Now that the 7E7 card is played, what should be Boeing next move? First, I think they are in a fix. The 747 era is ending and I am not sure that the 737 can withstand the competition with the A320 forever. My take is that Boeing has to come up with a 737 and 747 replacement asap.

I think they should start with the 737. I don't buy the argument that it is as good as the A320. It is old technology and it does not allow cockpit commonality with other Boeing products (it was certified in the 1960s for God's sake! and no, this is not inconsequential). Is it me or most of the new LCCs in the US have gone A320? Would you start an LCC with 737s today?They should swallow their pride and go for the side stick with the 7E7. The fact that the 777 has electric controls without a side stick is amazing to me. How could they not see the advantages of the side stick in a cockpit environment (ask the pilots!)? It looks that they were too concerned about being seen as followers.

They should bet on new technology like Airbus did to challenge them. For instance they should try variable pitch engines. I know they did not choose that for the 7E7 but I think it's a mistake. I know as well that Airbus almost crash the A340 program because they made an early bet on this technology but overall, daring has been positive for Airbus. The challenger has to bring something new to the table. The no bleed engine is a good start although I wonder whether it has only benefits for the airframe as a whole (de-icing for instance).

Now how do you challenge a player with positions as strong as Airbus in all market segments? Besides, Airbus has a memory and knows exactly how it capitalized on Boeing complacency to beat them. Can you do to Airbus what Airbus has done to Boeing? Whatever Boeing next move is, it will be met with all the power of Airbus which is equal or superior to Boeing in all market segments at this point. Boeing's goal should be to sustain competition with equivalent or better products than Airbus like they do with the 777 and soon with the 7E7.

I also think they should stop complaining about Airbus subsidies because they are the ones needing subsidies now if they want to remain in all market segments. Without subsidies, they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (if this plane delivers). With the monopoly on the A380, Airbus will have huge profits on these planes and money will be pouring for R&D in Toulouse and Hamburg. There is no way that a public company like Boeing can invest enough money to catch up with Airbus with the lead that it has now. I know EADS is public too but they have the lead now. It mattered to Europe to be a player in the jetliners market and they acted accordingly. Now what will the US do?

I think they should start with the 737. I don't buy the argument that it is as good as the A320. It is old technology and it does not allow cockpit commonality with other Boeing products (it was certified in the 1960s for God's sake! and no, this is not inconsequential). Is it me or most of the new LCCs in the US have gone A320? Would you start an LCC with 737s today?

The 737 is not old technology. The Next Generation aircraft are very modern, and are the only models being produced. With customers like WN, AA, CO, Ryanair, and many others, the 737 is here to stay. It's the most popular airliner in the world, so don't expect the A320 to replace it anytime soon.

I also think they should stop complaining about Airbus subsidies because they are the ones needing subsidies now if they want to remain in all market segments. Without subsidies, they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (if this plane delivers). With the monopoly on the A380, Airbus will have huge profits on these planes and money will be pouring for R&D in Toulouse and Hamburg. There is no way that a public company like Boeing can invest enough money to catch up with Airbus with the lead that it has now. I know EADS is public too but they have the lead now. It mattered to Europe to be a player in the jetliners market and they acted accordingly. Now what will the US do?

The US will continue to operate as a free market -- the argument that subsidies are required, if you can recall, was used by the Soviet Union, and look where that got them. As a company dependent on the market, not government pride, Boeing will survive without any difficulty. The A380 is still a risky project for Airbus, and the 7E7 is a valid counter. If Europeans think that Boeing is just going to sit back and let Airbus take over the commercial market, they are mistaken. Boeing is a durable, versatile company that has been around the block a few times. Just because Airbus has outperformed them for the past few years doesn't mean the race is over.

I agree with you, A380900 

IMO 737´s should build a complete new fusulage and if Boeing wanna build a complety new 747 I second that! It´s a beautiful craft!
7E7 gonna be a knockout in the sky, thats for sure!

Just my 50 öre

Micke//SE 

"There is no way that a public company like Boeing can invest enough money to catch up with Airbus with the lead that it has now. I know EADS is public too but they have the lead now."

Unbelievably slanted post. Have the French completely lost ALL objectivity when it comes to things American???

Do you have any idea what a MASSIVE aerospace company Boeing is???? You do realize they don't just build airplanes right?? They have incredible forces in R&D for space and defense programs pioneering innovations that will eventually work their way into commercial aircraft.

"I am not sure that the 737 can withstand the competition with the A320 forever." Is that why Boeing has sold more 737NG's than Airbus' TOTAL sales for ALL aircraft in their history?? Maybe you have forgotten that the 737NG is the fastest aircraft ever to 1500 sales.

"Would you start an LCC with 737s today?" Why not? Virgin Blue did, and the model has certainly worked out ok for WN.

"they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS). " Nice way to hedge your bet!!

The US will continue to operate as a free market -- the argument that subsidies are required, if you can recall, was used by the Soviet Union, and look where that got them. As a company dependent on the market, not government pride, Boeing will survive without any difficulty. The A380 is still a risky project for Airbus, and the 7E7 is a valid counter. If Europeans think that Boeing is just going to sit back and let Airbus take over the commercial market, they are mistaken. Boeing is a durable, versatile company that has been around the block a few times. Just because Airbus has outperformed them for the past few years doesn't mean the race is over.

This is not a free market! Their competitor, through subsidies and good engineering has been able to build a line of aircraft that is more modern and sells better. Now that's a fact and you can reply with your free market economy mantra but it has nothing to do with the issue. Boeing cannot catch up with Airbus applying free market economics. Undoable.

I don't think it's government pride. I think it's government interest.

7E7 is a valid counter to the A330-200. It has no business with the A380.

I'm not saying the race is over. I'm saying Boeing will have to drop a market segment (probably the jumbo jet) without some kind of commitment from the government.

A380900, nice troll posting for A vs. B yet again.

737NG's have about the same in common with the first-generation birds as, say, the A330 has with the A300, albeit without huge leaps and bounds re: the flight controls. The fuselage is almost EXACTLY the same; heck, it's even built on the same line. Arguably the most important aerodynamic feature of an airplane (the wing) was totally redesigned on the NG's to great effect...something like a 16% efficiency improvment over the classic models. Avionics and electrical systems were completely redone, as were the engines and APU, and several other airplane features. As I understand it, no "flying surfaces" were carried over from the original 737...could be wrong on that, though.

Your posting shows a clear lack of understanding of both the Airbus and the Boeing product, as well as ignorance about aviation in general.

Boeing simply needs to evaluate it's operating costs and find more innovative ways to cut expenses so that they can price their aircraft as aggressively as Airbus does. In most performance comparisons the Boeing airplane will outperform it's Airbus rival, but the premium price asked by Boeing is often so high that the airline feels it's a better investment to buy the second best plane because it is so much cheaper.

In conclusiuon, Boeing needs a way to find out how to get their prices down.

"There is no way that a public company like Boeing can invest enough money to catch up with Airbus with the lead that it has now. I know EADS is public too but they have the lead now."

Unbelievably slanted post. Have the French completely lost ALL objectivity when it comes to things American???

Ok. I think you misunderstood me or did not get the complete picture of my point. Public company produces quarterly results. CEOs are paid on the short to medium term stock performance. Hence the CEOs of a public company have no interests whatsoever in investing in the 10 to 15 year horizon. Unfortunately, that is what you should do if you want to be competitive in the airliners business.

It is for me the clear cut explanation of the under investment of Boeing in the last 25 years. Airbus was not public at the time and kept focusing on building airplanes (and beating Boeing), nobody cared about the stock price. Now both companies are public but Airbus has a significant lead. That's why to catch up, Boeing needs some help. Again, the principle of free market economy do not apply for everything, especially for a global duopoly. Free markets are powerful, no need to get dogmatic about it.

As for the whole sidestick issue...Boeing did ask the pilots in regards to both the 777 and 7e7...guess what they asked for? That's correct - a 'traditional' flight yoke.

737NG's have about the same in common with the first-generation birds as, say, the A330 has with the A300, albeit without huge leaps and bounds re: the flight controls.

I don't care about Boeing's commercial pitch. The 737 was certified in the 60s and if they change too many things they have to go through the certification again. They did not. They don't have electrical command.

Let's keep this courteous.

Highliner,

Is that true? Did they ask Boeing pilots or all pilots. I thought Airbus pilots would kill to keep their side sticks and that it was not a matter of discussion anymore except for a few "old yoke" hardliners. Anyway, I fly myseld and would trade my yoke against a side stick anytime.

Are you joking?! The 737NG is far from being a faux pas. It's one of Boeing's best selling models. There's like 700-800+ on back log. Boeing continues to tweak the 737's technology.

The 737 might eventually incorporate 7E7 technology. Maybe when the 737 does a 757, probably then, might there be a new clean sheet model.

Just because LCC are going for the A320, it doesn't mean that the 737 is utter crap. The 737s are much for versatile, in my opinion.

And sidestick, puhlease, are over-hyped... You sound like someone who has been playing on Flight Simulator too much, believing one rather fly witha stick instead...

Boeing's ain't gonna play "monkey-see, monkey do" with Airbus.

Being a non-pilot, perhaps a pilot in this discussion could let me in on something. I understand the difference between a sidestick and a control yoke, but does either have clear advantages over the other...

Or is this a Burger King vs. McDonalds comparison?

I do agree with Kim777fan:

"Have the French completely lost ALL objectivity when it comes to things American???"

I think they have, but then it is good to remember what exactly French contributions to science and technology were in the last twenty years; or fifty for that matter. And just what the percentage of nobel prize winners France has produced in that time frame. Then the image of the giant industrial, technical, and scientific power France is really sinks in.

