Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Airbus delay mean much? (A380's postponement might aid Boeing, might not)
Associated Press via the Corvallis Gazette-Times ^ | Tuesday, June 7, 2005 | ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE

Posted on 06/06/2005 10:41:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative

SEATTLE -- In the neck-and-neck race for dominance in commercial aircraft, bad news for Airbus is usually good news for The Boeing Co.

The question is how bad and how good.

On Wednesday, when Airbus confirmed that deliveries of its new A380 superjumbo passenger jet will be two to six months late, some analysts called it a hiccup that probably won't hurt the company -- or help its U.S. rival -- that much.

Others wondered if the delay might be a sign of big underlying problems that could threaten the future of the world's largest plane.

"I think the biggest concern of all ... is that this might not be due to flight testing delays or paperwork. It might be due to a need to meet performance specifications. In other words, they might have to be looking at design aspects of this plane,'' said Richard Aboulafia, an aviation analyst with Teal Group in Fairfax, Va.

Airbus spokeswoman Mary Anne Greczyn said delays of this kind are "relatively typical'' with new airplanes.

"A couple of months in the grand scheme of things is really nothing in terms of scheduling,'' Greczyn said.

In late April, Airbus warned Singapore Airlines Ltd. it would receive its A380s late next year instead of in March. Since then, other airlines said they were expecting late deliveries, too.

Airbus has not said what's causing the delays. Australia's Qantas Airways Ltd. said "manufacturing issues'' are to blame.

If those "issues'' mean Airbus is struggling to meet the design specifications it promised airlines, the Toulouse, France-based jet manufacturer could be headed for some serious turbulence.

"It increases the chances that the A380 was oversold in terms of economics and technology, and that is a boon for Boeing and the 747,'' Aboulafia said.

Greczyn scoffed at that suggestion that Airbus might be struggling to keep its promises.

"There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.''

Without discussing exactly what prompted the delay, Greczyn said staying on schedule depends not only on Airbus' production process, but also design requirements from each airline, and a global supply chain.

Boeing's 747, the largest commercial jet in service today, seats about 420 passengers in the standard three-class configuration or 525 in two classes. The A380 will fly 555 passengers in three classes, or a whopping 840 if everyone jams into one class.

Boeing is thinking about building a slightly larger and more fuel-efficient version of the 747. The Chicago-based company, which builds most of its commercial planes in the Seattle area, has said it will decide by the end of the summer whether to offer the 747 Advanced, which would seat about 30 more people than the existing 747.

Peter Jacobs, an analyst with Ragen MacKenzie, said he doesn't see the A380 delay having any impact on Boeing's decision about the 747 Advanced, since that plane probably wouldn't enter service until 2009.

"If there are further delays in the A380 or major problems come up with it during flight testing, it could sway the competitive landscape somewhat, but that's highly unlikely,'' Jacobs said.

In general, Jacobs said he thinks a setback like this one isn't a huge deal — or a surprise.

"When you're breaking new ground, which Airbus is with this large airplane, these kinds of things happen,'' he said.

Scott Hamilton, an aerospace consultant with Leeham Companies LLC, agreed, noting that Boeing was a bit late delivering its first 747-400s in 1989.

"Certainly for the airlines, it's a major inconvenience,'' Hamilton said. "And certainly for Airbus, they're going to have to pay penalties.''

But Hamilton said he doesn't think the delay will cost Airbus any customer loyalty.

"The airlines that have already ordered the A380 are almost certainly going to stick with the A380 unless something humongous happens to the program.''

Shares in European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., which owns 80 percent of Airbus fell as much as 2.2 percent in early trading before recovering to close just 0.3 percent lower at 23.97 euros ($29.31). BAE Systems, which owns the remaining 20 percent of Airbus, closed 1.5 percent higher at 2.73 pounds ($4.97) in London.

Boeing shares fell 10 cents Wednesday to close at $63.80 on the New York Stock Exchange.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; US: Illinois; US: Missouri; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 747; 747advanced; a380; airbus; boeing; cary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2005 10:41:12 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...
Ping!

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail not by posting to this thread.

2 posted on 06/06/2005 10:42:31 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.

Mary Anne, now this may just be a spurious reading, but my little internal lie detector just buzzed.

.

3 posted on 06/06/2005 11:05:37 PM PDT by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seaplaner
What do you think public relations spokespeople get paid to do ? it's called " Plausible Denyability " .
4 posted on 06/06/2005 11:21:01 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
With the airbus being 2 billion over-budget, and less than half the orders needed just to break even, and no hope in sight to get those other half, what investors would put up their money for that risk?
As I have said before, the airbus people had better watch who they accuse of being subsidized, because it is awfully clear they are.
I wouldn't be surprised if the airbus 380 becomes a museum curiosity piece.
5 posted on 06/06/2005 11:42:56 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
""A couple of months in the grand scheme of things is really nothing in terms of scheduling,'' Greczyn said."

Damn!

In my former business, here in Silicon Valley --it could make the difference between success or failure.
Our product life cycles were running about 9 months!

Semper Fi

6 posted on 06/06/2005 11:43:02 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
What most people don't know is ?
On a new airplane design and program, the first few planes are only for test purposes.
The first Aflop-380 is only a prototype and will probably never go into passenger or freight service.
The 2nd plane will be tested and literally broken into pieces to test the engineering limits of it's design.
At least the first 3-4 planes will be for testing.
Me thinks that what is going on behind closed doors ( away from the publics eye and the media's eyes ) is the AirRUST people and the airlines people are having very hot arguments about the so called " Performance " promises.
What is probably going on is, after the first initial " TEST FLIGHTS " and the data from them, the airlines are not happy with the performance numbers ( in spite of what we heard in the news that the A-380 is performing as expected ) and the airlines are telling AirRUST to get the numbers that they ( AirRUST ) promised.
I don't believe what we heard in the news for the reasons of the delay of another 6 months for the delivery dates on the A-380 is because of the interior suppliers are late getting up to speed on the interiors for the Aflop-380 --- what do you think the PR people are for ?
These 6 months is going to be a weight cutting diet program for the A-380 to bring down the weight of the airplane, and AirRust is wringing their hands over were to cut the weight down on the Aflop-380 without jeopardizing the airworthiness of the A-380.
7 posted on 06/06/2005 11:46:24 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

A380- Super Jumbo...

Soon to be know as the "EUie that never Flewie"

Semper Fi


8 posted on 06/06/2005 11:46:57 PM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Ohhh .. believe me.... once they ( if they ever do ) get this Aflop-380 to the point were it is profitable ( that is a BIG IF ??? ) .... by that time, the whole program will reach $ 20 BILLION in cost... and probably only have sold 200-250 airframes.
We can be assured, that the EU will drop more money into the bottomless pit of a program as the Aflop has become.
This will probably go down in history as the biggest " WHITE ELEPHANT " of a project and program in civil aviation.
It looks to me, that those potential costumers who would have bought the Aflop-380 are getting the jitters and are having 2nd thoughts about buying the Aflop-380, and the 747 Advanced will surely take away a few sales from the Aflop-380.
It looks as thought, AirRUST is not going to sell as many Aflop-380's as they thought they would.
I am looking at this whole situation as a whole , as I look at it as the EU's problem, their economies and everything, Germany's unemployment at 14 %.
9 posted on 06/06/2005 11:57:17 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness; COEXERJ145; RayChuang88
What most people don't know is ?
On a new airplane design and program, the first few planes are only for test purposes.

The 747 prototype -- which actually was a production aircraft -- was the only 747 not delivered to a customer. All the other 747's used in the test program were eventually refurbished and delivered to the airlines. The 777 prototype was refurbish and sold to Cathay Pacific Airways. Considering the first 777 test flights started 11 years ago, why can't Airbus build a prototype that can be deliverable as an airliner?

10 posted on 06/06/2005 11:57:56 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; All
If you can help out a non-engineer here, can the 747 frame be tweaked out even more, or will the production line close?
11 posted on 06/07/2005 12:12:46 AM PDT by investigateworld ( God bless Poland for giving the world JP II & a Protestant bump for his Sainthood!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Well, the first prototype of the 747 was only used for static tests, and the 3 rd 747 was literally broken into pieces while they tested it for it's engineering limits and fatigue tests.
The first 747 was also used in other tests, as in the flying testbed platform for testing the first engine for the 777.
The first 747 prototype is loaned out to a museum now ( I wished the Smithsonian - Air&Space Museum would have gotten it).
12 posted on 06/07/2005 12:14:28 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
They ( Boeing ) is working on it.
Believe it or not, but the 747 in it's conception, was born to be stretched, and in recent years, Boeing's engineers accidentally discovered in their research that the 747 airframe design became more structurally more efficient as it got stretched.
13 posted on 06/07/2005 12:18:31 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
AirRust is wringing their hands over were to cut the weight down on the Aflop-380 without jeopardizing the airworthiness of the A-380.

I hope the do not try to save weight on the structural members of the vertical stabilizer.

14 posted on 06/07/2005 12:20:59 AM PDT by cpdiii (Oil Field Trash, Roughneck, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist, (OIL FIELD TRASH was fun))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
You might be right about the 777 , but, at least one of the new program or new airplane design is sacrificed ( take one for the team ) is tested for fatigue and broken into pieces.
I do know, at least 2 of the 747's never went into regular service.
I do have a great book on the history of the 747 ... it's called ( The Boeing 747 - design and development since 1969 ( really, since 1966 ) by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner.
15 posted on 06/07/2005 12:26:09 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

The lack of bias among the aviation fans here is truly commendable


16 posted on 06/07/2005 12:46:04 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
Feel free to post your inside knowledge about the testing results here.

this plane is a great achievement and i don´t care who produced it i am just looking forward to see it and i will.
17 posted on 06/07/2005 1:19:37 AM PDT by stefan10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld

That's the decision Boeing will be making in the next couple of months. The plans for the 747 Advanced apparently involve adding about 11-12 feet to the fuselage in two sections, fitting four of the new advanced engines being built to power the 787 Dreamliner, increased use of composites, and a number of other internal changes. If Boeing decides not to pursue the 747 Advanced, then the 747 line will shut down...they have fewer than 30 747 orders left to fill, mostly for freighters.

}:-)4


18 posted on 06/07/2005 4:02:32 AM PDT by Moose4 (Richmond, Virginia--commemorating 140 years of Yankee occupation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I'm only a spectator in this fight and don't have the engineering expertise to really know how this will all end up, but from what I've read to date the Airbus is in real trouble.
Why would you build a plane so big that there are only 1 or 2 airports in the world that today can land it or off load it. The cost of making the changes to existing airports is so big you would need thousands of these planes to be coming and going through your airport to make it economically viable.
It's the reverse analogy of building a boat in your basement so big and not having a way to get it out when your done.
The Euros are hearing the sucking sound of their money going down a wide drain. They should rename it the "Spruce Goose"!
19 posted on 06/07/2005 4:03:34 AM PDT by Recon Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I have no particular knowledge of this industry, but it strikes me that saying you are going to be six months late a year from now has more to do with design than production. If production were lagging, you would figure the could add on more men, push the workers, and make up lost time. If you have a design problem, you know now that you will not be ready in a year. The problem is, you don't really know you'll be ready in 18 months, either.


20 posted on 06/07/2005 4:23:30 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
... without jeopardizing the airworthiness of the A-380.

Too late!

21 posted on 06/07/2005 4:44:56 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I see Airbus is going to make a plane to compete with the 787. Which is funny because they said they already had models to compete when Boeing launched it!


22 posted on 06/07/2005 4:45:15 AM PDT by pissant (will a Sleep Number bed prevent morning stiffness?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neutrality
The majority of posters to the Airbus threads are heavily biased against it. I understand why, but it does detract in general from the quality of post and information that is given in them. Its just one of those things..

There is at least one member who posts some pretty informative articles in these threads sometimes (Central Scrutinizer?).

As for myself, I like for people and companies to dream big. While I am not the biggest fan of Airbus, I do want to see large projects succeed, in general. I believe this beast will eventually fly and be minimally profitable for Airbus, not that profitability matters much to them..

23 posted on 06/07/2005 5:27:52 AM PDT by Paradox ("You may disapprove of what I say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
The first 747 prototype is loaned out to a museum now ( I wished the Smithsonian - Air&Space Museum would have gotten it).

It was used to flight test the PW and RR engines for the 777, and it has been used by Boeing for flight testing various other equipemnt.

24 posted on 06/07/2005 6:56:50 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
You might be right about the 777 , but, at least one of the new program or new airplane design is sacrificed ( take one for the team ) is tested for fatigue and broken into pieces.

I don't think the ones used for fatigue tests ever were fitted out with a flight deck or interior. There's one test where they measure how much force it takes to break the wings, and another one where they put the fuselage in a water tank and simulate tens or hundreds of thousands of pressurization cycles till the hull fails due to metal fatigue.

25 posted on 06/07/2005 7:04:32 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Wrong, all the planes built will go into service, there is no prototype. The second will not be broken into pieces. I don't know where you get your information from, but its not from any knowledge of airplanes.

Airbus will be doing flight testing on the first 5 planes, they are all the same, no prototype. 2500 hours of flights, with one plane engined with GE/PW GP7200 engines, and the others with the Rolls Royce Trent 900 engines.

First plane goes to Singapore airlines, and will be in service in the last quarter of 2006. Good article about the first flight and testing program in this month's Air Transport World.

As for the name calling of Airbus, pretty childish.



26 posted on 06/07/2005 7:42:16 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

The first 777 ever built is still flying for its original customer, United Airlines.


27 posted on 06/07/2005 7:43:40 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Thanks for the ping, the bias here is silly and misinformed. Its OK to bag on the French, but to carry it to an airplane that is built by a consortium of countries and carries a hell of a lot of American built parts is stupid.

Airbus makes good planes, Boeing makes good planes, Embraer makes good planes, they all compete and make each other better. My airline is going to be the launch customer of the A350, should be fun.

The A380 is a niche plane, they aren't being built to service every route in the world, just medium long range high density routes. The plane is being built primarily for the needs of Asian carriers that operate from slot controlled airports and for Middle Eastern carriers that can afford to outfit their cabins with extravagance that their customers will pay for. And it will be a hell of a good cargo plane. The A380 may not make a profit for a while, but hats off to Airbus for pushing the envelope and building it. Airbus makes its dough from the A318/319/320/330/340 aircraft.


28 posted on 06/07/2005 7:50:08 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Hopefully Boeing will win out..


29 posted on 06/07/2005 8:30:27 AM PDT by sheik yerbouty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Be aware that much of the derision that Airbus gets here is due to the fact that the company has grown cocky and arrogant over the past few years, as if the company does no wrong and offers the best planes for every market and every customer. Reminds me of Japan in the early 90's, right before their economy tanked. Therefore, if they lose an order, its because Boeing 'cheated' somehow, factors other than 'economics' were involved, yadda yadda. Pot, kettle anyone? This business with AI is just freaking hilarious, and now they send a letter to the Japanese govt complaining about the lack of Airbus sales there?

If Boeing pulled this crap, they would get the same reaction. They need to realize the 777 and 787 are damn good planes that are superior to most of their offerings for the markets that these airlines are buying for right now, that's why they are getting their asses handed to them lately.

30 posted on 06/07/2005 9:52:15 AM PDT by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"There is no doubt that we will meet the performance specs we promised our customers,'' she said. "That's not a concern.''

That's not the concern, Mary Anne. It's "when". Customers want their planes with the performance promised in a reasonable amount of time.

31 posted on 06/07/2005 10:41:37 AM PDT by hattend (Alaska....in a time warp all it's own!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

If the A380 development was funded with private money and provided competition for Boeing, I would not criticize it. I would still favor Boeing, because in my opinion the development of the 747 is one of the greatest capitalism success stories.

Instead, the A380 development was subsidized with a seemingly bottomless pocket of public funds, with the goal of putting Boeing out of business.

I am all for competition - it creates better, cheaper products. My dislike of the A380 has nothing to do with product quality.


32 posted on 06/07/2005 11:03:59 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
This has to be the dumbest airplane since the the Spruce Goose. 800+ passengers? How about we try for a plane that carries 8000 or 80000?
Why would these clowns expect that airports would be eager to add to their current debt so they can extend and re-enforce their runways, upgrade their boarding and departing systems, and the rest of the infrastructure needed to support such a sudden and foolish addition to the problems they already have?
33 posted on 06/07/2005 2:17:29 PM PDT by Octar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
ahhh ? guess what ? I got my information from a BOOK about the planes being broken i.e. the wings snapped in half from fatigue test.
Name calling of AirRUST ? SO WHAT !!!
34 posted on 06/07/2005 5:16:02 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

Ahhhh, guess what? I get my information from having been in the industry and subscribing to the trade journals and magazines!

You are a buffoon.


35 posted on 06/07/2005 8:25:06 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Boeing gets its share of government cheese, don't be naive.


36 posted on 06/07/2005 8:26:35 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Yea..... look who is doing the name calling now.
Look who is being childish now.
37 posted on 06/07/2005 10:17:37 PM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

I speak from experience, I know a bit about planes. You just know how to make really stupid names for Airbus.

Stick to whatever it is that you know and comment on that.


38 posted on 06/07/2005 10:37:06 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

The new Smithsonian Air and Space Annex at Dulles has the prototype 707 on display, its gone through all kinds of mods since day one, it looks great. They also have a Concorde and the only remaining Stratoliner.

Wish they had the surviving XB-70 on display, but its at Wright Patterson.


39 posted on 06/07/2005 10:52:29 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
They also have a Concorde and the only remaining Stratoliner.

I wonder why Boeing didn't get more market share with the 247 and Stratoliner? It seems like until the 707, Boeing was always the underdog when competing for comercial airliners. Weren't the Stratoliners mostly used for transporting generals and other VIP's across the Atlantic during WWII?

40 posted on 06/07/2005 11:01:07 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Very few Stratoliners produced, beautiful bird.

Not sure, but the new Smithsonian has lots of room, I'd like to see a Stratocruiser join the exhibit. They have a DC-7C coming, and I believe a Connie. I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.

41 posted on 06/07/2005 11:28:58 PM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I wonder why Boeing didn't get more market share with the 247...

The 247 was a revolutionary plane when introduced, but Boeing made the error of committing the initial deliveries to United, which was a sister company. This effectively froze all the other airlines out of the new technology. So Jack Frye of TWA went to Donald Douglas and asked him to build something that could compete with the 247. Thus was born the DC-1 and its follow on DC-2 and DC-3 versions.

Boeing's "United preference" caused the competition to build an alternative that turned out to be a "better mousetrap". There is a lesson to be learned here!

42 posted on 06/07/2005 11:41:36 PM PDT by StevieB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
I would hope they get a 737-100, and a DC-8. Of course I would kill for a 747-SP.

I think they'll get the prototype 737-100 that NASA used as test bed.

43 posted on 06/08/2005 1:58:26 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser


44 posted on 06/08/2005 2:02:46 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

Thank you. This one-sided bashing, deserved or not, isn't very informative, so your input (being an aviation enthusiast and a veteran in the field) is refreshing.


45 posted on 06/08/2005 2:39:28 AM PDT by neutrality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

There is no way that Boeing received, in any form, anywhere near as much "government cheese" as Airbus has received for the development of this one plane.


46 posted on 06/08/2005 5:47:31 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser

And how do you feel about Boeing ?


47 posted on 06/08/2005 7:24:47 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
The fact is ? the first and 3 rd 747 never went into regular service.
Fact: the 3 rd 747 was used for structural stress test and fatigue test and the wings were broken into pieces.
Fact: a 777 was used for stress test and the wings were broken into pieces.
Regardless if you know more about airplanes than anyone on the planet earth, this IS still a public forum and YOU are not the boss at Freerepubic, Jim Robinson is, so get off your high house are learn some humility.
48 posted on 06/08/2005 7:36:19 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
typo correction: " so get off your high horse and learn some humility."
49 posted on 06/08/2005 7:41:51 AM PDT by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The ( FOOL ) hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

My airline flew the last 737-100 in service in the US. It was a hangar queen, spend lots of time stuck because of it being broke down. Its been scrapped since.

I think they are going to keep that NASA plane in a museum.


50 posted on 06/08/2005 10:21:29 AM PDT by Central Scrutiniser (Intelligent design is neither.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson