Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
N79969
Topic Author
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:18 am

 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:32 am

This article is SOOOOOOO incredibly biased that I dont even know where to begin. The same one can be seen in the WSJ:

In an anonymous white building with mirrored windows near Boeing Co.'s jumbo-jet plant in Everett, Wash., engineers are planning an innovative plane that could let Boeing zip past rival Airbus with its first all-new jetliner since 1995.

The 7E7 would bring together advanced materials, the latest manufacturing methods and the newest electronics in a jetliner more efficient than any in the sky. The question is: Will it ever get built?

Boeing faces a critical choice between spending boldly to develop a new jet and hunkering down to play defense during the airline industry's worst downturn ever. Two of the most powerful members of the company's 11-person board are said to be raising cost concerns about the 7E7, as they press Boeing to improve its earnings and stock price -- even if that means sacrificing cutting-edge engineering.

Harry Stonecipher and John McDonnell are arguing behind the scenes that Boeing, once the world's dominant commercial-plane maker, ought to continue its striking diversification into defense, space and equipment financing, according to people familiar with the situation. The two former McDonnell Douglas Corp. executives came aboard when Boeing acquired that company in 1997. Since then, they have pushed Boeing to wring more profit out of existing product lines, while expanding in areas less volatile and expensive than passenger jets.

Three times in its 86-year history Boeing has soared by betting on highly innovative jet designs: The 707 was the first trans-Atlantic jet; the 747 was the first jumbo jet and the 777 was the first ultra-long-haul twin engine. Boeing hasn't introduced an all-new plane for eight years. Instead, it has attached higher price tags to slightly modified versions of existing models. The last two efforts before the 7E7 to build a genuinely new flagship -- including the high-speed, fuel-efficient Sonic Cruiser -- never made it off the drawing board because of cost concerns and faltering demand for new planes.

Some customers are also worried. "Boeing should be trying to leap-frog Airbus in pricing and technology the way that Airbus leap-frogged them," says Steven Udvar-Hazy, chairman of aircraft-leasing company International Lease Finance Corp., the largest customer for both manufacturers. Two years ago, Airbus launched an ambitious program to develop a 555-seat jumbo aircraft called the A380. It has garnered 95 orders so far.

Phil Condit, Boeing's chairman and chief executive, defends his company's go-slow approach and rejects the notion that Boeing has lost its way in the commercial market. Boeing, he says, has a "responsibility" to find a way to develop jetliners for less. The cost of designing the 7E7 could reach as high as $10 billion, according to people familiar with the project. But the Stonecipher-McDonnell duo is thought likely to veto it unless the figure shrinks by billions. The board is expected to decide the project's fate early next year.

Spending on the 7E7 has been the subject of private debate between Messrs. Stonecipher and McDonnell, on one side, and fellow board member James McNerny Jr., chairman and chief executive of 3M Co., on the other, according to people familiar with the situation. Mr. McNerny, the former head of General Electric Co.'s jet-engine division, is said to be concerned that an overemphasis on the bottom line could cause Boeing to miss its chance to pull ahead of Airbus.

Once known for the breadth of its commercial product line, Boeing is beginning to resemble the old McDonnell Douglas. In the 1980s and 1990s, that company slipped badly as it shied away from developing new jets. Today, only two of Boeing's six models -- the single-aisle 737 and the wide-body 777 -- are selling well. The 747, 757 and 767 have outdated technology and are losing to Airbus competitors. The 107-seat 717, which Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas, has been a commercial flop.

"There is the question out there about whether Boeing is headed the way of McDonnell Douglas," says Byron Callan, an aerospace analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co. "Douglas frittered away a pretty solid market position by not taking risks."

Although retired as an executive, Mr. Stonecipher, 66, stays in close contact with members of his former team. They include Michael Sears, Boeing's chief financial officer, and David Swain, who oversees cost-saving efforts on the 7E7.

Mr. Stonecipher's gruff manner and hard line on development spending have won him relatively few fans in Boeing's engineering corps or on the factory floor. "He isn't emotional about airplanes; it's all business," says a former senior company executive.

Before the McDonnell merger, Boeing relied on commercial aviation for 80 percent or more of its revenue. In 2002, that figure was 52.5 percent. The company reported net income of $492 million last year on revenue of $54.1 billion. (Before "special charges," its net income would have been $2.3 billion, the company said.)

Boeing has gone from a relatively insignificant military contractor to the country's second-largest. Its defense unit, based at McDonnell's old St. Louis headquarters, is expected to contribute just over half of the company's projected $49 billion in revenue this year from selling fighter jets, cargo planes and weapons to governments around the world. In a purposely symbolic action two years ago, Mr. Condit, after consultation with Mr. Stonecipher, moved Boeing's headquarters from its commercial-aviation enclave in an industrial district in Seattle to a high-rise building in downtown Chicago.

Some airline executives say that Boeing has helped contribute to the perception that it has lost its way by confusing customers with a series of potential new versions of old aircraft that have failed to materialize. A Boeing spokesman counters that proposing derivative models that might never be built is a valid way to determine what customers want. The company has delivered at least one derivative in each of its six model families since 1997, but most have been slow to catch on.

All hopes for real innovation now rest on the 7E7, a project Boeing announced five months ago. In preliminary artist's renderings, the plane looks like a traditional twin-engine jetliner, except for wingtips that slant backwards. The company says the fuel-efficient twin-aisle jet would carry 200 to 250 passengers on long routes now possible only with larger planes.

Publicly, Boeing says that its customers are excited by the 7E7. But privately, people familiar with the venture say the picture is cloudier. These people explain that most of the major U.S. airlines that would be crucial to the jet's success have been too consumed with staying aloft to give Boeing a clear idea of the kind of amenities and performance they would demand from a new plane. Without such vital variables as desired range and seating capacity, designers can't easily complete their task. Worse, the word coming back from customers in Asia is that they want an airplane that is smaller and shorter-range than the one Boeing thinks would be most marketable in the rest of the world.

Boeing says the potential market for the new plane is huge: About 3,000 older 767s, 757s and Airbus A330s are due for replacement by the end of the decade. The question the company's board faces is whether the 7E7 will be different enough from existing models to entice airlines to pay a premium for it.

Gordon Bethune, chairman and chief executive of Continental Airlines Inc., which flies all Boeing aircraft, says that compared with the Sonic Cruiser, a futuristic Boeing model that never went into production, the 7E7 "will be a real yawner" for airline executives and passengers. "It's not very sexy," Mr. Bethune adds, "but it could give Boeing a leg up over Airbus in that part of the market."

But that's a big if. Boeing insiders say that Messrs. Stonecipher and McDonnell probably will help block the project early next year unless a way is found to develop and produce the 7E7 at substantially lower cost than the 777. Boeing hasn't released final cost figures for developing the 777, but some company executives have hinted privately that the overall number was $7 billion. Mr. McDonnell says the question of whether to proceed with the 7E7 "will be up to the board; I cannot speak for the board."

People involved with the 7E7 program say that the board has said the new airplane must be designed for no more than 40% of the money it took to develop the 777. In addition, the board has said the plane must be built for no more than 60% of what it takes to assemble today's 777s. Without confirming or denying the percentages, Mr. Condit says he established stringent cost limits. "What I try to do is be very clear with everybody in the business units what I believe the board's criteria for success are going to be," he says.

Boeing's last great hope for a big breakthrough was the Sonic Cruiser. After Airbus announced two years ago that it would build the giant A380, Boeing unveiled the futuristic concept that executives said they had been secretly working on for some time. The Cruiser featured swept-back wings and an innovative design that included relocating the horizontal tail fins to a spot behind the cockpit. It was supposed to fly at just below the speed of sound and enable Boeing to blow past its European competitor.


*****************************************************




engineers are planning an innovative plane that could let Boeing zip past rival Airbus with its first all-new jetliner since 1995.

Listening to this, you'd think that Boeing had actually fallen behind Airbus in revenue




Boeing hasn't introduced an all-new plane for eight years. Instead, it has attached higher price tags to slightly modified versions of existing models.

Funny... so did Airbus. The gap between the Airbus' newest launch (A380) and its second most recent is of similar time span





Some customers are also worried. "Boeing should be trying to leap-frog Airbus in pricing and technology the way that Airbus leap-frogged them,"

Um... perhaps because Airbus cannot justify a premium in pricing in any of their products (relative to the corresponding Boeing model) with the exception of the A330





Two years ago, Airbus launched an ambitious program to develop a 555-seat jumbo aircraft called the A380. It has garnered 95 orders so far.

Good for them... only a few hundred more to go, and not at reduced launch-customer cost





The 107-seat 717, which Boeing inherited from McDonnell Douglas, has been a commercial flop.

Yet, unlike the A318/736... the 717 is actually selling, and its current owners arent cancelling orders left and right.






Boeing hasn't released final cost figures for developing the 777, but some company executives have hinted privately that the overall number was $7 billion.

Nice that she only states the low-ball. According to some sources, the bill on 777 is far above that





Boeing's last great hope for a big breakthrough was the Sonic Cruiser.

What kind of crap is this statement?! Boeing said from DAY 1 that the plane might not take the shape it's being offered in; and rather could be applied to a slower but more efficient model.






After Airbus announced two years ago that it would build the giant A380, Boeing unveiled the futuristic concept that executives said they had been secretly working on for some time.

Every analyst and their grandmother labeled the S.C. as "Bransonian" PR.... Forbes, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Jane's; just to name a few of the "minor" sources.





enable Boeing to blow past its European competitor.

You mean like it's done every year since Airbus has been in existence?

Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Minuteman
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 1:01 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:39 am

That's kind of interesting ... if Boeing CAG was to go the way of a consortium (more officially than it already is).

Whom could it be comprised of?
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:37 pm

Well if this report is true to the most part Boeing seems to be on it way out of the Commerical airline business more correctly being the top dog in that business.


Some would say that Bus has been whipping Boeing's butt due to the DEALS that every major order seems to receive. EasyJet need I say more. I am not certain but has there ever been a new plane produce in such adverse economic circumstances as it relates to airlines.

Boeing started good ideas and never moved on with them, the cockpit commonality is a prime example. The 737NG the 764 and the 777 should have the cockpit commonality that Airbus bosts. In fact the 744s should have this commonality which should have been introduced soon after if not before the 737NG came into service.

It is clear that Boeing has to fork out mucho dinero if it is do establish it self as the dominant manufacturer. Risks need to be taken and if engineers are certain that the can pull off another 777 type product (with the same success) then they should go ahead with it. I am sure providing that we dont have anymore wars and this era of hightened terrorism will be over when the 7E7 comes into service.

Boeing can use the 7E7 as the launch pad for its new range of aircrafts. For example innovations made on the 7E7 should be effectively put to use on a new 747. The model 737 should be retired including the shape of the fuselage and a new narrow body aircraft should be effectively design to be economical from the 100 seat to 200 seat market.

Stonecipher's gruff manner and hard line on development spending have won him relatively few fans in Boeing's engineering corps or on the factory floor. "He isn't emotional about airplanes; it's all business," says a former senior company executive

Is detrimental to the commercial division. I am not saying that he should be all excited about planes like most of us are in this forum but he should at least want to have a positive imapact on the industry and along with financial well being he should desire Boeing to be number one. That attitude will not allow the commerical divison to evolve and thus cause it to perish.

Eagles Soar!
 
CX747
Posts: 6299
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:56 pm

So two idiots that ran McDonell Douglas into the ground are now going to try the same thing with Boeing. Get them the heck off the board. Between the two of them, they have one fourth of a brain.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
rj777
Posts: 1807
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:27 pm

Come, on! I agree with CX747. Those two have no vision. That's why McDD got swallowed up by Boeing. They couldn't successfully market a new product.

The 7E7 will be a great plane that will follow in the legacy of the 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. (and Hopefully, the 717).

 
MD-11 forever
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:15 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:52 pm

I agree with you CX747!

If I remember correctly, this kind of "strategy" was the driver behind bringing MDD down...... seems that those guys didn't learn their lesson yet.

Cheers, Thomas
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:26 pm


Our "arm-chair board members" seem to be out in full force. Boeing is a loss-making company and there are possibly very good reasons they don't want to commit to USD10bn spending, plus cost overruns.

Just because they were at the head of McD and that business was acquired, doesn't mean they're stupid or wrong right now. They probably have considerably more information behind their opinion on the 7E7 than we do.



 
KUGN
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2000 4:36 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:35 pm

Add one more vote CX747. In addition, I have been unimpressed with Phil Condit's track record in say last 5 years. Thise MD-execs have been admitted to Boeing's board under his watch.
 
N79969
Topic Author
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:12 pm

Historically, Boeing has been a pretty consistent money maker.
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:13 pm

Uh...loss making?
Boeing is actually in very good shape for the down turn.
And cash flow is excellent.
AND most of it is coming form the BCAG.
So, I'm not sure where you're getting your information.
I'm getting mine from their Annual Report (as a shareholder).

Funding a ten billion dollar project is not an issue with Boeing--internal cash and outside funding is abundant for them. Their diversity in all aspects of aeronautics and space is unrivaled.

This is not meant to detract from the phenomenal success of Airbus. But please, let's not paint Boeing as an 'also ran.'
 
backfire
Posts: 3467
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:01 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Wed Apr 23, 2003 11:32 pm

Good old Harry Stonecipher. The guy who promoted the Sonic Cruiser by saying that there was plenty more fossil fuel in the world for it to drink. When I called Boeing to find out if it was Harry who'd come out with those words, a woman on the end groaned: "Oh God, what has he said NOW...???" Big grin
 
User avatar
coronado
Posts: 1278
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 1999 9:42 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:18 am

Why are they on the board? Well apparently they own or control soemething over 14mm shares which makes them the largest shareholders of Boeing.

Why apparent pro-defense slant by board? I assume the thinking is that thru lobbying you can always try and somewhat smooth out the defense business and often it in fact contra-cyclical. If you can convince the politicians a new defense project will add jobs to make up for the jobs lost because the private sector is depressed it will certainly counter the wild swings in commercial aircraft. In the last 30 years commercial aviation has gone through at least 3 downturns in which net new orders in one year were virtually nil.

Above is a statement claiming BCAG will have to develop a 7E7 for 40% of the 7bn+ spent on the 777 --seems like an impossible task. Heck I think Embraer will have spent 850MM-1BN to develop the 170 series a I supect brazilian engineers make quite a bit less than US engineers. Is the board telling BCAG to put a square peg into a round hole?
The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
 
brons2
Posts: 2480
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:43 am

Stonecipher and McDonnell are poison. Unfortunately they can't be forced off the board because of all the shares they received in the merger. (the merger was a stock swap transaction, I would guess). It is very sad to see them run Douglas into the ground and now are trying to do the same to Boeing.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
wingman
Posts: 4021
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:13 am

Consortium with Northrop< the Japanese, Koreans and Chinese with varying degrees of ownership. The new venture to be formed as an "econimic enterprise" free of taxation for 10-20 years. That's how France stuck it to Boeing and we need to simply learn from their lesson and stick it right back.

Agreed with CX747, Stonecipher and his short term vision cronies need to be tied down in the path of a speeding 777. The symbolism is too perfect.
 
GDB
Posts: 13833
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:18 am

You may call it 'running Boeing into the ground' but they and Wall Street (with the long term vision of the average crack addict) will call it 'maximizing shareholder value'.
 
N79969
Topic Author
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:34 am


I also agree with CX747. Boeing needs to ante up and soon. But ignoring shareholder value is very dangerous path and could just make things worse for Boeing. Japan is in a hole because they were obsessed with market share over profitability in many sectors of their economy. Shareholder value matters.

Wingman makes a good point. If the US goverment actually turned its guns on Airbus and emulated the tactics of France and EU to promote Boeing's interests, they will be making foil and beer cans (out of GLARE) in Tolouse. I think and hope that will not be necessary.

I think there is a rational explanation of Boeing's reluctance to take big risks. They are competing against a Rasputin-like company that cannot fail unlike Lockheed and McDD. That makes all of their BCAG investments riskier across the board. Nonetheless, Boeing has to act or it will be overtaken at some point down the road.

 
LMP737
Posts: 6078
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:00 am

I wonder if Harry and John have realized that this strategy did not work at McDonnell Douglas. MD did not want to invest in it's commercial aircraft line. They wanted to "maximize profits" by investing in "current models". End result, aircraft that the airlines did not want. MD wanted to concentrate on the military side of the house. The problem with that being you are putting all your eggs in one basket. Case in point, the JSF competition. McDonnell Douglas lost in the design phase of the competition. All of a sudden MD was faced with the reality that they were out of the fighter business once the last F-15 and F-18 were delivered.

Hopefully Boeing will not go down this road. However, with Harry and John sitting on the board I wouldn't hold my breath.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:23 am


Well according to the people at BWIA Boeing is in need of a serious exorcism. Boeing seems to have a very good tract record with the planes they produce. Boeing needs to take risk and un less these people willing to spend some cash they are killing the commerical division.

Boeing doesnt have to bring it on inorder to stay in business but should if they have aspirations of being the number one aircarft manufacture in the world.
Eagles Soar!
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:40 am

The problem here off course is that these two former MDD guys are now major shareholders, and are anxious to keep max value of their shares. All their actions are in the interest of CURRENT shareholders [including themselves]. Spending anywhere between $5 - $10 Billion dollars NOW, is NOT in the interest of CURRENT shareholders since the return on that investment will not come before 2010 or even 2015 **. By that time these guys have long cashed their stock, so they are not looking to get a nice return on their shares beyond 2010.

This in general is the problem with these huge management bonusses these days. The people responsible for running a 250000 employee coorporation are only looking for short term stock value, and don't have any incentive to take care for the long term strategy [long term is beyond 10 years].

Another problem is that the 7E7 will eat away [some] marketshare from the 777. We have seen with the MD11 line closure that Boeing doesn't like that. This maybe of particular concern if the development cost of the 777 was indeed so high [$7 -10 bn], and if this cost has not yet been recovered sufficiently.

** This is the main reason why I have no problems with [limited..!] government support for developing/launching new commercial airliners. This business has now become so awfully expensive that most commercial firms are not prepared to take any risks, since the return of investment maybe a decade away. The current climate of max shareholder value and management bonuses doesn't help to gain progress in airliner technology. Off course I'm not biased at all by my nationality . . . .

@ConcordeBoy
Isn't that ironic. In reply 1 you go through great lengths to prove that Boeing is still [miles] ahead of Airbus.
A simple way to recognise when company XX is ahead of the competition: when the competition takes XX as the unit of measurement and all the competitions actions and statements are in relation to XX, or an answer to XX. That is exactly what you have done in most of your statements in reply 1.

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:03 am

okay smart guy,
tell me: how else does one refute an article whose assertions were of the exact opposite nature to my rebuttals in a manner other than countering what they list as Boeing's shortcomings to their actual accomplishments/achievements/the relative failures of Airbus?  Insane
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:21 am

"Harry Stonecipher and John McDonnell are arguing behind the scenes that Boeing, once the world's dominant commercial-plane maker, ought to continue its striking diversification into defense, space and equipment financing, according to people familiar with the situation. The two former McDonnell Douglas Corp. executives came aboard when Boeing acquired that company in 1997. Since then, they have pushed Boeing to wring more profit out of existing product lines, while expanding in areas less volatile and expensive than passenger jets"

Interesting comments from two MDC exec's. MDC was able to get the most out of the DC9/MD80 and DC-8 and were very good at it. However, the MD-11 was more or less a failure for many reasons and this kind of logic may be fine for times past suchas the DC8--but Airbus is very dynamic, "well financed" and quite agressive, and rehashing of Boeing stuff isn't going to pull it off....Boeing needs the 7e7.

[Edited 2003-04-24 00:25:54]
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 4123
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:34 am

Off course you don't have much choice . . . but that is the point I'm trying to make here. For years and years and years the large american manufacturers [Boeing, Douglas/MDD, Lockheed, Convair] have been the bench mark for airline production, the rest of the world was good for no more than 25% marketshare. Since the beginning o fthe nineties, Boeing was the sole US manufacturer with 70% marketshare worldwide. During all those years we Europeans [and the rest of the world] looked up to your US companies.
All these articles [including the ones you referred to] now show fear that the US [Boeing] is falling [or going to fall] behind for the first time since what, World War II?? And now you guys are bitching when anyone even implies that Boeing might fall behind.

Off course Airbus and Boeing are level players right now. However most of these articles suggest that although Airbus is now level with Boeing, the momentum is still with Airbus: larger backlog, more research and development, more new programs launched [if you want to call the 318 a new program rather than a derivitive]. And now the A380 is even going to take the crown from the Boeing 747, regarded as the Queen of the skies for a long time now. It looks like that Airbus is going to be the new bench mark, even if they are level with Boeing since they have come from so far. Quite an achievement.

Kind regards,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2605
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:24 am

Maximizing shareholder value is all well and good but you have to spend money to make money, as well as maintain market credibility. Boeing won't even stay level with Airbus, much less regain lost ground if it doesn't invest in new product. Sad that 2 ex-MDD execs could help sink Boeing's only near-term to hope to do this. Steven Udvar-Hazy was correct about how Boeing should be going after Airbus, that is, if they intend to long remain in the commercial aircraft business. Boeing ABSOLUTELY must forge ahead with the 7E7 to help keep it from becoming a niche player in the years ahead.
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:27 pm

The whole lot of airliners that Boeing proposed and did not proceed to construct notwithstanding, it does seem like the Boeing 7E7 will make a difference between airlines having one or two strong manufacturers to choose from in a decade's time.

I had the privilege to watch a presentation on the Boeing 7E7 by a Boeing representative . . . and the airline is impressive (by whatever measure one could wave).

And it looks good too . . . there are many who feels that an airliner that looks good tends to fly good too.

Fully agree with AvObserver that Boeing has to spend money to make money . . . much more money.

KC Sim
Bangkok
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:03 pm


It's a 200-250 seater twinjet.. if Boeing can put together things like the 747 and 777 (whatever variants), they gotta be able --and oughtta be willing-- to build something like this one. Especially if they've time-budgeted about five years in which to do it.
 
CX747
Posts: 6299
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:00 pm

The 7E7 is a crucial jet for Boeing because it starts a whole "new" family of airliners that will take the baton from the current lineup. The 757/767 family is on its way out ala the 7E7, the 737NGs will be around for several more years, but sometime within the next decade, the 7S7 will also be launched (replacement for the 737). The 7E7 effectively allows Boeing to update its product line and streamline its families.

Boeing stands at the threshold of a new era a new way of producing aircraft. While the 737NG and 777 programs can only carry them so far. It is time for another bread winner to be added. This aircraft allows you to control the 200+ seater market and begin focusing on the 747 and 737 replacement. Part of me feels that this article is off because the 7E7 is an outstanding "paper" aircraft and will definately be a winner. Call this the "pre game" jitters if you will.

2012 and beyond

7S7 (737 replacement)
7E7 (757/767 replacement)
777

No word yet on the 747 replacement.

Also, the 767 may still be in production due to military tanker/awacs orders. That being said, the government is now looking at the 7E7 as a viable alternative.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:51 pm

Interesting comments from two MDC exec's. MDC was able to get the most out of the DC9/MD80 and DC-8 and were very good at it.

Douglas got a lot out of the DC-8 design, until Mr. Mac forced the line to close in the early 70s. So I wouldn't say that MDC was any good at maximizing the DC-8.

Joni, we may all be "arm-chair board members", but the fact remains that after the McDonnell Douglas merger in 1967, the board never authorized a single all-new airliner, and the once-proud Douglas line of airliners died out. When the McDonnell side lost the F-23 and JSF, the company was forced to seek a merger. Now the McDonnell-side experts want to run Boeing the same way.

 
Areopagus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:21 pm

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has an interesting followup article at http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/119009_boeing24.html.
An interesting quote in it:

Richard Aboulafia, senior aviation analyst with the Teal Group, said Boeing must go ahead with the 7E7 if it wants to remain a serious maker of commercial jetliners.

"With the 7E7, the market is there and the technology is there," he said. "If Boeing doesn't launch it, they are putting the world on notice that they will probably never again develop a new jetliner. Even debating the issue casts doubt on their commitment to their current products, which would result in customers fleeing to Airbus, a company with a real commitment to new products, with profitability being a purely secondary issue."

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

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:23 pm

N79969,

I haven't reacted to your recent posts, but now it's time after you repeated the same stuff several times. If the US government, which is PISSED OFF by France and Germany anyway, can shot down Airbus completely and force them to produce beer cans, so why don't they do it? Maybe because that whole propaganda talk is just nonsense? I can't hear it any longer. As soon as the US gets only a bit pissed off by anyone somewhere in the world, they immediately react with heavy measures. And now you try to convince us here that the poor US government cannot take action against the evil Airbus empire? Come on, if there were anything to do for the US, they would. Time to wake up for you it seems...


Regards
Udo
Me & You & a Plane Named Blue...
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:42 pm



I got my information from Reuters, cf.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2614965

According to which Boeing lost 60 cents a share in Q1/03, compared to a loss of 1.54 a share in Q1/02.

Naturally Boeing has historically turned out profit, but we were discussing committing to an expensive project right now.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:58 pm

To all:

I think that the posturing which is currently going on represents a number of different points of view within Boeing not only over the path forward, but also between various individuals trying to exercise influence over what will obviously be Boeing's major commercial capital project for some time to come.
The notion that space & defense is a lucrative alternative which represents some sort of "safe-haven" from a strong competitor is ludicrous. Boeing had a taste of Lockheed crow recently when that company won JSF and Boeing got the scraps(the 767 tanker lease which is still far from assured). Defense is frought with many competitors hawking similar products and the deals are anything but cheap(ala Poland's F16's).
I suspect Boeing has learned a number of lessons from their recent marketplace failures, one of which is the value of commitment and credibility;
credibility from saying what you do and doing what you say. Commitment from future product development. I think they have learned that product lines, no matter how succesful they were, have only a limited life-span and marginal re-hashes only increase customer interest in competitive alternatives.
The 7E7 represents Boeing's commitment and I think Condit knows it. Boeing has fallen behind Airbus during his watch in a number of key areas and this is his chance to redress the balance. The only question will be what will the a/c really be?

My thoughts...

F4N
 
aerosol
Posts: 500
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2000 10:31 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:33 pm

"To reduce Boeing's own investment in the 7E7, company officials are seeking investments from aviation companies that could make parts of the plane, as well as subsidies from governments that want 7E7 work for their jurisdictions. "

What exactly does that mean?

Regards,

Aerosol



 
transswede
Posts: 1008
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:40 pm

CX747:
"7S7 (737 replacement)
7E7 (757/767 replacement)
777
"

I'm not sure what specs your have been reading, but how in the world is the 7E7 a 757 replacement? It clearly lies squarely between the 767 and 777 in size, and that is a major problem for Boeing. The 7E7 will cannibalize 777 sales - that's why they can't afford to spend too much on development for it.
 
doug_or
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 9:55 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:44 pm

I would assume that it means flap fairing might be made in Virginia if Roanoke were to offer big ole fatty tax breaks (or my favorite "tax holidays"). I don't know how it is in other countries, but in the US its not at all uncommon for counties, municipalities, or states to offer considerable tax incentivies to lure big employeres from other places.
When in doubt, one B pump off
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:47 pm

...for example, my company (AOL Time Warner) has moved as much of its major Virginia operations from Fairfax County out to some very, very outlying DC metro counties.

Its so we can enjoy a (mostly) tax free existence.

The 7E7 will cover 200-250 seats. That's pretty much directly the 757/767 size, not inbetween 767-777.

N
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:05 am

Interesting comments from two MDC exec's. MDC was able to get the most out of the DC9/MD80 and DC-8 and were very good at it.

Douglas got a lot out of the DC-8 design, until Mr. Mac forced the line to close in the early 70s. So I wouldn't say that MDC was any good at maximizing the DC-8.

However, the DC-8 still flies while the 707 is just a backwater freighter.

My point is that the former MCD exec's would rather keep the status quo instead of take a chance. It is those kinds of thoughts that gave us the MD-11 instead of a fresh design and why MDC is no more (since we know the 717 is dead and the line will close anyway). These two should be sent to a rest home and Boeing should build the 7e7 and get rid of the 737 already and replace it too..
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:47 am

The 7E7 will cover 200-250 seats. That's pretty much directly the 757/767 size, not in between 767-777.

So the 7E7 is a replacement for the 767-300 and 767-400 right? LoL. Boeing must be quietly self-destructing if it has no clear aircraft design strategy.

"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:23 am

To the A.netters who need a 7E7 refresher:

"The Boeing 7E7 is being developed as a 200- to 250-seat airplane that will fly between 7,000 and 8,000 nautical miles at speeds similar to today's fastest twin-aisle commercial airplanes - the 777 and 747. It will be the most advanced and efficient commercial airplane in its class and will set new standards for environmental responsibility and passenger comfort.

The airplane will be based on the enabling technologies developed with a global industry team during the company's examination of the Sonic Cruiser concept. In December 2002, Boeing announced that based on customer input and market analysis, it would focus these new technologies on a super-efficient, mid-sized airplane. The market potential for a new airplane of this size is forecasted at up to 3,000 units over the next 20 years. The company expects to formally offer the new airplane to customers in early 2004, with entry into service targeted for 2008."

-Boeing

And Another:

"The 7E7 will be a super-efficient airplane that can carry 200 to 250 passengers in tri-class configurations. Current plans call for it to fly up to 7,500 nautical miles.

In addition to bringing big-jet ranges to mid-size airplanes, the 7E7 will provide airlines with unmatched fuel efficiency, resulting in exceptional environmental performance. The airplane will use 15- to 20-percent less fuel for comparable missions than other similarly sized airplanes. It also will travel at speeds similar to today's fastest widebodies, Mach 0.85."

-Boeing

DIA

Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:30 am

An interesting point has been raised...

with the exception of possibly the 773ER, not a single Boeing derivative made since the McDD merger has been much of a seller  Sad
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
BWIA 772
Posts: 1614
Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:33 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:49 am



I think that the a true 757 replacement should be strictly alined with the new 7S7 as dubbed in this thread . As CX 747 stated: "Boeing stands at the threshold of a new era a new way of producing aircraft"

Boeing can do with the 7E7 what Microsoft did with XP operating system. Microsoft is using XP as the new platform from which all future operating systems will be modeled. The 7E7 is the perfect way to do this. Assuming that the airline gives us the same performance is no claimed. The airplane would be a hot seller. If successful Boeing can also use the money to it makes to help in the developement of a new 737 replacement and a new 747.

Eagles Soar!
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:09 am

"with the exception of possibly the 773ER, not a single Boeing derivative made since the McDD merger has been much of a seller. . ."

But, Boeing has had pretty much everything in order since before the merger, in terms of a full line of a/c with any and all capabilities.

DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:12 am

Microsoft stole the fundamental look and feel of Windows XP from Mac OS X. They then moved forward to implement as much of the technical innovations from Mac OS X as possible, while adding a few of their own. It was a necessary step in order to keep Windows at the same level of technology as the competitors.

As such, Boeing needs to take some major steps forward to keep its product line at the same level of technology as its competitors.

N
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:18 am

"As such, Boeing needs to take some major steps forward to keep its product line at the same level of technology as its competitors."

True, but Airbus does the same. It is just the way of any business industry. . .no surprise there.

The 7E7 will reflect a compilation of the newest technologies that both Airbus and Boeing already offer, combined with technology that will be new to the market when the rollout ceremony commences in say, 2007/8.

DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
Marcus
Posts: 1665
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:08 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:21 am

Carefull there.......that sounds almost like saying that Boeing is the Microsoft and Airbus the Apple of OS's.....and you know what kind of comments can come out of the armchair aeronautical engineers from that post.
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:48 am

Marcus-- Carefull there.......that sounds almost like saying that Boeing is the Microsoft and Airbus the Apple

Yeah that would be going too far all right. But the onus is sort of on Boeing now to actually go ahead and build this thing --and heck how tough can it be anyway, they're Boeing after all. Hopefully it'll be full steam ahead now. Especially after the Sonic Cruiser dog-and-pony show of the past couple years.
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1337
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:59 am

747-451, I was agreeing with you, just pointing out one place in which the McDonnell managers deserve even less credit. The DC-8 continues in service largely due to Cammacorp's re-engining of the 60-series to yield the 70-series. MD refused to do that for its customers, so some ex-Douglas people formed Cammacorp to do it.

 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:03 am

and heck how tough can it be anyway, they're Boeing after all

Apparently, there's little technical worry as to whether or not they can build it.... but rather if they can build it within a certain cost range
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
Mark_D.
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:55 am

RE: Opposition To 7E7 Within Boeing

Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:27 am

ConcordeBoy .... but rather if they can build it within a certain cost range

I think it goes way beyond just that though. And a number of posts here commenting about how crucial a decision it is for the company and its future, suggests a lot of others may feel the same way.

I hope Boeing commits to it soon.


 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

Aeropagus

Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:19 am

Sorry I misunderstood you!

(PS-I never knew Cammacorp's history, BTW--thanks for the fact...)

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