G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile


Buell Motorcycle Forum » Quick Board » Archives » Boeing VS Airbus « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 07:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)


quote:

Flying High
How Boeing cut short Airbus's rule as king of the skies.
by James Thayer
12/15/2005 12:00:00 AM



EUROPE WAS CROWING, and it could be heard all the way across the ocean.

Airbus called Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner "dreaming in Seattle," and Airbus's then-CEO Noel Forgard dismissed the 787 as a "Chinese copy of [Airbus's] A330." The BBC said Airbus had stolen the march on its arc-rival Boeing, and the Economist predicted Airbus's A380 super-jumbo would "break the 747's longstanding monopoly on the big-jet market." Airbus's sales chief John J. Leahy said Boeing was ''just flailing around looking for something to compete with us.''

Indeed, 12 months ago Airbus seemed about to permanently replace the Boeing Company as the world's dominant airplane producer. It never happened. Instead, Airbus's ambitions have suddenly skidded off the runway.

Earlier this week Australia's flagship carrier Qantas ordered 45 787 Dreamliners worth $8 billion at list prices, and announced it would eventually take delivery of 100 Boeing airplanes, bringing the total order to $13 billion. Earlier in the month Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific Airlines also placed a big order: a dozen 777-300ERs with options for an additional 20 more planes, for a total list-price of $9 billion. The Qantas and Cathay Pacific contracts are bitter blows to Airbus and signaled Boeing's return as the industry king. The inevitability of European aircraft supremacy--so obvious a year ago--suddenly seems a laugher. What happened?

Boeing and Airbus have two competing and vastly different visions of the future of air travel. At least for now, it appears Boeing got it right.


TWO COMPANIES--Airbus and Boeing--manufacture the vast majority of the wide-body passenger airplanes in service around the world. Eighty percent of Airbus is owned by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, formed by a 2000 merger of the German, French, and Spanish aircraft industries. Twenty percent is owned by the British company, BAE Systems PLC. Most Airbus fabrication occurs in Toulouse, Hamburg, Barcelona, and Broughton, in Wales.

Boeing's corporate headquarters are in Chicago, but its main commercial airplane plants are in the Seattle area. Both Airbus and Boeing believe that air-passenger traffic will triple in the next two decades. Half a world apart, the two manufacturers have been desperately dueling to gain a majority of orders for the 40,000 new planes they anticipate the industry will need in that time.

Airbus believes that the hub-and-spoke system will govern air travel in the coming decades, where larger airplanes fly between major cities--the hubs--and then the passengers are shunted to their final destinations on smaller planes. In their vision, travelers going from New York City to Little Rock would first fly the Chicago or Atlanta hubs on a jumbo jet, then on to Arkansas in a smaller plane.

To meet this perceived need, Airbus has developed the A380, which will enter service in a year. With a wingspan of 266 feet, the plane is routinely described in the European press as being as wide as a football pitch. The A380 is 240 feet long, and the top of its tail is 80 feet off the concrete.

How can airports handle such a behemoth, one that when fully loaded weighs 177 tons more than a loaded Boeing 747-400, and has a 50-foot wider wingspan, and will carry as many as 853 passengers, almost twice as many as the Boeing plane?

They can't. No airport older than brand new is wide enough, high enough, or thick enough to handle the A380.

So port authorities are scrambling to get ready. London's Heathrow will spend $821 million to accommodate the plane, and will widen taxiways, build double-decker loading ramps, construct new corridors that will segregate the hordes of arriving and departing passengers, and install longer luggage carousels in an enlarged baggage claim area. Heathrow's director of planning and development, Eryl Smith, says the A380 "will change the face" of the airport.

Los Angeles International will erect a new terminal for the A380. Singapore's Changi airport has widened runway shoulders and taxiway junctions, and lounges and passenger concourses have been increased in size. Some cities--Hong Kong, Seoul, and Bangkok--have built new airports that will handle the A380.

Airbus spent $12 billion developing the A380 super-jumbo, and those triumphant predictions made last year about Airbus's new dominance should have come true. And they would have, too, except for one small irritant: the Boeing Company.


BOEING does not buy into the idea of hub-and-spoke dominance. Rather than 1,500 A380 sales in the next 20 years, as Airbus predicts, Boeing strategists expect the number to be closer 320. The reason: Boeing believes travelers and airlines will demand "point-to-point travel"--direct flights between smaller cities and smaller airports. Business people in a hurry, they reason, will not want to stop in the middle of their journey to change planes.

So Boeing's emphasis has been on smaller aircraft with longer range. The 787 Dreamliner is Boeing's plane of the future, "a radically different airplane," asserts Mike Bair, senior vice president of Boeing's Dreamliner development program.

The 787's new technologies are breathtaking. For example, the plane's fuselage will be made entirely of composites, making the plane lighter than older planes, saving weight and therefore fuel. Composites are also stronger than the traditional aluminum used in plane fuselages, and are more resistant to corrosion, and so the Dreamliner will have greater cabin pressure and humidity levels that will reduce passenger dehydration so that travelers will be more comfortable.

The Dreamliner will also use the bleedless new-generation Rolls Royce engine. In the traditional bleed-air engine, air is diverted to power fuel, pressurization, and oil pumps, hydraulic lines, and other systems. In the 787's bleedless engine, all the air flowing through the engine will be used for propulsion, while electric power for the pumps and hydraulic lines will be produced by a generator linked to the engine. The result will be greater fuel efficiency. The 787 will offer 20 percent to 30 percent greater fuel efficiencies over other aircraft.


THE 787 DREAMLINER is the first all-new Boeing plane in 14 years, but the company has been continually upgrading its product line. It offers the 300-seat wide-body 777-200LR, which last November set a record for the longest non-stop flight by a passenger plane, flying 13,422 miles from Hong Kong to London in 22 hours and 42 minutes. Fuel prices are high, and the 777 is a twin-jet, making it much more efficient than the plane it principally competes against, the four-engine Airbus A340.

The 787 and 777 will be able to do things an A380 cannot: fly along the spokes, between, say, Chicago and Little Rock, and among the spoke ends, from, say, Little Rock to Omaha. The Boeing planes can land at every airport the A380 will be able to, but the reverse is not true. The Boeing products can adapt to both the hub-and-spoke and the point-to-point systems.

And the new model of Boeing's venerable long-hauler, the 747-8, was launched last month, called 8 because it shares much technology with the Dreamliner. The 747-8 is 12-feet longer, and quieter and more economical than its predecessor.

Airbus counters these Boeing products with the promise of the A380 super-jumbo, and the A340-500, a derivative of a plane first introduced in 1988, which analyst Richard Aboulafia of the Teal Group calls a "legacy dinosaur." Airbus is also developing its answer to the 787 Dreamliner, the A350, which won't enter service until two years after the 787.


TWO YEARS AGO Airbus overtook Boeing as the world's best-selling commercial aircraft maker. But technical problems (read: weight problems) with the super-jumbo A380 and delays in its delivery "have infuriated airlines," the Australian reports. Weight problems are poison to airlines since overweight planes result in reduced passenger and freight payloads and shorter route lengths. The A380 is selling slowly.

Even before the new Qantas and Cathay Pacific orders, Boeing had won 109 firm new orders for 777s this year, compared with only 14 orders for the A340. Two weeks ago, Emirates, the huge Middle East airline, spurned Airbus, ordering 42 777s with a list price of almost $10 billion, a sale that observers termed "stunning."

Air Canada has decided to replace its entire A330 and A340 fleet with 96 777s and 787s, which the London Observer called "a savage blow" to Airbus. Air India and Northwest Airlines have also recently turned aside Airbus, preferring the Boeing product.

As of November 30, Boeing had logged almost four times more firm orders for its 787 Dreamliner than has Airbus for its A350. That's 185 planes to 49 planes. This week Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson said the 787 was "a very clear commercial winner for Boeing." Boeing this year will likely beat its previous sales record of 878 planes, set in 1998. A Seattle Times front-page headline read, "Boeing increases lead over Airbus."

Airbus's sales leadership lasted only two years.

Source




Sweet! I never did believe the mongo jetliner idea would be a winner.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevasaurus
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 08:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

We design and build components for both 787 and A380 at my work. I would be VERY happy to see Boeing prevail. Saying the Airbus people I've dealt with are "difficult" is quite the understatement.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Boeing had an issue with their 737's, when a freak condition, on a very few planes, could make the rudder go hard over, by itself. ( the 737 then did a hard roll into the ground, )How this was discovered is a heck of a detective story. The point is, Boeing tails are real strong. ( they fixed the part that might do that by the way )

Airbus, builder of fine planes, has had a problem that when a pilot stomped hard on the pedals in turbulence, dang if the tail didn't fall off. The FAA has issued a reminder to pilots that you can indeed break a plane, even at maneuvering speed. ( The speed that running into bumpy air should not break the plane. This is a massive oversimplification, massive. )
The Airbus fly by wire system also ensures that you can't stall/spin the plane by accident. I've seen film of the pilot pulling the yoke back into his gut, and the plane just mushes along. Neat! If you need to stall the plane, you can't. Not neat.
These petty differences should not be enough to refuse to fly on a given plane. I'm just an amateur glider pilot, & I'm not current. Don't take these statements as gospel. ( massive over simple here ) They are becoming a big enough thing, that some airlines are taking note. Especially when spending Billions $.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gowindward
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I worked for Boeing in the early 90's. The mega jumbo jet never made since then and I don't think it ever will. It's real tough for airlines to get 800 plus people that want to go to the same place at the same time to fill that large of a plane. At time we where making 21 737's per month and only 4 747-400's. Then in the mid 90's airlines are parking their 747's while Southwest is booming using the little 737. The smaller planes give an airline flexibility in their routes as passenger traffic patterns changes.

I glad to see Boeing doing well, but they have done several things in the last 10 years that are rather sad. First they moved their corporate offices to Chicago from Seattle. The company was founded in Seattle and had been headquartered there for like 85 years. All of there commercial final assembly is done there Renton and Everett. Then here recently they sold the Wichita division. Wichita was their largest campus, and again lots of company history there. If I remember right, close to 75% of the B-29's were assembled in Wichita and a large number of the B-52's also It's kind of like selling off part of the company's soul.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natexlh1000
Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 11:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The hub system works great for UPS but people resent having to deal with their luggage more than once per trip.
Ferinstance, the last time I went to my relatives in Oregon (from Massachusetts), I had to go via Boston, Newyork, atlanta, portland.
I really loved the fact that my family and I had to literally RUN from one plane to the next in atlanta in order to catch it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oldog
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

just a thought here the 747 is a jumbo-jumbo, and at least part of it is 2 decks, use and numbers are down, why is the DD airliner better?
glad to see that some jobs are still here....

great article, If you get to visit Seattle, see the Boeing museam (sp) well worth the trip.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

DD?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

12r
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Saying the Airbus people I've dealt with are "difficult" is quite the understatement.
You are being very diplomatic there Steve. They certainly are 'different'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

DD = Double Decker.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kenb
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:31 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

My aunts' brother is a Delta pilot and he had some not so nice things to say about airbus's fly by wire.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I live in the airline support business, since 1987. The Hub network will continue to reign in most of the world since many borders are crossed. Inter-Capitals (and major cities) will remain the major destinations.

In the USA the Regional Jet (50-85 seats) are the current king. Bombardier and Embraer are mopping up in North America, while sales in the rest of the world languish.

Airbus has the products, and sell them cheaply. In the USA they followed Steven Wolf as he jumped around and landed major sales at USAir and UAL. The problem with Airbus (Airboos if your French) is the lack of product support, or when it is offered it is with an attitude. All over the world large Airbus accounts have been won back by Boeing, even at an admitted higher sales price.

Jumbos and the A380 Super Jumbo have a place, probably not in America unless you need to carry LOTS of packages, as UPS and FedEx are the only orders here. The 747 has rarely been used here, only at international gateways.

In any case the A380 is an impressive feat, and quiet. The B787 Dreamliner is a real technology pusher. New materials and the push toward the all electric airplane will show real benefits in this coming generation of air transport planes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

A380 in Singapore Airlines colors, at Changi.





Same airplane, 3 days later in QANTAS colors, departing Melbourne.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 08:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Dreamliner Website
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mike_bolts
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 09:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I fly 50,000 miles a year on business, I am not a pilot but I feel more comfortable whenever I am on a Boeing airplane. Airbus has had too many accidents in their short life span.

Although I am fascinated with the double decker, I doubt that they will ever be outfited with casinos and shopping malls. Due to turbulance and terrorism the airlines do not want you anywhere but glued to your seat. To make the Airbus commercially feasible, they have to fill it up to the rim. I don't like flying with 200 people, much less 800.

It's good to see an American manufacturer kicking some a$$ these days with an innovative product and superior management.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bomber
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I also fly a lot for business -- not a pilot, not involved in the industry at all --

while I can easily see the advantanges of hub-and-spoke to the carriers (and, by extension, to their customers), but, as a passenger, I really don't like having to change planes --

I think the days of people volunteering to routinly changing plans in the US are over (Tramp's got a goodpoint about the smaller countries outside of the Americans) . . . I'm willing to pay a bit of a bump to go direct -- luckily for me, I live near Chicago, so I generally have a number of choices

I remember a vacation, years ago -- three families, goind to Orlando with 5 kids under 6 -- flying from Chicago to St Louis to Atlanta to Orlando was punishement enough -- we cancelled the return flight, knocked over some liquor stores, and reutned home direct

for me to voulnteer for a hub and spoke run, there would have to be a great deal of faith in all the carriers keeping to their respecive schedules -- these days, that faith would be difficult to come by
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 01:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I can sure see the utility of the A380 on routes like London-NY, Tokyo-Los Angeles, Paris-Hong Kong and such. Heck in Japan they fly 747's between Tokyo and Kansai, been there, done that. They had a big video display upstairs in the nose with cameras pointing port and starboard and one taking in the view forwards. That was the most fun commercial jet landing I've ever been on. Was like a big amusement park ride. Yeah, the seats were small and cramped too. : )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natexlh1000
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Also remember that any time that you have to swap planes, your luggage has to also.
Ever time luggage is moved from one plane to the next is just another chance for you to show up and not have your wedding suit or whatever.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

My experience with Airbus involved the tipping of my seat with the passing of the drink cart. I was on edge the rest of the flight.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Patrickh
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 03:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I gotta believe that the heightened security and added cost of luggage screening means that carriers would want to sit passengers down and leave them on one aircraft for the duration of their flight rather than shuffle them around between several aircraft during the course of their journey. Boeing wins.

That being said, I fly a good amount for business and generally reguard Airbus as producing quieter, more comfortable planes. I hope Boeing pays attention to the comfort features of the European giant if they will be suppling the planes I will be traveling on in the future.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Blake
Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 04:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Last Airbus I recall flying on was between Madrid and Lisbon; it was the loudest aircraft I've ever been on. The grinding whine was very irritating. That was some time ago though. I'm sure the newer models are much quieter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Oldog
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 02:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Blake DD = Double Decker..
Must Be a "Male" in that singapore pic

(Message edited by oldog on December 18, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Diablobrian
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 10:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I like DD's but it has nothing to do with airplanes!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ricky
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

We make parts and sell to both companies.
Airbus by far is one of the worst companies to deal with.
Then there is Lockheed, Goodrich, Vought, Bell...
Those are PITA companies, also.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 07:55 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

2005 Race So Far
Airbus A318/319/320/321A300/310 A330 A350 A340 A380 Total
584 7 57 49 15 20 732
Boeing 717 737-NG 767 787 777 747
-14 462 15 230 127 43 863
Total Orders 1,595


Boeing's Comeback
717 737 747 757 767 777 787 Total
2005 Net orders* -14* 462 43 * 15 127 230 863
2004 Net orders 8 152 10 -- 9 42 56 277
2003 Net orders 8 206 4 7 11 13 ** 249


*717 and 757 programs have been canceled.

**787 was launched in 2004

Source: AW&ST compilation of Boeing and Airbus data to Dec. 15.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

X1tx
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 09:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

That 380 looks like a turbojet version of the Super Guppy........
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Guppy



Beluga


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 11:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The Beluga will be used to transport A380 fuselages and other large pieces. It is a converted A300-600.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

X1tx
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

I see that NASA Guppy flying around from time to time. When you see it in person it's unbelievable that it can actually fly.

I think Boeing and AirBus were in some kind of WTO trade dispute regarding the subsidies that Aerospatiale is getting from the various governments.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rpmchris
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 08:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Just not a better airplane than a Southwest B737-700.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dragon_slayer
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 08:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Rpmchris, beautiful plane. Really stands out at the local airport!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Natexlh1000
Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Those guppies look as if they are part blimp.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 07:40 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

The Air Partners Winglets make it look much more modern. Not a bad run for an airplane that was dubbed FLUF on it's maiden flight. Fat Little Ugly

Boeing Photo

(Message edited by tripper on December 20, 2005)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Kaudette
Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Let's face it, US and Europe have cornered the market for an oligarchy to take over the mid and large scale commercial aircraft marketplace.

Both Boeing & Airbus make very nice aircraft (I fly about 150000 miles a year long and short haul) and have flown on just about every production (commercial) aircraft these past 10 years.

I tend to find that like for like, it doesn't really matter if it is a Boeing or an Airbus - what really matters is how modern and well kept the airline fleet it - Northwest and Alitalia are some of the worst, while Virgin, and some select transatlantic routes are the best.

As for the future, there's simply not enough competition to force their hands on innovation but them's the beans these days.

And BTW - the A380 works just fine - the issue with the late delivery was part manufacturing delays (for the systems bits & pieces), but mostly the fact that many commercial airstrips couldn't handle the fully loaded landing weight of the aircraft on the first 200 meters of the strip so Heathrow and a number of other airports needed to do some unexpected "testing" to be sure the strip didn't buckle under landing...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tripper
Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 07:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

SEATTLE, Dec. 21, 2005 – The record-breaking Boeing [NYSE: BA] 737 airplane just set a new milestone likely to remain in the books for a long while. With an order for 10 737-800s from Xiamen Airlines, total orders for the all-time, best-selling 737 surpassed the 6,000 mark.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Vanvideo
Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 02:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only)

Hmmm..I tried to post, but it seems it didn't take. If I repeat myself, sorry.

This is cool...Buell riders who are civilian aviation buffs, like myself. I've been following the progress of the 787, and enjoy the way it's been handing Airbus their a**. The A350 isn't selling nearly as well as the 787. It's too little, too late for Airbus.
But I do lament the demise of the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. It would have been an incredible aircraft! Since the Concordes have retired, the SC would have been my only chance of experiencing high altitude, high speed flight. Oh well, maybe I can bum a ride on a Citation X...
For you aviation buffs, check out Aviation.net for lots of info, plus lots of B vs A chatter.
« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration