A380900, the one bone I have to pick with you is, what is your obcession with sidesticks and fly-by-wire. You talk about the lack of FBW on the 737NG and sidesticks on both the 737NG and 777. To me, this is not a point of discussion, the planes are that way because customers asked for them that way. It seems like you are toeing the Airbus company line on this issue.

You deride the 737NG as being not technologically advanced because of the traditional controls. The reason it does not have FBW is simple...because WN did not want it on there, and they will probably end up purchasing well over 200 copies of the NG once all is said and done, maybe 300. A WN mechanic told me the reason is that they were afraid of nuisance faults in the FBW system causing delays and affecting their famous low turnaround time. Plus, the existing systems are proven and reliable.

But if it makes you happy, I'm sure the next narrowbody Boeing, when it debuts in 2012 or so, will have FBW...and a YOKE!    

AirframeAS: Here is your anwser:

No, not yet, at the time I´m writing this. It´s a very specific question, and all I´ve seen so far are general answers that do not answer it.

Klaus, I gave you the *bleepin* anwser to your *bleepin* question! What more do you want?!?! Get a clue, dood!

You deride the 737NG as being not technologically advanced because of the traditional controls. The reason it does not have FBW is simple...because WN did not want it on there...

One disadvantage of the FBW technology is that when you have the FBW on an a/c, it wont let you push the aircraft a bit beyond its tolerance level. FBW is like 'brains-of-its-own' and wont let you 'hurt' or override the a/c. WN pushes their a/c a bit more than what the a/c itself can tolerate. Im glad that none of the 737s have the FBW techology and a YOKE!

Plus, the existing systems are proven and reliable.

If you are talking about the traditional way, then I stongly agree!! Better safe than sorry, ya know.... If you got a FBW aircraft and something goes wrong and locks you out of the system, yer screwed! But Ive never heard of that happening, but never say never....it COULD happen....

AirframeAS: Klaus, I gave you the *bleepin* anwser to your *bleepin* question! What more do you want?!?! Get a clue, dood!

Call me stupid again and again if that floats your boat, but answer the question first: Were there waivers or "grandfather rights" carried over from the original 737 series to the 737NG or not?

You or anybody else haven´t answered that question yet, with any kind of reference.

The extent and the intensity of the certification process was never in doubt, so you don´t need to be excited. It´s only about this one detail. Maybe it´s just me, but details can be important...

"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?"

Interesting phrasing in that paragraph, A380900, and if you've followed the news, you know Boeing CEO Stonecipher is challenging continued Airbus loans at the originally specified level, given they're now market dominant and not struggling below 20% marketshare. The loan percentage was supposed to have been gradually reduced as their market share increased, something that hasn't happened and moreover, they're forgivable (don't need to repay) if a program isn't profitable. Boeing doesn't have this sort of financial leverage which limits their development capital, even though they're allowed indirect support through military programs. In addition, Airbus can now draw on EADS military, something that didn't exist in 1992 at the time the U.S./E.U. bilateral agreement on commercial aircraft was signed, though EADS military business doesn't yet equal Boeing's. Airbus, in turn, counters with complaints about Washington state's recent tax breaks for business and Japanese government subsidies to 7E7 subcontractors, areas outside of Boeing's control. The only way to put all of this behind them is to renegotiate the terms of the '92 accord with each side opening their books for scrutiny. The U.S. government now appears serious about backing Stonecipher in filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization if the E.U. and EADS balk at reopening talks so there's a potential trade war brewing if Stonecipher makes good on his threat, which I think he just might, given the consistency in which Airbus can undercut Boeing pricing. On the product side, yes, BCA needs to invest more but aside from the 747 and 767, the existing product is quite competitive, except, often, in price. The 737NG isn't at a serious disadvantage (aside from pricing, frequently) against the A320 family until that line is updated. The lack of FBW flight control is often a plus for its operators, in terms of less complexity and maintenance issues. The 717 is suffering, partly due to the new EMB-190, but has still to date sold better than the A318. The 747 does need to be updated but won't be directly competing with either the A346 or the A380, sizewise. The 767 will be replaced by the 7E7 which, from all indications sofar, will sell like gangbusters. Boeing may be in a rut but I believe it's one they can climb out of if they make the right decisions and a truly level playing field for competitive commercial aircraft sales is reestablished soon.

. Airbus, in turn, counters with complaints about Washington state's recent tax breaks for business and Japanese government subsidies to 7E7 subcontractors, areas outside of Boeing's control.

Actually, I have to correct you there: The tax cuts in Washington State were given as Boeing went looking for new locations for production facilities. Boeing negotiated the lowest taxes they could by continued threats to move.

Although one thing to remember is that, like France as part of the EU, Washington as part of the US can set its own local tax rates. I have no idea what corporate taxes are like in France, but if I understand correctly, tax rates for just about everything in most industrialized European nations make our tax system look generous... Which is frightening, if you think about it...

As for Japan, well, Airbus could easily take advantage of the same thing through other Japanese contractors or through contractors recieving the same kinds of loans/subsidies in other countries. China, for example, has an artificially reduced Yuan (something like seven times lower than what it should be, if the Economist is correct--and they usually are), reducing the cost of their goods significantly.

Chinese aircraft manufacture may not be as well known as some others, but they did build their own copies of the MD-90, among other aircraft.

People here often forget the other side of the 1992 bilateral agreement, which is that Boeing is not allowed to receive more than 3% of its annual turnover in government support. The level of support Boeing has been getting has been consistently over this limit (according to Airbus and the EU) and it hasn't been decreasing with time, either.

Stonecipher's comments should be seen in perspective.

tax rates for just about everything in most industrialized European nations make our tax system look generous...

Indeed they do.

Which is frightening, if you think about it...

Not really. Taxes are not inherently a bad thing. I rather like having a police orce, a military, roads to drive on, agencies that go after environmental criminals and so on. Not to mention the FAA and the NTSB. No matter how much it can occasionally be criticized, I hope you'll agree that the government does serve a purpose.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is my duty and privilege to pay my taxes. But it is equally the duty and privilege of those elected or selected to use my tax money to ensure that it is done in a good, just and efficient manner as the electorate has directed.

Of course, one can argue about the perfect size of a government until the heat death of the Universe. I moved to the States, so I guess I've made my opinion clear  

[Edited 2004-08-12 16:41:18]

Starlionblue:

I'm glad you've come to see it our way. Though while it may be a duty to pay my taxes, I'd hardly call it a priviledge... The fact is, as far as I'm concerned, the government is responsible for the following: Military, police, fire, courts, roads, transportation & industrial safety, border security, and the protection of the "little guy" from the "big guys." To the extent of that last one, the EPA is a necessary evil, as are a few other agencies and administrations. The fact that the government is the largest employer in the country is a clear indicator that it's gotten a bit large...

People here often forget the other side of the 1992 bilateral agreement, which is that Boeing is not allowed to receive more than 3% of its annual turnover in government support.

So, that means that Boeing can't sell more than 3% of its products to the Federal Government? Is that what you're saying? That's absurd! Boeing was already selling far more than that in 1992, and there is no reason why Boeing should be forced not to compete for government contracts. That's a violation of the legal rights of the shareholders, making the agreement null and void.

If that isn't what you were saying, please do explain. As I am not familiar with the minutia of the agreement, I'd like to be educated.

"Actually, I have to correct you there: The tax cuts in Washington State were given as Boeing went looking for new locations for production facilities. Boeing negotiated the lowest taxes they could by continued threats to move."

True, Elwood but, Boeing had long complained that Washington had an unfavorable tax structure for industrial development. The state finally had to respond to ensure 7E7 final assembly would take place, there and not in Long Beach or Wichita, etc. Boeing had considerable leverage, no doubt about it, but it was the still a state government initiative to prevent the eventual loss of a major employer. I don't believe there's anything to prevent local and national governments in Europe from granting Airbus similar tax breaks in setting up new facilities and Airbus could also enjoy the same side benefits of governments subsidizing subcontractors it chose in other nations, as you pointed out.

"People here often forget the other side of the 1992 bilateral agreement, which is that Boeing is not allowed to receive more than 3% of its annual turnover in government support. The level of support Boeing has been getting has been consistently over this limit (according to Airbus and the EU) and it hasn't been decreasing with time, either. Stonecipher's comments should be seen in perspective."

And Joni, if talks on this were reopened, ALL of that would be on the table. Both Boeing/BCA and EADS/Airbus would have to open their books to show where all of the funding is coming from. Transparency from all parties would be demanded so there's no point in debating whether it should be done because the only way this argument will go away is to bring the players to the table, have them open their books and either let them reach an understanding on their own OR have the the WTO review it and make a ruling. Either way, the '92 bilateral is unlikely to stand in its current form.

Elwood64151:

"So, that means that Boeing can't sell more than 3% of its products to the Federal Government? Is that what you're saying? That's absurd!"

That is absurd, but it isn't what I said. I said that according to the 1992 agreement, the US shouldn't subsidize Boeing by a sum larger than 3% of its annual turnover. In other words, Boeing can sell all of its products to the government, as long as the government pays a fair price for them. Of course in practice the government provides Boeing with money and information in many different ways and Boeing sells its products all over the world.

If Boeing sold all its products to the government and the government paid 3% over the market price for them, the support given to Boeing would be at the correct level but of banned type (production subsidy cv. r&d subsidies). This is why Airbus is miffed at the tanker deal, which is a multibillion-dollar illegal subsidy for Boeing since Boeing (should the deal go through) would receive billions more than the fair price for the tankers (according to the GAO). Airbus and the EU have also complained that the r&d subsidies Boeing gets are and have consistently been about double the 3% level allowed by the 1992 agreement.

I hate forums like this one. The anger that broods from it all is pointless. It is all started by a single uneducated person (A380900) that thinks he is the market expert and then the mud starts slinging. If we look at what is happening in the industry today, we can see that the A380 definitely will have its place as well as the 7E7. The 737NG is no more 1960s technology (it is a wonderful and modern airplane), than a modern automobile whose name began in the 60s. Nonetheless, recent reports show that, Boeing is looking in to possibilities with that line (7E7 technology). Everyone knows by now that Boeing chose the center column (remember the decisions process with the 777)because that's what pilots and airlines told them they wanted. And finally, they are certainly not behind on technology. The 7E7 is the epitome of several technological leads Boeing and its world wide partners have made.

The fact is, Airbus and Boeing are highly competitive companies. Both of them produce excellent aircraft and both of them are making significant moves in the industry. If there is any speculation to be made here, they both need to keep their eyes on Bombardier's proposals to move up in size.

Prediction: Ten years from now, Boeing will have a completely new line up of modern aircraft based around the 7E7 technology and some goober will be making a post on airliners.net stating that Airbus should get its head out of the mud with its 1980's technology A320   (in spite of the fact that airlines love it).

You say that I am uneducated: well, I am a regular joe posting in an airliner forum because I like airliners. I didn't know one needed a diploma to post here. Do you have one?

You say:
"Prediction: Ten years from now, Boeing will have a completely new line up of modern aircraft based around the 7E7 technology and some goober will be making a post on airliners.net stating that Airbus should get its head out of the mud with its 1980's technology A320 (in spite of the fact that airlines love it)."

Will the goober be wrong then? Will the airline "love" the A320 as much as today if there is a killer competitor from Boeing? What if this new plane sells more than A320?

I am amazed by your "everybody is doing a fine job" analysis. Startling! Keep up the good work.

The sun is setting on 737 and on the 747. No need to argue about this. I won't.

Prediction: Ten years from now, Boeing will have a completely new line up of modern aircraft based around the 7E7 technology and some goober will be making a post on airliners.net stating that Airbus should get its head out of the mud with its 1980's technology A320 %A0 (in spite of the fact that airlines love it).

That's a mighty prediction there.

I'll bet you $50 and a drink (seeing how I'll be 24 then) that they won't even pick up the pen to start a new a/c. And if they do it will be of an a/c already in production (777-400LR??). They sure as hell won't place the 7e7 stuff in a bunch of new airliners and send it on their jolley way.

It will take AT LEAST 13 years to see how the 7e7 is doing, that is if Boeing sticks to their plans. I wouldn't expect a seriously NEW a/c from Boeing other than the 7e7 for another 15 years.

All the a/c up to the 7e7 are bits and peaces from eachother (The 777 was orgionaly going to be the 7x7 which was supposed to be a step up from the 767, talk about a huge step). So if Boeing plans on making an entirly new line of a/c off of on concept (the 7e7) I think they'd be stupid to do it all at once. If the 7e7 is a bust they are sure as hell better off w/ what they have now then what they'll get w/ a bad product.

Thanks.

UA777222

Joni:

Thank you for the clarification of the agreement. I appreciate it.

As for the fair market price, I don't think the government should ever pay more than fair market price for something.

That said, R&D subsidies are hard to prove. After all, you're asking a company to take a big risk in doing R&D, so they have to be properly compensated for it. But anyway, if we agreed to 3% on R&D, then it was a mistake, but one we have to live with for the time being.

UA777222:

You're absolutely right. The 707 begat the 720, which begat the 727, which begat the 737 and 757. Though the 747 was a new entity, it shares a great deal of its original design with the 707, as does the 767. The 777 is an explosion of a 767 redevelopment program. Now the 7E7 is going to be a new entity, but I'm sure it will see a lot of commonality with previous aircraft.

Almost all aircraft development is evolutionary, not revolutionary. Usually the "revolutionary" part is a single part of the aircraft, such as the engine or the avionics.

If you haven't seen it yet, there is an article about the 747 in the USA Today for this weekend, talking about how it's glory days might be past it.

I haven't seen the article, Moman, but I've seen others of its ilk. That may be true but it doesn't mean the 747 couldn't continue in a revised form in a somewhat lesser role in the industry. The Advanced proposal means to exploit a size niche between the A346/773ER and the A380; likely not a big market but perhaps enough for a derivative. With no direct competition from another 450-seater, save perhaps for the (I think) unlikely to be launched A380-700, the 747 might survive away from the limelight it once enjoyed. That's okay by me; let the A380 have the spotlight. The 747 is a solid, proven design, uniquely adaptable to larger pallet freight hauling on its single main deck than the A380 can handle on each of its two main decks. Boeing maintains there's interest for it in Asia and Europe; not everyone needs a superjumbo. The sun isn't necessarily setting on it, just yet. It CERTAINLY isn't yet setting on the 737 which remains extremely popular, even though it's lately been somewhat outpaced by the A320 family.