways for SIA if they were so foolish to get rid of all of the A340-313E's, particularly if they find their way to one of their biggest competitors, Cathay Pacific.

Of note, what is posted here in this thread from that AWST article says -nothing- of the huge MAS order that is anticipated. I found that interesting. Folks, 'the Opera isnt over and the fat lady hasnt sung yet'.

Regards
MAC
 
sv11
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble

Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:41 pm

I thought Boeing usually gives conservative estimates that they end up exceeding. Maybe its the Douglas influence with the MD-11. Anyway has Airbus failed to meet specs?

sv11
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:43 pm

Actually MAC the MAS order was mentioned in the "Taiwan't EVA Air Orders Seven Boeing 777Xs."

"Belyamani said he expects to announce another four customers by the close of Farnborough. Amont those seriously considering the 777X are: ANA, GECAS, Emirates, Air France, Cathay Pacific Airways, Qantas Airlines with Malaysian Airline's order not expected till October."

As for SIA keeping 6 A340s, I read that also. They are the only magazine reporting such info so we will have to see. Airliners did an article on SIA this month also and did not mention the airline keeping 6 A340s. Aircraft Illustrated ran an article on SIA and said all A340s were to be disposed of as the 777-200ERs came on line. It will be intersting to see what SIA does with their A340-500s once the 777-200LR and 777-300ER are launched. EVA Air seems to have changed their tune after seeing the new numbers.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:07 pm


Isn't it just a move to please AI? I mean SIA may not want
to allienete its relationship with AI completely. They may
need good deals in the future, or at least need to scare
Boeing a bit?

Janos
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:09 pm

CX747

In addition to the Airways Magazine article, I've heard talk of the SIA retention of A340-313Es elsewhere on the net. I've heard figures ranging from 10 to possibly retaining the -whole- A340 fleet and pressing forward with the 777 purchases as well. The whole sum of things is, they need the capacity.

If you look at it, it makes sense to keep them particularly with the A340-500 coming online. The A345s will serve nonstop markets to Europe and the USA from SIN. The A343 could continue on in thinner routes as well as it's regional role it's flown. It does *very* well in a multitude of roles and gives them flexibility with the Asian economy on the mend and traffic picking up.

Would SIA buy the 777X though? With another engine maker to add to the mix? and knowing how they seem to prefer RR and PW?...I'm holding off on that one. First, they are just digesting their 777-200ERs and -312s they are flying or awaiting delivery on. Seperately, I truly think they will order the A330-100 to replace the A310s (they have a need to get a replacement soon) and they will go for the 16 A3XX's made mention of in recent weeks.

Boeing and GE have to really sell several carriers on the virtues of the new exclusive GE engine that will be on the 777X. I believe this is why sales so far have been quite honestly, slow and that's why it's taking an air show to get interest going or announcements set forth in it. To me, comparing this to the original 777 offering seemed to be a much bigger event. Sales then appeared to be much faster and furious than the latest model being offered.

I'd really like to see what happens with the MAS competition because the implications are far and wide for that carrier, we are talking about 40 A32X *plus options* and then 18-20 widebodies *plus options*. Marc Shaeffer's site comments on it as being favoring Airbus for the whole thing, so it appears Boeing is either saying something MAS told it, or Boeing is deflecting mention of what it knows. I believe the decision will be revealed at FIA. Time will tell though. Additionally, another carrier that is rumored to be postponing a widebody order is SAA, I've heard a decision wont be made until 3Q 2001 per a post by Russell Short on the Airliner orders e-group.

Regards
MAC
 
DeltaAir
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 4:41 am

RE: SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:22 pm

Everyone needs to remember, its been mentioned before that the GE deal expires in November or December of this year. RR already has the 110,000 lbs. Trent ready.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: SIA Considering Retaining At Least 6 A340-313E

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:31 pm

DeltaAir

That may very well be true that RR is working on a derivative of the Trent to the size needed, but will it be allowed on the 777X? The terms of the exclusivity seemed to be -quite precise- that the GE90-110/115 are to be the powerplants "period" from what was said at the press conference held by Phil Condit and Jack Welch a few months ago.

If Boeing allows this to go forth, what types of penalites would Boeing have to pay GE to lose it's exclusivity on the 777X? Jack Welch seemed like he was very confident of this exclusivity's permanence.

Regards
MAC
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

777X Exclusive Contract Etc...

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:45 pm

Ahh MAC ever the Boeing pessimist. You state that 777X sales have been "honestly slow". So I guess that would put the A340NG at enimic? Hmmm I guess the JAL order (8 777-300ERs) and EVA order (3 777-200LRs and 4 777-300ERs) doesn't mean anything. Or that fact that EVA negated its signed LOI with Airbus for the A340-500/600s. Boeing has stated time and time again that they are taking their time with the 777-200LR/300ER. What they are doing is gathering a very large order book so that at FI they can blow away the A340NG by outselling it or close to outselling it after the A340NG had an almost 2 year advantage in getting to the market first. That information has been in the magazines and on the web for months. Heck, since the 777X's inception its been understood that most of the announcements would be kept for Farnborough or shortly before then. Farnborough will definately be interesting.

Now, onto the GE exclusiveness deal. While some in the media have portrayed this as a major dilema, in all reality, it is not. Many of the airlines supposedly up in arms over the deal have stated that while it may be easier to sell them RR engined or PW engined 777Xs, all that it takes is to show them HOW the GE deal benefits them. Cathay Pacific doesn't seem to mind that their possible order for 777-300ERs have GE engines hanging on them. Also, why doesn't anyone ever point out that the A340NG also comes with a sole engine choice in the RR Trent 500? Or the fact that the A340-300 program survives with the underpowered exclusive CFM burners? Actually that goes back to CX. How on earth do they operate the RR powered 747-400, 777-200, 777-300 and A330-300 and the CFM powered A340??? The GE contract was only for a certain amount of time after the programs "commercial launch". Now with all above being forgotten, the GE deal could be the reason why some of the airlines have yet to announch their 777X orders. They are waiting to announce it when the engines they prefer are "publicly" available and not just in closed door meetings with Boeing. If several of the airlines have decided to order RR or PW powered 777Xs, breaking the exclusive contract with GE may be profitable for Boeing. If memory serves me correct, wasn't a certain Jumbo Jet available with only one choice for some years?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

777X Exclusive Contract Etc...

Thu Jul 06, 2000 1:49 pm

Ahh MAC ever the Boeing pessimist. You state that 777X sales have been "honestly slow". So I guess that would put the A340NG at enimic? Hmmm I guess the JAL order (8 777-300ERs) and EVA order (3 777-200LRs and 4 777-300ERs) doesn't mean anything. Or that fact that EVA negated its signed LOI with Airbus for the A340-500/600s. Boeing has stated time and time again that they are taking their time with the 777-200LR/300ER. What they are doing is gathering a very large order book so that at FI they can blow away the A340NG by outselling it or close to outselling it after the A340NG had an almost 2 year advantage in getting to the market first. That information has been in the magazines and on the web for months. Heck, since the 777X's inception its been understood that most of the announcements would be kept for Farnborough or shortly before then. Farnborough will definately be interesting.

Now, onto the GE exclusiveness deal. While some in the media have portrayed this as a major dilema, in all reality, it is not. Many of the airlines supposedly up in arms over the deal have stated that while it may be easier to sell them RR engined or PW engined 777Xs, all that it takes is to show them HOW the GE deal benefits them. Cathay Pacific doesn't seem to mind that their possible order for 777-300ERs have GE engines hanging on them. Also, why doesn't anyone ever point out that the A340NG also comes with a sole engine choice in the RR Trent 500? Or the fact that the A340-300 program survives with the underpowered exclusive CFM burners? Actually that goes back to CX. How on earth do they operate the RR powered 747-400, 777-200, 777-300 and A330-300 and the CFM powered A340??? The GE contract was only for a certain amount of time after the programs "commercial launch". Now with all above being forgotten, the GE deal could be the reason why some of the airlines have yet to announch their 777X orders. They are waiting to announce it when the engines they prefer are "publicly" available and not just in closed door meetings with Boeing. If several of the airlines have decided to order RR or PW powered 777Xs, breaking the exclusive contract with GE may be profitable for Boeing. If memory serves me correct, wasn't a certain Jumbo Jet available with only one choice for some years?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: 777X Exclusive Contract Etc...

Thu Jul 06, 2000 3:36 pm

CX747

I'm looking at the market the way it -is- quite frankly, not puppeting off some Boeing perspective or Airbus perspective. I call it an -enlightened- perspective because I've *worked in management and operations* with heavy jets thank you.

15 777X (plus potentially 30 777X by ILFC) versus over 60+ A340NG. This has got to bother Boeing.

For one, let me get this off my chest: The Boeing of today is not the Boeing of yesteryear. "This is not your father's Boeing" was the title of an interesting WSJ article on the SPEAA strike earlier this year, it was quite eye-opening to read and told of the way the company operates these days. To me after reading it, the "heroic" or "epic" stature people give it carte blanche, needs a real -swat- on the behind. One major reason why I'm a critic of Boeing is the hubris they have displayed to a market that needs and lives by dynamic change. And some of the things Boeing has conducted itself with (the 737 rudder problems) have soured my opinion of that company. Added to that to me they appear to have goofed up or fouled the ball; from finally having to be dragged through losing business and then apologizing to customers for not listening (The UAL A320 choice), production delays (737NGs), rudder problems on one particular airplane (737s) they refuse to admit to, on and on.

The hubris was and still seems to be incredible. It seems somewhat similar to a certain software company based in same city?

For too long they rested on their laurels as thinking everyone would flock to them and now we have -true- competition they havent ever seen. Overall they seem quite comforted and impressed with themselves in their own arrogance.

It's taken them several years if not a decade and a half to -somewhat- figure their competitor across the Atlantic.

Reading their recent history has told me that they -react- to Airbus overall.

Airbus indeed appears to -listen- more to it's customers. Donald Douglas captured that element with the great line of airplanes he created, Airbus seems to have learned from that and built upon that philosophy. Innovation and doing things better always appeals to me, particularly with aviation. I worked around some of the most innovative airplanes ever built, so the desire for something that pleases -all- or as best as possible is going to get a round of applause from me.

The competition we now see is an outstanding thing for the aerospace industry.

Do you know why EVA negated it's LOI with Airbus? Due to poor financial results overall last year, not by virtue of the A340NG aircraft itself, and furthemore, EVA acknowledges that this does by no means exclude Airbus from future aircraft purchases. Did we forget to mention that?

Airbus has sold over 60 A340NGs with several more on option to Virgin, ILFC, Lufthansa, Singapore, China Eastern, Aerolineas Argentinas, Air Canada, Swissair since it was launched early last year. What I believe has taken it's time in the order process is the results of the RR engine tests airlines are awaiting to see because bottom line, particularly with fuel costs in mind and performance, is what airlines are looking at. So far..the results are excellent according to RR. Remember, this engine only began flying a few weeks ago also! Watch and see what occurs over the next few months.

RR has a bit of everything going for them at the moment, they have a massively popular Trent engine core that can be worn on the 777, A330 and now scaled down to a smaller engine on the A340-500/600.

I truly believe the A340NG is going to be a good seller no matter what propaganda you or I believe in. The RR engine is exclusive to the A340NG indeed, my question is, what were the competitor engines offered on the A340NG in the same weight and thrust class? Why were they not opened up for choice? What made Airbus make them an exclusive engine for it?

One major difference I feel is with the RR Trent: it doesnt have the chequered history the GE90 -does- have. (BA sources I have stating it's the ~worst~ engine they have ever seen in their airline existence!-) That's why I believe carriers contemplating the 777X have been on the fence I believe. I think longer term, the 777X may be a good seller for Boeing as well, -particularly if they offer a choice of engines on it. MAS's chairman has publicly said they desire a choice of engines. Most operators do. But that choice is up to Boeing.

And indeed, the 747 was offered only with the PW powerplant on it..but this idea of "oh it will certainly happen with the 777X"...Oh really? How sure are we?
The economics -then- are far different now. Today things are leaner and meaner. Many say that the development of a choice of engines for the 777 was a "bloodbath" for the engine manufacturers. Cost structure to develop a 747 engine by GE or RR then was far different to develop and field an engine now. The costs of putting a competitor's engine on the airframe must be agreed to by the manufacturer and engine maker, who pays for what? Why pays for the manuals and service agreements? Who pays for the flight testing? Who does the risk sharing? Particularly if an exclusive contract was signed with a different manufacturer. These are just the beginnings of a complicated effort to put an engine on an airplane. Then you have to get shareholders into the mix. I truly think, in the bigger picture of things, Boeing should have left the choice of engines an open one for the 777X and today we'd be seeing orders upon orders for it, but they felt the earlier experience of three engines was too much of a drain on them and the seperate manufacturers. So they selected one.

They may get a roll of orders in the next few weeks, but what is surprising is, EVA Air didnt wait for FIA, nor did JAL. There was much said about this big effort to show a massive 777X order list at Farnborough..and how it will "blow away Airbus" Then in the weeks and months before the show we see a trickle of customers announce their intentions.

The A340-300 survives on it's CFM "burners" due in part to an extensive CFM engine repair network established around the World, take a look at how vast and far the CFM engine operates from the 737-300 to DC-8-71 and then you'll figure out why it was chosen as a sole engine in the A340 as well as the 737-300-through-900. Another reason why RR is enjoying a spate of return business is due to their emphasis in Asia, where they actively advertise their products also.

Regards
MAC
 
Udo
Posts: 4288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 5:16 pm

RE: 777X Exclusive Contract Etc...

Thu Jul 06, 2000 9:28 pm

Thanks MAC, you posted well as usual!

And by the way thanks to CX747 for his explanation why Airbus will crash due to the frustration caused by the fact that Boeing is permanently outselling of their planes..

Over here we comment those future 'statements' like CX has done this way:
Never praise the day before evening!


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:00 am

Hey MAC_Vet, unless I'm mistaken we haven't seen you around here for ages. If you've been away, welcome back! If you've been here all along, then I obviously have a situation.

Good post, vintage stuff. Couldn't agree more.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
FLY DC JETS
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 1:13 pm

A340NG Engine Contract Is Not Exclusive

Fri Jul 07, 2000 1:04 am

The Trent 500 is not an exclusive engine it is the sole powerplant, but the deal is not exclusive. There was no competition. PW was going to offer an more modern derivative of the PW4000. However, PW demanded exclusivity. GE had already abandoned the project, so the choice was down to PW only, or RR with the possibility that GE or Pratt could jump back on at a later date. Airbus told PW that they would not do an exclusive engine and Karl Krapek of PW decided that the plane wasn't worth the money if there was to be an engine competition. RR became the sole powerplant by default. However, PW was in talks last year to develop a larger version of their proposed PW8000 for the A340. This engine would have made the plane much more economical than the RR powered version. However, the companies couldn't come to terms and the deal was abandoned.
Airbus by policy will not allow exclusive engine supply contracts as stated by Leahy and Foregard regarding the A318 when the CFM was also chosen.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AIRBUS DEALS IS THAT IF GE OR PRATT WISH TO PUT AN ENGINE ON THE PLANE, AIRBUS WILL ALLOW AND WELCOME IT. BOEING CHOOSES TO TAKE GE's MONEY AND SCREWS IT's CUSTOMERS ONCE AGAIN.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

Well Stated FlyDCJets!

Fri Jul 07, 2000 3:15 am

Outstanding post DCJets!

Now that clarifies things much better doesnt it? (Grin)
I remember the PW offering, but I forgot about their demand for exclusivity and then the re-approach they made with the PW8000, then that falling apart again.

It does clarify the desire by Airbus to offer the most broad level of choice of engines for it's product. That said they cant force engine makers who want exclusivity on their own products however.

I think people also forget that there -was- a choice originally with the A340-300 with IAE wanting to develop the SuperFan engine but then pulled the rug out leaving the CFM56 as the sole powerplant. I do hear word that CFM is planning an uprated engine for the A340 but when it will be available or if it happens is another story.

Regards
MAC
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

MAC

Fri Jul 07, 2000 5:02 am

Yet again you write a post that goes off topic and allows you to continue to rant on how you don't like Boeing or Microsoft or the United States. Boeing has fixed any rudder problems the FAA has found but you continue to hound them. What about a certain prototype crash in France a number of years ago in which a flight data recorder was taken and doctored? As for Boeing not being happy with where the 777-200LR or 777-300ERs is currently in comparison to the A340NG, pure nonsense. Somehow you don't think the 777-200LR or 300ER will sell well due to their current performance in the market and you taught the A340s superior order numbers. In what time period has the A340NG garned these orders? I guess we shall have to wait until FI and the rest of time   As for the GE being a horrible engine, again pure nonsense. BA likes their RRs and thats fine. Their GE90s operate as advertised. Wonder what Continental, Air France, China Southern, Saudi Arabian, Lauda, Kuwait Airlines think of theirs?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 7:05 am

Since when did this become a United States issue? When there's nothing else to use, I suppose this is the root of everything isnt it? We cant challenge anything anymore? And if you dare -do-, we have to wave a flag in your face? The pure fact is, I'm not an apologist for Boeing, Airbus, this country, Planet Mars or Neptune, Timbuk-Freaking-Tu, or my neighborhood hardware store for that matter.

Why is it hardcore Boeing fans love to interject this everytime? They just cant stand having their big corporate icon being challenged? They get the 'rose colored glasses on' and just bask in this fictitous sense of grandeur they feel is by default deserved and unchallengeable? Then if someone does challenge their icon, they whip up the nationalistic spin again?

It's amazing. I think people can see that.

As for the supposed cure for the 737 rudder issue, I suggest you read the definitive Seattle Times article on the 737 rudder and the revelations that even in the 737NG, the issue has NOT, repeat NOT been put to bed as some like to comfort and pat themselves on the back with. I cant believe a company with Boeing's stature calls a cure for a serious aircraft control issue as increasing the approach speed of the aircraft rather than redesigning the PCU assembly and/or implementing additional fail safe measures to guard against a roll over like those the NTSB has recommended. Then again if you are a company with the attitude (and deep pockets) like that displayed by Boeing, going so far as to question the character of the pilots of USAir 427, claiming they stepped on the rudder deliberately or out of reaction, to then getting a bit more personal, and so on. It showed me the extreme levels this company would go to to protect itself in the issue called "product liability". It's called "Anything to save costs". Indeed that's how I feel on that.

It's amazing to see we still live in an age where people cant question their government or corporate community anymore, and if you dare do, why that makes one some sort of "infidel", "commie", "subversive". Then they claim to be such "democratic thinkers". The biggest oxymoron in this whole debate. The issue of nationalistic pride to take precedence over finding the -truth- is utterly amazing.

I suggest you begin reading these links below and you -may- come through with a broader perspective:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/extra/browse/html/rudd_102796.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/extra/browse/html/boe_102996.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/extra/browse/html/rudd_102896.html

There are 5 parts to this excellent journalistic expose. The editors comments below are REALLY worth looking at aside from the excellent journalism Mr Acohido writes. It exposes the level of resistance Boeing fought to be interviewed or acknowledge anything about this issue.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/extra/browse/html/fan_102796.html

If you take the time to read the entire series, and you begin to challenge and question things, then consider yourself one word:

Educated.

Regards
MAC
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 11:15 am

You forgot to talk about the A320 prototype crash and what went on there? Also, while this particular time I did bring up the politics, they have been so deeply inbedded in ALL of your posts or a high majority of them. Your disdain for America, Boeing or anything coming out of the United States. But that is another matter to deal with in another forum. As for the rudder problem, IT HAS been fixed and they are in full compliance with what the FAA/CAA found. And about the articles I was to read, why is it that articles I put forth are propaganda while yours are whole truths?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

EVA's Real Reason For Negating

Fri Jul 07, 2000 11:35 am

MAC, you forgot to mention that besides the economic downfall in Asia, the other little reason that EVA went with the A340NG in the first place was that the numbers for the then 777-200X model were not as good as they are now. Seeing that Airbus had the better aircraft then, they naturally choose the A340NG. When the 777-200LR in its current form (With 110,000-115,00lb thrust GE-90 engines) was shown to EVA, they once again changed horses as they felt that Boeing had the machine that better met their criteria. While I won't make any outrageous claims for 777-200LR/300ER orders at FI, I think your in for a surprise. AF, QF, Air NZ???? As for not listening to customers and what they want, I guess Boeing just went alone on the 777 and 737NG projects. And they just felt current airlines would like the 757-300s. Not that they built it entirely because their customers were asking for it. If thats not listening to customers, then I don't know what is.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
wingman
Posts: 2829
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 11:57 am

I have to agree with CX on this one MAC. You're dislike of anything American or made in the US is plainly obvious. It is clear from your posts that you believe Airbus and Europe in general are a lily white product of purity and noble intentions. What exactly is your stance on the 320 cover-up in France and the allegations of bribery in order to secure deals in Saudi Arabia and Canada? You always do your best to research your vehement anti-Boeing and anti-US corporate/government posts and yet you always fail to recognize that Airbus and the EU play the game using all the same "dirty tricks" we use here. Did you ever stop to think that the US has the most zealous press industry on Earth and that perhaps some of the most embarrassing European actions in this industry have been silenced by governments more powerful in their ouwn countries than ours is here? Think about the Lockheed case in Japan. It was our own government that unearthed this activity which led to strict regulations against bribing of foreign entities in order to secure business. I assume you believe EU companies never do this kind of thing because no one ever hears about it.

I, for one, fully admit the shortcomings of many things that go one in this country and genuinely admire many things in Europe and other places. It would only add to your obviously intelligent contribultions here if you showed a little more balance. Boeing and America always BAD, Airbus and Europe always GOOD gets tedious after a while.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:31 pm

That's ridiculous Wingman, patently absolutely ridiculous.


The problem is, if you disagree with some things an American company does, in the world of dissent and supposed dialogue, that makes one one of the glittering generalities that unfortunately pollute a good discourse and lead to a rhetorical no-where.

It's probably the biggest albatross the Boeing fans/side of the arugment has, they CANT discuss problems with their icon in a truly educated manner and be prepared to challenge their "master" with, let alone staying on that topic. I have -never- been able to be proven wrong in that view, Never.

Now, I suppose one may want to know who I'm going to vote for this fall?
Oh..Senator McCarthy...where are you?

Regards
MAC
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 12:44 pm

Wingman, I thank you for the verbal backup. MAC, none of what Wingman had to say was ridiculous. Ridiculous would better define most of your anti-American pro European posts. Also, you have yet to answer my and Wingman's question on the A320 crash. Yet again you have managed to drag a particular post off an aviation related topic and into a political/economical/geographical debate. Here is a question for you. Which carriers will/will not order the 777-200LR and/or 777-300ER at Farnborough International Airshow?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 1:13 pm

The simple fact is CX747, in your posts, anything that Boeing does is absolutely AOK, nothing to challenge, nothing to dispute. It's as pure as the wind driven snow. You dont challenge them, they are your hero.

Politics indeed has a major part to play in this as it is a trade issue, and one of the major things I hav emade a mission of is to DEBUNK the myth that somehow everything on one side is "virginal" and expose the truth for what it is.
The fact that there was some sort of a coverup involved with the Habsheim accident does NOT deflect that another *string* of incidents and accidents occurred with the most popular airplane Boeing ever produced, and it proves to me that you DONT want to talk about the 737's flaws but rather deflect it and change subject to the A320.

It happens -EVERY- time!

It's without a doubt the A320 investigation was flawed and something sinister happened. I feel it was disgusting what happened in that. I fully acknowledge and deplore what happened there. Do you want to discuss it? If you do, let's discuss it.

That said, if you want to discuss that, then can we FINALLY open up discussing something your side -DOESNT- want to discuss? I sincerely feel that.

I'm trying to discuss several things, one of which is the complete lack of will on your part or other people to discuss that issue, to the corporate mentality Boeing has shown, its hubris and arrogance and indeed, exposing them for some of the points -they- generated and deflate this mystical myth that people like to associate with them, while easily castigating and casually deriding Europe, the French, Airbus, Socialists, Vegetarians, People who walk their dog or who like cats or whatever else.

People mock the French for their attitude, yet they have no idea that Critical Thinking is tought as a High School level course in France and one of the very reasons why French people critique things is due to the very nature of their upbringing, education and culture. But to us (in the commoner vernacular) We just call them arrogant, socialist, expensive food, and other stupid remarks. It goes both ways also. They mock us and we mock them. I truly believe this is a big part of the constant friction that erupts in Airbus v Boeing debates.

Arriving at a political perspective also entails -experience-, from living and working in this world and knowing how things -really happen-, not the young, idealistic way people -wish- them to be.

We dont live in Utopia, some people think the US is and everything it does is just fine. Some people in other countries claim the same way of thinking, from fundamentalist religious clerics in Iran to a Communist Regieme in Beijing. This exists almost everywhere.

I have lived in Western, Islamic and Confucian societies. Can you make that same claim? I lived amongst them. As they say "When in Rome...do as the Romans Do". To think that my posts are somehow an Anti-American epithet is astonishingly absurd and it shows how you dont truly understand the perspective in which they are written. It also tells me that you want this polarized way of debate so it props up one side vexed against another to get the semblance of a "Great Crusade" going, a frequent failing of some I might add.

My views are -independent- views based upon experience and after years of life, work, thought and challenging of the way people accept things. It's very clear.

But the fact that I have to sit here and explain myself just goes to show the level of resentment that builds in people who are not exposed to all sides of a story. It's a classic problem I have seen here and elsewhere. To take apart my views as if I should be ashamed of them is another astonishing and arrogant way to say "See that guy...let's burn him..he dont think like us"

When you have committed several years of your life to YOUR country, and then went out and lived outside of it while in that service, then did same as civilian afterwards and learned -different ways- of culture, life, thinking, etc, the way graduate students in varying fields of study do, cultural anthropologists on a mission to learn one culture or another, etc.

My life has been a mixture of all sorts of exposure to things away from the vast bosom of creature comforts and common ways of thinking and doing things many get used to back home. have you ever travelled and -lived- overseas? If you have then you'll understand where I'm coming from. And to begin to think independently does not make you an Anti-American or whatever other ridiculous epithet that frequently gets tossed around. That's the stuff for reactionaries to get whipped up, not educated people.

I sincerely suggest you atch the movie "Born on the Fourth of July" a few times. You see a firebrand young man whose committed to everything "God and Country" and then gets maimed in Vietnam, watch the metamorphosis of thinking he goes through. It's a story about reality, life, courage, believing in something that turns around and almost kills you and above all: -growing up- with a mature mind.

You'll completely appreciate the perspective -where- I am coming from, but you seek to torch me as some sort of Anti-American-American who has a hammer and sickle at the end of his name or in his signature block. Rather than an educated, independent minded individual who has a perspective steeped in many years of overseas life experiences in peacetime and war, with a healthy respect and sensitivity for people of all stripes and beliefs, combined with a massive exposure to the way things are done here and abroad.

It takes courage challenging the status quo and it takes GUTS to speak your mind where you strongly believe in your heart that you are right and have the -facts- to back them up.

This is a frequent derision most reactionary thinking types associate with free thinking, traveled, learned people who dont know what to make of this perspective. I used to to a party-line thinker, Thank God I'm not one anymore.

And by the way, I'm voting for Ralph Nader this fall.

Regards
MAC
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 1:41 pm

Again, another long winded post that scuttled the questions we have asked. If you would like to discuss the problem the rudder on the 737 had that is fine with me. Was there a problem with the way the rudder operated on the 737 during unique situations? YES. Was this problem solved? YES. Actually there was an interesting article on regaining control from unusual attitudes in regard to the 737 rudder problem in an aviation magazine several weeks ago. As for the movie "Born on the Fourth of July", it was indeed a good movie. Tom Cruise did an excellent job portraying the events that took place. But as my father would say, "IT'S A MOVIE." If Hollywood told you the story of the average Joe who went to Vietnam, came back, graduated college and began working for IBM etc, it wouldn't be a story. For the average guy, thats what happened. Did we mistreat the Vets when they got home? Yes. Was Vietnam a mistake? No. Was the way the United States government treated the situation wrong? Yes. Did the civilian population act wrong? In many ways Yes. What we should have done is gone in and done the job correctly. Understanding that by doing so young G.I.s would die. That my friend is the price of War. War is not won by pinpricking the enemy. It is won by the sacrifice of life given to you by those that understand a common goal that is greater than themselves. The one tremendous thing that came out of that God awful mess was American Pride. While it took us a decade (1970s) to find it, finally the courage, valor and outright love that the Vets had for this country is being shown. It takes a great man to fight with one hand tied behind his back, especially when it is tied behind his back by his own brother. It also taught us how NOT to fight a War. Desert Storm being a perfect example of the lessons learned in the knee deep rice paddies of Vietnam. Now, right there I have spoken out against the U.S. government, the U.S. citizens and the War in Vietnam. I guess you are taking your time to answer my silly (in regards to those on Vietnam) questions on 777X orders?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 1:52 pm

Airbus bribes got deals in Saudi?

You must be joking! As far as I remember the Saudi Arabian Airlines deal was won by Boeing and MD thanks to a large amount of political/diplomatic/military intervention from US President Bill Clinton.

Ever heard of ECHELON? It is a US-UK-Canada-NZ communication system based in Menwith Hill and NORAD that intercepts millions of phone calls, faxes and emails everyday. The information within these is then passed to 'friendly' US corps. such as MS, IBM, Boeing and GE which allows them to undercut any deal that Airbus or Vodafone/Airtouch offer (to give two examples). Go to http://news.bbc.co.uk and search for some more info.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 2:04 pm

CX747

Not trying to decline answering the question, rather exposing a full answer to some of these accusations you lay at me and indeed, expect a "long-winded", complete answer to them.

You want an answer on 777X orders at FIA?

I see the following:

Air France -300X definitely/possibly the -200X (converted over from -200ER orders?)

(I also believe they will announce for the A3XX at same time so it deflects any negative reaction in France otherwise known for it's wine, fois gras and of course.."Airbus Central" (G)

All Nippon -300X (possibly the -200X) around 6 are rumored.
Korean Air -200 and 300X I see possibly 5 with 5 option

EgyptAir (possibly for the -200X) 2 or 3 possibly, EgyptAir likes to try out new airplanes from both manufacturers and given their fleet planning and knowing they are now without 767s, I think they may opt for this while operating the A340NG at the same time. They could opt for leasing them from one of the two leasing giants below though.

ILFC (that big order previously mentioned of 30 aircraft )
GECAS (I see them ordering as well, afterall it's a GE product on them, around 5 with 5 option)

All the other order competitions like MAS, QANTAS..

QF..well..I really think QANTAS may either hold off at the moment or split for the A3XX and 777X (or 777-200ER) around 10 unless Airbus really goes for broke with an incredible deal on A340NG's and A330s packaged with the A3XX. boeing could counter with a similar deal on 747X and 777X. Really a close one I think.

MAS looks like it will go all Airbus. Airbus has a really good package on the table from what I know. Boeing offers a deal on 737NGs and 777X. Plus the GE maintenance facility planned for K.L. (RR is planning similar facility there also so it's a real close competition still, but I do believe AI has this one. I also see MAS continue to operate it's 744 and 777-200ER fleet, if not expanding it's 772 fleet alongside the Airbus fleet.)

Cathay Pacific-I see it going to both actually. I see them going for the A3XX/A340NG and 747X for some reason, although they could very well opt for adding the 777X as well.

Airlines form South America? Varig already has the 772 on order. They could become a future 777X operator.

Strangely, and this seems really bizarre, but I dont see any US major carrier ordering the 777X at least for now. CO is a potential operator in the future as they have a large GE90 equipped fleet. But according to Bethune they arent buying at the moment.

Regards
MAC
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 2:10 pm

Mac,

I have read the articles you referred to in your posts and found them very interesting, to the point where I printed out various NTSB reports and matched the different accidents with various findings. I'm not a big believer in government conspiracies but certainly do understand the value of money to big corporations. Have you read the "Tombstone Imperative - Why planes crash"? (I probably have the title wrong - my apologies.) It certainly changed the way I view any Airline or Aircraft manufacturer's rhetoric.

I am neither pro Airbus nor Boeing and find each company makes good products. But after reading just about every NTSB report available in which Large Transport aircraft have crashed or had fatalities it has completely changed my view on air safety. A lot of these air crashes are forgotten by the public by the time the report is out and recommendations are made. Those guys at the NTSB (and every other countries version) should be commended for their work, but it's sad that they rarely get any of their recommendations implemented as the FAA has to work a compromise between cost to manufacturer / airlines and peoples lives.

Great educated posts! I enjoy reading someone who knows what he is talking about and who doesn't appear to spout information from biased trash media reports.

mb
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 2:24 pm

Eg777er

You might want to check out this last weeks posts in the Independent newspaper from the UK on this very subject.

The URL is http://www.independent.co.uk

A particularly interesting series of stories featured ECHELON this week, one which featured how the US used it to get a deal in Indonesia where we KNEW that part of the deal was going to directly -line the pockets- of the corrupt Suharto Regieme which was overthrown.

I cant get over how the former CIA director James Woolsey was so aloof to scream "We do this because you bribe!", then expect the public to be so stupid to believe they dont do -same- when they helped line the pockets of a corrupt regieme in Indonesia (using the same ECHELON system) to get that deal!

Amazing no? (Grin)

Another example of being "Ethically Challenged":

Last year when Taiwan based China Airlines wanted to split it's order with Airbus and Boeing (the MAJORITY of which went to Boeing), A US senator chided the Taiwanese saying that if the Communist Chinese attacked Taiwan "who's going to defend them...the French!?"

Another example of politicians getting into commercial deals as "payment for strategic services". The Wall Street Journal ripped this apart in the days after this occurred in August 1999.

It places the whole moralisitic, "We're the white knight understaynd..If you DARE buy planes from those Froggy French..then you'll pay for it if 'dem ChiCom's attack you!..We aint helping a fellow democracy out on account of you splittin' yer airline's orders" BS one side used. Aint that nice?

I guess if WW2 was fast-forwarded to today, using similar "Senator-is-a -Mental-dolt and Probably a Selfish Pig-thought pattern" (Grin) We could then deduce or say "Nope, not gonna fight it, let the Germans have France..it aint worth a D-Day landing to save them from competing with our aerospace industry..what's in it for us and my (business) constituents?"..

Incredible.

Regards
MAC
 
Kangar
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:11 pm

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 5:02 pm

I find it sad that this pan nationalistic drivel dimension is dragged into this topic, whatever the "side" who does it. I thoroughly enjoy checking out this forum. If you look a the name of the person who posted, you can have a good idea what slant it will take. If it's a post by CX747 or Deltair, it'll be about Boeing receiving yet more orders, or, the impending failure of the A3XX/AI, etc., etc, or if it's MAC, it will be on corporate welfare for Boeing. The end result is that both sides need to succeed, or we're in for a very boring ride. And as for one side taking the moral high ground, well that's just b******t. Both sides will resort to any tactic they see fit, if they think it will give them the advantage.
 
Singapore 777
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat May 29, 1999 3:00 pm

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 6:14 pm

While it is most certainly true that the 777X has the better performance figures overall, who can tell? These are just figures! The plane itself is not even out yet! And yes, there is probably one airline who will probably not order the 777X at the Farnborough Airshow and that is SIA.

Thanks to the GE exclusivity deal, SIA will probably not be looking at the 77X and has even stated that "boeing will have to make a VERY compelling case to make SIA cancel the LOI for the A34NGs". RR was supposed to have gotten ready a 110,000lbs Trent I read somewhere but I don't know if it has been abandoned. It doesn't seem to be getting much attention.

Many airlines went for the other engine options with the original 777 and Boeing is quite dumb to offer the next generation of this excellent aircraft with only GE engines. If an airline wanted engine commonality in the fleet, do you expect them to fly original 777 RRs or PWs and the new 777 with GE? And besides, the GE doesn't exactly have a very good record compared with the other two.

I'm not flaming the 777 here. It's a very good plane but sometimes, it's the little issues (engine commonality) like these which affect it's sales.

About EVA, it already operates a mainly GE fleet so it's quite commonsensical for it to continue with the 77X. For JAL, I do not really know, but they have been operating PW 777s. QF and ANZ also operate GE operated types (767) and of course, not forgetting AF.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 6:26 pm

Singapore 777, I do not agree.The exclusivity deal will expire in December, and RR has a Trent 8115 somewhere.The 777 will in time be offered with the RR/PW engine types.

I agree with CX747 and wingman.MAC_Veteran you seem to be putting your anti-Ameircan sentiments in the message.OK I agree, Airbus and Boeing are both good.

EVA has and will always operate aircraft with GE engines, which is why they cancelled the A340NG order.Even given a chance, they would be able to buy the A340-300 but with the intervention of the US government, they were not able to do so.

Thr US has a monopoly on Taiwan. If Taiwan's carriers buy Airbus, the US will start asking Taiwan if the commies invade them,who will defend them.So the Taiwanese carriers are forced to buy Boeing as a result.

As for Airbus offering bribes to Canada, that is absolutely NOT true.Who said that Airbus offered bribes?Air Canada, if it had not bought Canadian,would go Airbus while Canadian goes Boeing.

But with the recent aquisition of CP by AC, the whole of Canada will be an Airbus territory(literally), with exceptions of other small carriers.

So both Airbus and Boeing will shine.Airbus with the A3XX, Boeing with the 747X and the 777X


Gundu

 
na
Posts: 9170
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 6:48 pm

Hi Gundu,
where did you read or hear the GE-exclusivity will end in December? I just read a news statement of todays date where Condit says the GE-exclusivity on the 777X would run indefinitely because GE financed the project to a certain part. Also is mentioned there that Boeing will lauch the 747X in between 6-9 months from now.
 
FLY DC JETS
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 1:13 pm

GE Deal Will NOT End In December-Na

Fri Jul 07, 2000 9:12 pm

The GE deal was to have ended in December of 1999 if Boeing did not launch the aircraft. However, Boeing chose to renew the deal and keep GE as the exclusive supplier. When the plane was launched earlier this year, the deal was effectively cemented and GE is the exclusive supplier of all 777X long-range aircraft.

RR stopped development of the Trent 8110 and 8115 in September and has publicly stated that the program is on the back burner. They have conceded as PW did, that GE will be the only engine. At least for several years to come.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8007
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 9:22 pm

However, I don't expect the GE90-110/115B to be the only engine on the 777 Long Range versions for long, especially if a number of airlines insist on wanting the plane ONLY if they can get it with the uprated Rolls-Royce Trent 800. And believe me, I'm sure Boeing may listen if 60 or more 777 LR's can be sold immediately if they can use the Trent engine.
 
MAC_Veteran
Posts: 702
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 1999 3:03 am

RE: Gundu

Fri Jul 07, 2000 10:21 pm

Gundu,

What you are describing is the Taiwan of old. The US does NOT have a monopoly on Taiwan any more and for good reason. The simple FACT is, Taiwan wants variety to choose from. And whether you want to agree with the ignorant charges of Anti-American this or that is your problem, but come along for the ride while I correct you, it shall be entertaining.

China Airlines operates a large A300 fleet and pending A340/A330 order in addition to it's 747, 737-800 (they preferred the A320 but "politics" forced upon them by the US side (Gosh that makes me an "Anti-American" for pointing that out now! Hic.. Hic..) did preclude them from ordering what they wanted) and MD-11 fleet, TransAsia Airways operates a large ATR42/72, A320/A321 fleet, Formosa Airlines (now merged with Mandarin) operated a SAAB340, Fokker 100 fleet. UNI Air Operated BAE146's and Dornier 228s alongside its MD90 fleet.

Taiwan has realized that it cannot put all it's eggs in one basket and needs to choose aircraft from at least two sources, The US and Europe. If it became too dependent upon one, it could be tied to that one source for other, more important defense related equipment like fighter planes. The Republic of China Air Force operates both F-16 and Mirage 2000-5 equipment. Why? Because they are both outstanding pieces of technology and gives them access to the best of technology from Europe and the US. Taiwan also operates US made and French made naval ships (Lafayette class frigates) in it's navy. Furthermore, the way the US administration has been treating Taiwan in recent years with it's belly-up to the Commisars in Beijing gives Taiwan great reason to diversify it's defense and commercial aircraft sources.

And further, just yesterday Phil Condit reiterated that the GE exclusivity on the 777X WILL REMAIN INDEFINITELY on this program. Check your nearest Reuters newswire and do a keyword search on the words "Boeing" and this will be revealed from yesterday.

MAC
 
FLY DC JETS
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2000 1:13 pm

Ray Chuang--Definition Of Exclusive

Fri Jul 07, 2000 11:01 pm

Please look it up before you continually drag up the BS that RR is going to bring an engine back into development that has already ceased.

ROLLS ROYCE STOPPED ALL DEVELOPMENT WORK ON THESE ENGINES IN SEPTEMBER AND CONCEDED THAT GE WILL BE THE ONLY SUPPLIER. Read the quote in the article I provided to you previously.

BTW- GP7000 will never be on the 777, the only way the alliance passed the EU trade commission in the first place is because it was to be used on 4 engine jets only. The GP7000 will compete with engines that the companies are having a difficult time selling already. None of the three companies have made money off their engines for the 777.

More than likely, there will be another engine for the 777X but it won't be for a NUMBER OF YEARS. Your blatent disregard of facts is maddening, you continually ignore numerous facts that clearly show that your hypothesis will not come into fruition. Yet, you continue to post this Drivel.

 
wingman
Posts: 2829
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing Shines As Airbus & A3XX Stumble.

Fri Jul 07, 2000 11:41 pm

When I referred to the alleged bribes in Saudi Arabia, I meant that Airbus tried. The interesting thing about Echelon is that word from the press has it that the US used information about Airbus bribes to confront Saudi Arabian officials. Boeing won the order and this probably played a crucial role. Still no comments from MAC on European industrial espionage? France is reported to have one of the most extensive government run industrial espionage networks in the world. Still no comment from MAC. Britain has the same access to Echelon data as the US. Since they have an interest in Airbus, could they not use the same data to shield or protect Airbus? Maybe warn their French friends not to put the words "bribe Saudis and Canadians" in emails or faxes? These are allegations only but the repeated reports of bribes in Saudi and Canada and the coverup in France may contain some truth. MAC, I eagerly await your comments on this or can I see you screaming into the night "NOOOOOO, it can't be true, it just can't be true".

Talk like this is horseshit because it assumes that the EU is the victim only. MAC, if want to live in a world of ignorance and bliss about your knights in shining armor, then dedicate yourself to slamming Boeing and the US only. You would be very dissapointed to learn the truth about our friends.
 
mlsrar
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 7:41 am

The Patriot

Sat Jul 08, 2000 12:40 am

"Since when did this become a United States issue? When there's nothing else to use, I suppose this is the root of everything isnt it? We cant challenge anything anymore? And if you dare -do-, we have to wave a flag in your face? The pure fact is, I'm not an apologist for Boeing, Airbus, this country, Planet Mars or Neptune, Timbuk-Freaking-Tu, or my neighborhood hardware store for that matter."


This became a United States issue the instant that you began to spear US intervention into Taiwan's aircraft acquisition.
"(Gosh that makes me an "Anti-American" for pointing that out now! Hic.. Hic..)"
You seem to have a monochromatic dispersion when it comes to interpolating politics, nationalism, competition, capitalism, and CIVIL AVIATION RELATED POSTS ONLY! Your profile says that you enjoy "grilling" people on this forum. I'm impressed that you're an educated person. I would enjoy having a 'go' and grilling you myself, perhaps off of this forum where it's not proper, mature, or prudent to antagonize members for your own satisfaction. If you enjoy expressing your opinions about civili aviation and the related affairs--including the political involvements, wonderful. I respect you for that. However, the pretensious gasconade with which you flaunt your impressive vocabulary makes you sound like a bombasticating, embryonic babbler.

Perhaps you find it amusing to subvert the intentions of this forum with the purpose of amplifying your ego. I really don't. Wingman probably doesn't. Gundu probably doesn't either.

Now for the meat of the issue. You're mentioning, rather vaguely might I add, about the how the big bully of the United States Government interdicted on little Taiwan and threatened their fiscal supplication if they didn't make a Boeing order. Lets see...I seem to remember February of 1994. Yes, Lufthansa was speaking to Boeing, and had discussed a LOI and spoke with the FTC, DCC (Deutch Commerce Commission), and were looking at the possibility of a 777 purchase. The meek, soft-spoken, leftists at the EU didn't want LH to look past the A340s, and subtly suggested that order be placed in lieu of the 777. Well, as you can plainly see, Lufthansa operates a vast fleet of 340s--fine aircraft mind you. I end up on a 330 once a month to Dublin from ORD...I enjoy it. However, Airbus has its hands dirtied from fingering just as many pies (pardon the analogy) as Boeing has.

Regarding the question of the character of the pilots of USAir427, Boeing's answer was a response by an INDEPENDENT investigation by the NTST into the previous actions and inquiries of the flight crew from a suspension in 1992 due to 'criminal misconduct' and 'lack of cockpit discipline' (Jan 13, 1995 Hartford Courant). With that in mind, Boeing also checked the FDR and found that prior to the incident (If you choose to accept PCU failure), the autopilot had been disengaged inadvertently due to rudder intervention.

I also find it rather smallish and narrow-minded of you to group all "hardcore Boeing" fans into a genre of "rose-colored glass wearing" people who are "basking in a sense of gradeur". For someone as educated and open-minded as yourself, it's extremely crasse and displays a poverty of intellect on your part to generalize and sterotype the way you do. I'm a Boeing fan. However, your perception of me turns me into a fundamental nationalist who hates anything from outside American borders. According to you, I walk around with an American flag tattooed on my ass, I'm poorly educated, I don't have a broad scope on worldly issues, I'm not politically versed, and, when it comes to civil aviation, I just say "boeing is good" like some autonomic robot. Kiss my ass. if you're going to treat me like an uneducated ignoramus, i can certainly act like one. Think wisely prior to your posts. Email me if you have a problem, and we can certainly carry this discussion further.


I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson