Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
backfire
Topic Author
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:00 pm

This is directly lifted from a Boeing press release on the first 747-400ER flight:

"With a maximum takeoff weight of 910,000 pounds (412,770 kilograms), the 747-400ER is now the largest and fastest commercial airplane in the sky – cruising at Mach 0.85, or 85 percent of the speed of sound."


Don't think BA and AF will be amused unless there's a new speed restriction on Concorde.  Insane
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1027
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:07 pm

at least, with all these different visions of fabulous new planes, boeing proves to have a very creative PR department. and creativity is incompatible with accuracy. so, you know, these things happen....

r.
 
nebflyer
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 9:23 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:14 pm

Being a media-type myself, I see the word game Boeing is playing. It's not the "largest" and "fastest," it's the "largest and fastest." See the difference? They're not lying, just creatively bending the truth.
However, in the general public's mind, they'll read it like you read it, Backfire... which will just serve to confuse them.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:45 pm

Dunno how they figured out it was the largest either - heaviest definately, but not the largest, in terms of length both the 777 and A340 are now longer.

RickB
 
qantas744
Posts: 1658
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 6:25 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:49 pm

So does that mean that the 777 is the slowest and smallest commercial airliner? After all it's slower than Concorde and smaller than a 747.

Is this the reverse of the media hype Boeing is using here?


Matt
you can't buy time but you can sell your soul and the closest thing to heaven is to rock'n'roll
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:50 pm

Rick, large doesn't have to mean length. It can also be volume... and in volume it is definitely the largest.
I wish I were flying
 
bombayhog
Posts: 505
Joined: Mon May 07, 2001 11:34 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:55 pm

Why do aircraft manufacturers advertise the speed of a plane as if it's going to make some sort of a difference? I can see them advertising it if it's for something like the SC, where it will actually make a difference in the travel time, but with typical commercial aircraft, it seems to me that the difference between planes in terms of speed is going to be pretty much negligible. Correct me if I'm wrong.

/gwl
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 7:58 pm

Jwenting - some of the Antonov's are bigger and are used commercially (i.e. commerical just mean business, be it cargo or passengers).

Dont get me wrong - the 744 is my favourite aircraft - just hate it when PR departments go spouting off without researching it !!

RickB
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:24 pm

That's pretty funny.
Almost as amusing as Airbus's A340 advertisement in AWAST's July 1,2002 issue page 18.

"The Airbus A340 is the only modern 4-engined, long-haul aircraft in service today.

Now that's arrogance.

You're only as good as your last departure.
 
na
Posts: 9737
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:30 pm

That Airbus statement is of course absolute bullshit and a "true" lie, Boeings words are at least not completely untrue, and that since more than 20 years. Since the last Concorde was built, the 747 is the largest and fastest passenger airplane in production.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 10:43 pm

Guys,

If you read the Boeing press release its just as much garbage as the Airbus one. By modern Airbus could mean the only 4 engined long haul passenger aircraft designed since the 1960's in which case they are right (I know, the 744 etc. are more modern - but it was still just a redesign of an older aircraft).

In any case the argument of the 744 being fastest because Concorde is 20 years old is just as valid for the Airbus statement about being modern !!!

Both of them are garbage !! to say one is more garbage than the other is definately a lie !!

Never believe a press release.

RickB
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:09 pm

By modern Airbus could mean the only 4 engined long haul passenger aircraft designed since the 1960's in which case they are right (I know, the 744 etc. are more modern - but it was still just a redesign of an older aircraft).

So the 747 isn't a modern airplane. Then I retract my post. Sorry for the confusion.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
tupolev154b2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 9:01 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:14 pm

how about the IL-96?? then again, that's a redesign of a plane from the 70's (the IL-86)...
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:34 pm

FDXmech - I wasn't implying that the 744 wasn't a modern aircraft (it is thoroughly modern and as I stated earlier my favourite aircraft by far!!) however depending on how you look at it (which is how both Boeing and Airbus come up with their rather dodgy sounding statements) it could be implied that its not modern because it originates with the 747-100.

Tupolev154b2 - the IL96 is perfectly modern again, just you could imply that it as a redesign of the IL86 and therefore a 70's aircraft. Thats not right, but just an example of how you can twist facts for your own use (ala Boeing and Airbus).

The 747 isn't the largest or fastest aircraft in commercial use, nor is the Airbus the only modern 4 engined aircraft - the point I was trying to make is both statements are equally garbage laden !!

RickB
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:37 pm

Rick, I was considering passenger aircraft only. The An-225 is indeed larger (but with only 1 or 2 built hardly more than a prototype).
I wish I were flying
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:42 pm

Just to prove a point of how garbage statements can be made - how about

' The BAe 146 the fastest, largest and most economical 4 engined regional jet liner' or 'The Lockheed Tristar, the most modern, fastest, largest and most comfortable passenger aircraft ever fitted with 3 Rolls Royce engines'.

Neither statement is untrue - you can bend the facts to fit whatever circumstances you want.

RickB
 
FDXmech
Posts: 3219
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 9:48 pm

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:10 am

My opinion as an aircraft mechanic and airline fan who enjoys working both Airbus and Boeing is this.

If I read this prior to this post:

With a maximum takeoff weight of 910,000 pounds (412,770 kilograms), the 747-400ER is now the largest and fastest commercial airplane in the sky – cruising at Mach 0.85, or 85 percent of the speed of sound."

I would take this at face value. The "fastest" label wouldn't raise a flag in my mind because of Concorde due to the fact (IMO) Concorde is in its own class and not lumped together with conventional airliners.

The term "largest" would not bother me due to the general nature of the word and its lack of specificity. If instead it was "longest" then it would raise a flag. If the A380 were in service it would obviously be untrue.

However Airbus's statement wasn't penned to objectively educate the flying community on choices of four engine commercial jet transports as much as taking a jab at Boeing.
You're only as good as your last departure.
 
backfire
Topic Author
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:21 am

Well the 747-400ER might not be the world's fastest but it DID manage to achieve a speed of Mach 0.92 during the flight test.

Not bad for a big bird.
 
Guest

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:22 am

'The Lockheed Tristar, the most modern, fastest, largest and most comfortable passenger aircraft ever fitted with 3 Rolls Royce engines'.


Actually, the tri-star is still considered to be more modern than most of it's competition, far more so than it's contemporaries. Technologically, I've always heard that it is the equivalent of some of the earlier A342s from the people that work on them.
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:35 am

Silverangel - not denying that how about this then:-

The Lockheed Tristar, the most modern, fastest, largest and most comfortable passenger aircraft ever*




















*Fitted with 3 rolls royce engines

Love to know how to do small print on a.net !!

RickB
 
RickB
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 3:11 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:59 am

Marc Kobaissi

Just did thanks !!!

RickB

P.s. Happy for this one to get deleted !!
 
backfire
Topic Author
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 1:36 am

Sorry RickB but:

...the most modern, fastest, largest and most comfortable passenger aircraft ever...fitted with 3 Rolls-Royce engines...

...is the A340-600.

Which just happens to have another engine as well, of course.
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 1:58 am

Get a life, guys. I've been a reporter and editor for more than 30 years, and the exaggerations and word-plays you see in the Boeing/Airbus press releases pale into insignificance when you put them up against the average government press release, a missive from Greenpeace, and (I hate to say it) the average misinformed rants from a host of print and broadcast commentators. Just watch CNN for half an hour.

I would hope that a competent reporter, being asked to write that up as a story, wouldn't use any of it without checking it out. Sadly, there aren't many of that type of reporter left any more.

As for the rest of us -- believe what you read in a press release at your peril.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 6:26 am

The 744ER is a spinoff of a 747-100 design from the late 1960's.

The A340 is a spinoff of an A300-B1 design from the early 1970's.

Both of these aircraft are now the latest most modern aircraft, let alone airliners, in the sky.

I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
A330
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 12:31 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 6:57 am

And all share the same mother, the DC3...

The B747.400ER, is just an updated version of the very first prototype of the B747 in the late sixties.

The A340 series has nothing in common with the A300. I know, I have flown the beasts...

But, the B747 is such a well designed plane, that it is still not outdated, it is still a very nice plane, and one of the easiest to fly by the way, something you cannot say about the A300. (But the A340/330 flies like a gem)
Shiek!
 
wingman
Posts: 3899
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 7:15 am

What changes the flying chracteristics for a pilot though is the FBW. I'm not taking a swipe at the 330/340s, but you probably don't do much compared to your days in the 300. Hell, if I got a raise and my workload dropped by 50-80% I'd be a happy camper myself. Outside of FBW though, the 330/340 incorporate no more significant changes from its own 1960's predesecor than the 744ER's do. Cockpit layouts, wings, engines, interior etc. To hear Loopy dismiss the 744 as a 1960's plane is jibberish. The man is a tool.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Boeing PR Blunder

Fri Aug 02, 2002 8:51 am

A330,

Ummm, I have a news flash for you. The A340 shares the same fuselage and nose section with the A300. They also have the same vertical stabilizor.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos