Posted on 03/12/2006 4:50:25 PM PST by farlander
French Standard shift transmission used in Airbus
"Well, since Boeing is probably going to lose a huge number of 777 and 787 orders thanks to some idiots in Congress, Airbus might just manage to stay ahead."
Hopefully that won't happen but the scale of risk is huge.. Boeing estimates 869 paasenger aircrft purchases from the middle east are upcoming.
http://www.tradearabia.com/tanews/newsdetails_snTTN_article101854_cnt.html
Proposals they made often had little to no relationship to what we had asked for. Many salesmen had basically no authority to do more than hand out plastic models. Airbus and McDonnell Douglas salesmen could make deals on the spot. Boeing also had a general attitude of entitlement, as though we would not even consider going anywhere else.
Alot of US airlines made some political orders in the late 80's and early 90's just to remind Boeing they were perfectly happy to shop elsewhere.
McDonnell Douglas on the other hand was extremely easy to do business with, they wanted your business, they were hungry.
Early Airbus was a little difficult to deal with, not that they were unreasonable, there was just a real culture clash. They were however, like McDonnell Douglas, very hungry and wanted your business. They also had very strong products, the first time I saw the A300 I was just blown away. The first time I saw the A320 my heart stopped.
It looks like bringing Stonehenge out of retirement put the fear of the lord in Boeing Commercial, but when Boeing gets arrogant, they begin doing stupid, self-destructive things.
But in this type of industry it is natural that the balance of power will switch back and forth. No one has the resources to maintain extreme periods of dominance anymore.
Oh, we have history.
Some is pro, some is no.
I invest in things that I do know, and do not in those that I do not know.
And I know Aviation.
Thank you for your comment. - I mean that.
that was the result of an idiot pilot, an idiot can crash a 737 just as easily as an A320.
Boeing is banking on passengers' preference to fly directly to their destinations, while Airbus has bet on large aircraft to take passengers cheaply to and from major hubs and then to smaller connecting flights...and that kinda means, every Airbus sale triggers more than one sale of a few smaller Boeings. :')
"Proposals they made often had little to no relationship to what we had asked for. Many salesmen had basically no authority to do more than hand out plastic models. Airbus and McDonnell Douglas salesmen could make deals on the spot. Boeing also had a general attitude of entitlement, as though we would not even consider going anywhere else."
Hopefully Boeing learned some of those lessons when they bought McDonnell Douglas - it can go either way when you aquire someone leaner and hungrier... sometimes you corrupt the newcomers.
I don't know of ANY airline passenger who would prefer a GIANT ZOO CATTLECAR and extra connection, compared to a direct flight.
The main problem is airport expansion has become politically impossible in most of the world because of radical environmentalism. Noise abatement, curfews, slot restrictions means that airports have to accomodate more and more passangers without expanding their physical footprint, this means much larger planes.
The only place in the US where this is a potential crisis at this point in Southern California. But it is also in the longer term going to face New York and Florida. The only way to increase capacity into those markets is going to be larger airplanes. Because airport growth is impossible.
Sell BA!
If Barons is writing it, the recommendation is wrong.
All Boeing learned from the merger was that phishing the pentagon was alot easier than fighting airbus to the death for each and every order.
The Boeing 747 - Still a miracle - Still the original Jumbo
What you say is true, however, with a 737, the throttle levers control the fuel feed to the engines. With an airbus (and other electric airplanes) the throttle levers only tell the computer what the pilot wants the fuel feed to be. He does not have ultimate control, the computer has to agree or nothing happens.
In the case of that airbus taking up farming on the other side of those trees, I've had a pilot who was an eyewitness tell me that the pilot had selected the incorrect computer mode - when the pilot said: "More power, go around again," the computer said: "No, we are landing."
So I guess it's pilot error for not informing the computer just who is boss.
I like to think so. I'll admit I get a little misty-eyed when I see the old girl stick her nose in the air and go climbing for the heavens.
There's a spot on highway 280, south of San Francisco where airplanes taking off to the west out of SFO are below your level and climbing straight toward you for a brief moment. I once saw a 747 climbing out, coming straight at me, with the engine inlets full of fog. Those gutty old engines were sucking the moisture right out of the air as they were lifting the big old girl up to altitude.
Gotta love it!
Please forgive my nostalgia.
My brother was in the airforce, it was drilled into them from day one that "tape measure quick-draw competitions" are not worth destroying a $40 million dollar jet.
I also know some who were involved, and the consensus within airbus was that the pilot was an idiot long before he did "the lumberjack" as they took to calling it.
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.