Tasha  

Actually they bought in Pilot reps from British Airways, United, Cathay, AA, those are just the ones I know off the top of my head, there were at least a dozen airlines involved. I'm sure Boeing lists all the initial partners in the program on their site somewhere. The "Working Together" program concept was used to design everything from the galleys to the cockpits. And the Classics and NGs did have to go through certification again when they came out, the FAA and JAA did'nt just say "oh it's a 737? ok, go ahead, no need to have a look-see or anything." Ask someone who's flown the 737-100 and one of the NGs, may look similair, different bird inside my friend. Heck, just step inside the cockpit and it's plain to see, the only thing the same is the overhead panel and the yoke.

Highliner2,

There is a new certification but it is an addendum on the certification of the airframe certificated in the 60s. This way, you get waivers and you don't have to comply with tons of rules the FAA has introduced since then.

Check it, that's how it works. If you bring a 737 (NG or any number) to the FAA as a new airplane today, it will never get certificated. To be fair, that's the case of most airplanes since there are new rules all the time. On the other hand, the older the airplane, the most waivers it uses.

[Edited 2004-08-08 09:07:31]

IMO 737´s should build a complete new fusulage...

First, the fuselage of the B737 family shouldnt have a new fuselage if Boeing decides to do a 7E7 type aircraft for the B737 family. Its a cost saving model if you keep the same fuselage design but use different materials to produce it. You got the blueprints already done to make the new version. Saves time and money if you ask me.

Secondly...its spelled F U S E L A G E.  

Do you have any idea what a MASSIVE aerospace company Boeing is????

Not only Boeing is in the commercial division, they also produce military aircraft, missile boosters, make equipotent for NASA and the list goes on and on. Boeing is HUGE...I mean... H U G E ! ! Even Airbus cannot topple Boeing with the only product line they have in France. It would take alot to make Boeing topple....more than you think!! Airbus does not have a military program the last time I checked....BUT...I have read that they are trying to start one up....

I am not sure that the 737 can withstand the competition with the A320 forever...

It will take years and YEARS for the A320 family to get to the B737 sales history level at its current pace. The 737 is here to stay and is proven to be a reliable aircraft and has met and exceeded what it was put out to do. Look at WN, AS, CO and many other 737 operators. Not ONE 737 operator has complained about its performance.....

...they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS).

Keyword here: IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS. Ohh! How the irony!!

This is not a free market! Their competitor, through subsidies and good engineering has been able to build a line of aircraft that is more modern and sells better. Now that's a fact and you can reply with your free market economy mantra but it has nothing to do with the issue. Boeing cannot catch up with Airbus applying free market economics. Undoable.

Uhh the last time I checked, Airbus isnt holding a gun to Boeing's head and vice versa. So yeah, its a free market if you ask me. Im sure other people would agree.

don't think it's government pride. I think it's government interest.

Huh? Wanna run that by me again because I dont get. Boeing isnt government owned. Sorry, bub!

7E7 is a valid counter to the A330-200. It has no business with the A380.

Thats partly correct. Neither the 7E7 or A380 has any competition at all....at least not yet. The A330 Lite doesnt count at all vs. 7E7.

As I understand it, no "flying surfaces" were carried over from the original 737...could be wrong on that, though.

Actually, this is right. The B737NG wing has a TWO flap system while the classic B737 has a traditional 3 flap system. (The slats are the same though...) Two totally different wings....wingspan size, control surfaces and depth.

Ok. I think you misunderstood me or did not get the complete picture of my point. Public company produces quarterly results. CEOs are paid on the short to medium term stock performance. Hence the CEOs of a public company have no interests whatsoever in investing in the 10 to 15 year horizon. Unfortunately, that is what you should do if you want to be competitive in the airliners business.

1) Boeing does NOT have to produce quarterly reports to the public, BUT are required to share the info to their stockholders.
2) Who cares how much the CEO makes....(Except for Boeing employees)
3) Boeing does not only make products for the airlines, they do military contracts and NASA contracts as well as many other things we dont even know. Theres more to Boeing than the airline business.

737NG's have about the same in common with the first-generation birds as, say, the A330 has with the A300, albeit without huge leaps and bounds re: the flight controls.

Dude, you really need to do some research on the B737 programs first before you make that stupid assessment. Your facts are wrong, man. Sorry!

The 737 was certified in the 60s and if they change too many things they have to go through the certification again. They did not. They don't have electrical command.

Once again, please please please....for your own sake...do some research on the B737 programs first before you make these statements. The 737NG HAS an all glass cockpit configuration the last time I checked. Dude, you are making yourself look bad..... ugh!

A380900, nice troll posting for A vs. B yet again.

I had a feeling it would come to this. Glad I was not the one to say this quote first!! But yeah...its definately an A vs. B thread...the thread starter is obviously living in Airbusville...his profile indeed says it! Do some research first before posting irrevelent & inaccurate facts, mmmkay??

There is a new certification but it is an addendum on the certification on the airframe certificated in the 60s. This way, you get waivers and you don't have to comply with tons of rule the FAA has introduced since then. Check it, that's how it works. You bring a 737 to the FAA as a new airplane today, it will never get certificated. To be fair, that's the case of most airplanes since there are new rules all the time. On the other hand, the older the airplane, the most waivers it uses.

NOT TRUE!!! The 737NG and Classic 737s are based on the SAME airframe. But if you compare a 735 and a 73G...those are TWO completely different birds with two completely different tasks it does but shares a few common things. The F.A.A. has done a through check of the 737NG program outside AND inside indeed. Again, you know nothing of the B737 programs and/or F.A.R's. Do some research first, alright?!?

[Edited 2004-08-08 09:09:17]

Yes, trust me, I'm well aware of how the certification process works, sat in class many a long night reviewed that stuff. However the 737NG featured new engines, a new wing design, tail design, vastly upgraded avionics, changes to the landing gear, APU etc etc etc...it's not just a -100 with new engines. And by implying that if the 737 we're to be certified as new today, it would fail to pass the rigerous tests required to be certificated as a new type? I'd be careful there, your going to need facts to back that up, it essentially sounds like your implying that the 737NG, or the classics for that matter are not 'safe' or certifiable. At any rate, newly certified or no, the point is the 737NG is not a 737-100/200. And judging by the sales figured, a worthy competitor. I'll agree it is going to be time for Boeing to start looking at a successor for the baby Boeing after the 7e7, but until then, she'll have no problem holding her own.

A3800900,

With Reply #14 I now know you are talking smack....sorry.


I was going to go and link up to each of the A/C type certificates for the 737 but it appears the FAA's server is down.

Trust me the NG's are on their own certificate.

Airbus does not have a military program the last time I checked....BUT...I have read that they are trying to start one up....

Um not really. Try this site http://www.eads.com and you will realize what a massive armament manufacturer Airbus/EADS is. Have you ever checked this?

I am sure the 737NGs are very different from the first and second generation but I would love to see a complete new design - it's getting boring. I would also love to see a A32x successor. I guess I have to wait at least ten years before that happens  

pelican

[Edited 2004-08-08 09:41:51]

Airbus does not have a military program the last time I checked....BUT...I have read that they are trying to start one up....

Um not really. Try this site http://www.eads.com and you will realize what a massive armament manufacturer Airbus/EADS is

Um REALLY! Just look up http://www.airbusmilitary.com/ and you'll find the A400M that is on Airbus' website. This is the ONLY product that Airbus is offering for military. Just because they have ONE product to offer does not mean that they have a military program yet. The A400M looks pretty much looks like it is a carbon-copy of McDD's C-130 transport.

Although some of you might disagree, but any sales from EADS does not count as Airbus sales when it comes it military. Airbus is trying to create their own military division. So EADS is totally separate from Airbus in terms of military equiptment.

AirframeAS, I have mixed your post with my comments

I am looking for the sales data of the 737 and the A320. I did not get the last few years but only 2004, 105 sales for Airbus and 74 for Boeing. Now that does not say that the 737 is dead. It means that in spite of its huge existing customer base, the 737 is behind the A320. If you take into account this huge customer base, then you realise that the sun is slowly setting on the 737 line however extreme the next makeovers will be.

Now what you say:

"First, the fuselage of the B737 family shouldnt have a new fuselage if Boeing decides to do a 7E7 type aircraft for the B737 family. Its a cost saving model if you keep the same fuselage design but use different materials to produce it. You got the blueprints already done to make the new version. Saves time and money if you ask me."

At some point, if you want a new plane, you have to change everything.

"Do you have any idea what a MASSIVE aerospace company Boeing is????"

Yes I do. You should compare it to EADS though and not to Airbus. I don't care about the size. We're talking airliners here. So Airbus and Boeing commercial aircraft divisions, no more no less. Boeing won't invest in commercial aircraft in place of investing in other divisions. It will invest as much as it can recoup. Without subsidies, it won't be able to invest enough to be present in all market segments. Even less so if you include the risk inherent in any aircraft program.

"I am not sure that the 737 can withstand the competition with the A320 forever..."

See above my comment about the commercial future of the 737.

"...they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS).

Keyword here: IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS. Ohh! How the irony!!"

Who really questions the fact that the A380-800 is a relatively safe bet? Everybody agrees that Airbus is credible and will produce a decent aircraft. Yet there might be some trouble. I doubt they might be un-fixable. Anyway, shit happens and that's why I was being cautious.

"Uhh the last time I checked, Airbus isnt holding a gun to Boeing's head and vice versa. So yeah, its a free market if you ask me. Im sure other people would agree."

I'm not sure what you mean.

"don't think it's government pride. I think it's government interest.

Huh? Wanna run that by me again because I dont get. Boeing isnt government owned. Sorry, bub!"

People in the aerospace industry vote. The airliners business is the first export of the US. Yes, it is a matter of national interest and governments won't wash their hands of it as you'll probably see in the coming years.

"7E7 is a valid counter to the A330-200. It has no business with the A380.

Thats partly correct. Neither the 7E7 or A380 has any competition at all....at least not yet. The A330 Lite doesnt count at all vs. 7E7."

If the 737 can compete with the A320, I don't see why the A330-200 could not compete with the 7E7. If Boeing had so many tricks out of there hat, why didn't they pull them sooner? They were just waiting for Airbus to be way ahead just to show how easily they would catch up?

"Ok. I think you misunderstood me or did not get the complete picture of my point. Public company produces quarterly results. CEOs are paid on the short to medium term stock performance. Hence the CEOs of a public company have no interests whatsoever in investing in the 10 to 15 year horizon. Unfortunately, that is what you should do if you want to be competitive in the airliners business.

1) Boeing does NOT have to produce quarterly reports to the public, BUT are required to share the info to their stockholders."

Not sure what you mean.

"2) Who cares how much the CEO makes....(Except for Boeing employees)"

I'm not talking about how much the CEO makes, I'm talking about what his incentives are and how he can manage to make as much as he can. I'm sure that short term stock price considerations have had an impact on how boeing has under invested. They have treated their products as cash cows and did not properly prepare the future.


"3) Boeing does not only make products for the airlines, they do military contracts and NASA contracts as well as many other things we dont even know. Theres more to Boeing than the airline business."

Ok, so what. Not sure what you mean. What we care about in this forum are airliners. If Boeing is number one in the fortune 500 in 30 years but does not build airliners anymore, they will have failed in competing with Airbus (provided it is still in business since 30 years is a long time-  ) in this particular business. There is not much to say.

"The 737 was certified in the 60s and if they change too many things they have to go through the certification again. They did not. They don't have electrical command.
Once again, please please please....for your own sake...do some research on the B737 programs first before you make these statements. The 737NG HAS an all glass cockpit configuration the last time I checked. Dude, you are making yourself look bad..... ugh!"

See what I posted above about certification. FYI Glass cockpit has nothing to do with electrical commands.

Cheers! - 

Well I haven't found a copy of the Boeing Type Certificate Data Sheets yet, however I did locate the British equivelents.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/393/srg_acp_fa02-15.pdf

Please note that while all of them are combined under a single TCDS dated 2003, the NG aircraft went through the JAA process.

First, the fuselage of the B737 family shouldnt have a new fuselage if Boeing decides to do a 7E7 type aircraft for the B737 family. Its a cost saving model if you keep the same fuselage design but use different materials to produce it. You got the blueprints already done to make the new version. Saves time and money if you ask me."

At some point, if you want a new plane, you have to change everything.

No, thats not entirely accurate. Look at the A320...same commonality with the A321, A319, and A318. Same thing with the B737 classic and NG. Same airframe but very different modifications done. You dont have to change everything. Airbus hasnt done a whole lot of changes to its A320 family and neither has Boeing with their B737 family. The only thing that was the same on the 737 was the fuselage design with a small side of belly alternations. So yeah, you CAN keep the same design.

"Do you have any idea what a MASSIVE aerospace company Boeing is????"

Yes I do. You should compare it to EADS though and not to Airbus. I don't care about the size. We're talking airliners here. So Airbus and Boeing commercial aircraft divisions, no more no less. Boeing won't invest in commercial aircraft in place of investing in other divisions.

Are you on CRACK here?? Boeing does MORE than commerical aircraft. It does alot of military contracts. And that is a huge money maker for Boeing. If I remember correctly, military contracts brings in more money than commerical aircraft does. Im sure some Boeing personnel on this forum would help me with this one. I think Im right. So yes, Boeing does invest in more than just commerical aircraft. Think Military, dude! C'mon! Get off the crack!

"I am not sure that the 737 can withstand the competition with the A320 forever..."

See above my comment about the commercial future of the 737.

Huh?? I never said the above quote. You did!

"...they will let the A380 dominate the skies for the next 30 years or so (IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS).

Keyword here: IF THIS PLANE DELIVERS. Ohh! How the irony!!"

Who really questions the fact that the A380-800 is a relatively safe bet? Everybody agrees that Airbus is credible and will produce a decent aircraft. Yet there might be some trouble. I doubt they might be un-fixable. Anyway, shit happens and that's why I was being cautious.

Dude, you said the keywords here, not me. You were the one that said "if this plane delivers." Not me! Your words, not mine!

"Uhh the last time I checked, Airbus isnt holding a gun to Boeing's head and vice versa. So yeah, its a free market if you ask me. Im sure other people would agree."

I'm not sure what you mean.

If someone was holding a gun to their head, they are being controlled, etc etc....so in this case, Boeing does not have a gun to its head. So its a free market anyhow. See my point? If you dont, then you dont know what you are talking about. Stick to things you do know what you are talking about....

"don't think it's government pride. I think it's government interest.

Huh? Wanna run that by me again because I dont get. Boeing isnt government owned. Sorry, bub!"

People in the aerospace industry vote. The airliners business is the first export of the US. Yes, it is a matter of national interest and governments won't wash their hands of it as you'll probably see in the coming years.

Dude, Boeing is not government ran. Yes, they get their money from the government from military contracts, but that does not mean they are government controlled. FACT: And airliners are NOT the first export of the U.S. the last time I checked. There are more goods exported than just aircraft. Beef, toys, and just about anything that is made in the U.S.A. is exported. Aircraft certainly isnt the #1 export, which is another fact! Now if we were talking about VALUE (in terms of how much a product is worth) of exported goods made in the U.S.A, then that is a totally different statistic.

If the 737 can compete with the A320, I don't see why the A330-200 could not compete with the 7E7.

Its a different time frame pal. The A330 was built in the 1990s...almost 10 years ago. Alot of time has gone by. The 7E7 is being built in 2005-06. So therefore the 7E7 does not have any competition to an existing aircraft. The A330 Lite does not count.

2) Who cares how much the CEO makes....(Except for Boeing employees)"

I'm not talking about how much the CEO makes, I'm talking about what his incentives are and how he can manage to make as much as he can.

Nobody cares, Boeing's business isnt just in the airline business alone. Boeing is more than just a commercial aircraft manufactor. It has a military and space division that also brings in tons and tons of cash.

3) Boeing does not only make products for the airlines, they do military contracts and NASA contracts as well as many other things we dont even know. Theres more to Boeing than the airline business."

Ok, so what. Not sure what you mean. What we care about in this forum are airliners.

First, this website is more than just about airlines, its also about military planes as well as GA aircraft too. Again, Boeing is more than just a commerical aircraft manufactor. It has a military and space divison too!

"The 737 was certified in the 60s and if they change too many things they have to go through the certification again. They did not. They don't have electrical command.
Once again, please please please....for your own sake...do some research on the B737 programs first before you make these statements. The 737NG HAS an all glass cockpit configuration the last time I checked. Dude, you are making yourself look bad..... ugh!"

See what I posted above about certification. FYI Glass cockpit has nothing to do with electrical commands.

DUDE, dude, dude!!! You're completely wrong, bucko! Geez, I wonder where you get your information and facts. Your 'not being able to understand' really gets me and its frustrating. Like I said, stick to facts that you do KNOW and are confirmed. None of your so-called 'facts' are accurate. Please do some research before you damage yourself further. I highly recommend that. OH! I forgot to tell ya: glass cockpits has ALOT to do with avionics.

If you want to know about stats in terms of sales between B737 family (both Classics and NG) vs. A320 family....go to each manufactor's website and you can compare. But I doubt you'll get 4Q 2003 and any of 2004 stats at this time.

Please do some research first before you make assumptions, okay?? Thanks!

Although some of you might disagree, but any sales from EADS does not count as Airbus sales when it comes it military. Airbus is trying to create their own military division. So EADS is totally separate from Airbus in terms of military equiptment.

Airbus isn't a company like Boeing it's more like the big aircraft divison of EADS (and BAE Systems). You can't by Airbus shares but EADS shares. To compare the complete company of Boeing with Airbus is senseless. You have to compare EADS with Boeing. Airbus will never ever have be an armament manufacturer because it's a manufacturer of civil aircrafts. Only aircrafts with big commonalities to civil aircrafts like the A330 tanker are build by Airbus. All huge aircrafts of EADS are called Airbus. The A400M isn't build by Airbus like an ordinary 32x. Airbus is only a major partner in this program because of its experiences with big aircrafts. Please have a brief look at http://www.eads.com. Okay the structure of EADS and Airbus can be confusing but its not that difficult.

pelican

Although Airbus is not a military company per say.....save for the A400.

I would point out that many of the Airbus members companies have extensive defense programs.

CASA, BAE being great examples.

As for the whole sidestick issue...Boeing did ask the pilots in regards to both the 777 and 7e7...guess what they asked for? That's correct - a 'traditional' flight yoke.

And if you would have asked from the pilots who were flying early 20th century planes they would have agreed that it is totally impossible to fly aircraft which has windows or roof because you must feel the airflow.

Best Regards,
FinnWings

AirframeAS,

Maybe quoting me quoting you quoting me is becoming a little hard to follow.

Just two things:

Boeing is indeed a big company. I was focusing in all that I said about their airliners business. They might have other businesses but I don't see how it is relevant to our discussion. You make it sound like you think that Boeing is so big and powerful that we just have to wait until they focus their investment capabilities on airliners. What I'm pointing out however is that if Boeing has other businesses, these businesses, to remain profitable, require investments in their own right. So if you want to assess what Boeing can invest in airliners you have to focus on this particular division and not on the company as a whole.

I agree that glass cockpits have a lot (if not everything) to do with avionics. What I meant by electrical command is no physical link between the cockpit and the controls. Electrical signal are sent to actuator on the wings and the tail.

Maybe quoting me quoting you quoting me is becoming a little hard to follow.

No, its your lack of knowledge that is being a little hard for me to argue your 'facts' that are inaccurate.

Boeing is indeed a big company. I was focusing in all that I said about their airliners business. They might have other businesses but I don't see how it is relevant to our discussion.

Boeing is one company alone. It has branches of divisions that make up The Boeing Company.

You make it sound like you think that Boeing is so big and powerful that we just have to wait until they focus their investment capabilities on airliners.

No, I dont make it sound like that Boeing is so big and powerful. That is absurd. Boeing can get by just fine if they were not able to produce commercial aircraft. They make enough money with their military and space divisions.

I agree that glass cockpits have a lot (if not everything) to do with avionics. What I meant by electrical command is no physical link between the cockpit and the controls. Electrical signal are sent to actuator on the wings and the tail.

Not all aircraft are fly-by-wire. Some are and some are not. The B737 has electrical commands and those are not only limited to certain components. Like I have said endlessly, please do some research, okay? Its not that hard to do. Anyone can research these things.

Can you give me examples of inaccurate facts? I'm not sure what you mean.

Can you give me examples of inaccurate facts?

Ive already listed them for you in my previous posts. I wonder if you have actually read them and understood them clearly.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Because you are either illiterate, ignorant or you have not done your homework. In one post you kept on saying you didnt know what I ment many, many times. Stick to the facts that you already know.

Edit Add:

Please read the last paragraph in post #5, A380900.

[Edited 2004-08-08 12:11:20]

Klkla,

Could you provide a reference to this information, according to which Boeing planes "mostly outperform" Airbus types? Since aircraft "performance" is a very wide field in itself, the way you said that doesn't give you much in the way of credibility.

Tasha,

I was trying to figure out if you really were in the know of French contributions to "science and technology" in the past 20 years or not. For the record, they are very significant.

Outperforms is such a relative term it is meaningless.

Shoot I can make a legitimate claim that a F-104 outperforms a DHC-4 because it can do mach II.

Likewise I can claim that a DHC-4 outperforms an F-104 because it doesn't stall at mach II.

AirframeAS, you´re continuing to dodge the actual questions while stepping up the insults. Now please try to get to the points instead.

One of them being the question of the 737NG certification: If A380900 should be incorrect, you should simply be able to state that the NGs were certified on their own in a completely separate campaign without any "grandfather rights" carried over and no waivers based on the existing 737 certificate. It´s that simple. Can you provide that?

I´d really want to know. All I knew so far would rather correlate with A380900´s statement.


By the way to the topic of subsidies: Boeing is already basing its projected prices for the 7E7 on manufacturing costs at least in part highly subsidized by the japanese state. (On top of export- and the usual local and regional industrial subsidies.) Boeing doesn´t have anything to catch up to in that regard. And contrary to the public development loans (which Airbus is paying back with commercial-level interest), both the US export subsidies and the japanese production subsidies are just that - non-refundable subsidies. And not just for one-off development costs, but again and again for every single airframe.

It´s not that big a deal, but it will surely come up in the talks between EU and US delegations about a revision of the 1992 agreement. I think it´s in fact a good idea to invite a japanese delegation to the table as well, as they´re now playing in the same game...

Well if I hand been able to access the FAA Type Certificate Database.....We would have had our answer.

Yeah, should be relatively easy to find out...

AirframeAS, you´re continuing to dodge the actual questions while stepping up the insults. Now please try to get to the points instead.

Ive repeated myself over and over in 2-3 posts already (posts 15, 22 & 27). Its not too hard to scroll up and read my posts. I dont need to repeat myself. I think the problem with some posters on this thread is ignorance and trying to be 'Mr. Know-it-all-about-Boeing-Products' when they really are not. (Refer to post # 5, last paragraph.)

Well if I hand been able to access the FAA Type Certificate Database.....We would have had our answer.

Exactly! At least someone here understands whats going on in this thread.

On a final note, please re-read post # 5 written by JBirdAv8r.

Well I tried to get on the FAA database, but I got one of those damm SQL server errors  

AirframeAS: Ive repeated myself over and over in 2-3 posts already

...dodging the same question over and over again. Getting more and more insulting without actually addressing the point doesn´t help at all.


AirframeAS: I think the problem with some posters on this thread is ignorance and trying to be 'Mr. Know-it-all-about-Boeing-Products' when they really are not.

Speak for yourself... So why can´t you simply address the point, if you´re so all-knowing compared to everybody else?

Can´t be that difficult.

I think they have, but then it is good to remember what exactly French contributions to science and technology were in the last twenty years; or fifty for that matter. And just what the percentage of nobel prize winners France has produced in that time frame. Then the image of the giant industrial, technical, and scientific power France is really sinks in.

And what is your contribution towards this discussion, Tasha? Besides pointless French/Airbus bashing? Perhaps you might want to enlighten me on the relevance of number of Nobel prize winners for let's say medicine, economics or chemistry to the qualities of 737 and A320? 
Next time just post your infantile signature and save yourself the energy.


[Edited 2004-08-08 14:23:03]

AirframeAS: Ive repeated myself over and over in 2-3 posts already

...dodging the same question over and over again. Getting more and more insulting without actually addressing the point doesn´t help at all.

Im not dodging anything. Look at posts 15, 22 and 27 will clear everything up for you, Klaus, as well as some other posts like post # 5 as well. I am not going to repeat myself because Ive done that with 3 posts so far. Ughh!!

AirframeAS: I think the problem with some posters on this thread is ignorance and trying to be 'Mr. Know-it-all-about-Boeing-Products' when they really are not.

Speak for yourself... So why can´t you simply address the point, if you´re so all-knowing compared to everybody else?

Never did I say Im Mr. Know-it-all. I can say that Ive worked on B737 a/c with AS in SEA. And Ive worked alongside with ex-Boeing employees AND have done research on Boeing products by reading books, looking at microfish (sp?) films, data specs, BMM, ASMM, etc etc. On a side note, I have to admit that I dont know squat about Airbus products. The only thing I know about them is cockpit commonality and those ugly A320 family winglets are ugly.

As for addressing points...there are alot of points here that direct from one thing to another to another. We are talking about 737 design changes, product commonality, The Boeing Company in general, the U.S economy, etc etc. Its like alot of topics into one thread. So yes it is difficult. It would take me over an hour to explain this to you and A380900 in 1st grade elementary english. So like I said, scroll up and look at my posts and try understand them.

Enough said!

I was talking about the issue of the 737NG certification. A380900 raised a rather simple point. Which was one of the points that you´ve repeatedly complained about, but never actually addressed in substance.

Less blustering, more substance, please!

I believe that L-188 was trying to get that info as we speak. The F.A.A. does a through physical check on all new products (U.S. made or Europe made, etc..) regardless if they are in the same family or manufactor. The F.A.A. doesnt just 'pencil-whip' or skimp on certification processes. It would fail as an federal agency if it were to do so.

Lets wait and see what L-188 says.

Consider this my last post until L-188 replys back with what we all are looking for that would clear up the certification in question.

AirframeAS: The F.A.A. doesnt just 'pencil-whip' or skimp on certification processes. It would fail as an federal agency if it were to do so.

A380900 never claimed that. The question is only if the certification was independent or based on the existing certificate including waivers for several changed regulations.


AirframeAS: Consider this my last post until L-188 replys back with what we all are looking for that would clear up the certification in question.

Okay. But if you don´t really know better yourself, please don´t start deriding others in the future.

Ltbewr: Perhaps they could condition the emergency loans or continuance of them upon 'recommending' that Boeing be given preference for a/c purchases.

They´re already doing that, apparently; Just look at the recent El Al deal, where they had preferred the acquisition of A330s and were then forced to buy 777s instead... Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a manufacturer´s strength...  

I am going to take quite a different tack here. And no, I do not want to hear any thing about it has been tried and didn't work, etc etc

I want a next generation SST up and running within the next 5- 10 years!!

That's what should be done IMHO. No more of these lumbering giants that seem to just crawl across the sky. Time is valuable!. Either get an SST or one of those ring things from SG1 that can beam me to where I want to go. As much as I love aviation , I have no time or interest to sit in a metal tube for 18 hours to get to the other side of the world!

Better find a way to do it cheap than, fuel prices are too high for some gas-guzzling rocket. It's no coincidence that Boeing is focusing on efficiency for its latest project. Many of the US airlines are having problems with their financial results in large part due to fuel prices. Someone will either have to find an alternative fuel, or were just going to have to wait.

Finnwings,

I don't know if I understand your point? Your saying that the flight yoke is outdated? Did'nt most early aircraft have a stick? So would'nt it be correct to say that the stick is actually outdated and Airbus is using outdated technology? Please. Even with the 7e7, the airline reps seem to say a yoke will do just fine. Every pilot I've ever spoken to has never said one style is completely better than the other. I've had Airbus pilots tell me they miss the 'feedback' from a yoke, had Boeing pilots tell me they wish they had more cockpit space which the stick provides. Sometimes I think B and A did this just to give us something else to fight about. Besides, I've never heard anyone complain about the 'ramhorms' design of the Embraers, maybe that's the best anyways hahaha.

AeroFan,

Indeed, what an elegant move! Boeing retakes the leadership by changing the rules of the game with a huge breakthrough like supersonic travel (kind of what they tried to get at with the sonic cruiser).

Yet my take on the supersonic is that it will happen in the next 30 years but it will be a small business jet with 10 to 15 passenger capacity (or less). Dassault is ready to start a program but no engine manufacturer wants to build the engine yet.

I agree that the next supersonic travel will most likely be a business jet. But I am putting my money on 15 years and Gulfstream/Sukhoi.

Long live the New Generation 737s.

If the engine exists, there will probably be more than one airframe manufacturer.