Re: What are Boeing's plans?
Kevin Brooks
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:68okk0tolpbgg62vh...@4ax.com...
>I am hearing that Boeing is going to cut the 757 and the 767 from
> the line up. Will the 777 and the 737 be able to cover all the
> bases?
You need to do some Googling. A lot of this kind of info is already out
there, you just have to search for it a bit. Boeing is betting heavily on
the Dreamliner, and they may be on the right track with it based upon early
airline interest and orders.
>What is the future for the 7E7 and the 747?
7E7 has orders on the books. It will be built in different lengths, with
differient capacities and ranges. The 747 will continue to roll off the
lines as long as it keeps getting orders (seven currently on order), but
that may not be for very long. 777 has something like 28 orders unfilled on
the books right now.
>
> And what happened to the plans to use the 767 as replacement for
> the KC-135?
Still in limbo for the USAF. Italy and Japan have purchased 767 tanker mods,
though.
> Or using the 737 to replace the EP3?
A modified BBJ version of the 737 has recently been selected to replace the
P-3 (not EP-3) as the MMA; orders will start flowing in the near term. The
EP-3 replacement has been rolled up into the Army's ACS (Airborne Common
Sensor) program; IIRC the Army has decided upon one of the Embraer jet
products as the platform. The 737 is also the platform for the RAAF's new
Wedgetail AWACS--ISTR the total purchase of those will be six or seven
aircraft. Turkey has also selected the 737 in that role, opting for four
aircraft. Additionally, the ANG and USN have been buying 737's as C-40's
(the USN is using them to replace their old C-9 (i.e., DC-9)).
Brooks
Roy Smith
> I am hearing that Boeing is going to cut the 757 and the 767 from
> the line up. Will the 777 and the 737 be able to cover all the
Predicting the future can be dangerous. I was reading some history of
the 747 recently, and discovered that the original plan was to have the
747 be a temporary addition to the line, just to tide things over until
the SST got into production. So much for that plan, eh?
m pautz
They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time
that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The
747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading.
Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
that Boeing made the right decision.
Thomas Borchert
> And how does Boeing
> plan to cover the markets that the 757 and 767 were targeted for?
>
You sure that market still exists? As I understand it, nobody is
ordering 757s. The Dreamliner will be able to replace it there.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Kevin Brooks
"m pautz" <mpa...@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:EdD2d.65358$D%.13394@attbi_s51...
From what I have read, Boeing is banking on the 7E7 being a more valuable
commodity than "supersized" air transports, and if you look at the extreme
number of current hub-feeder and smaller hub-to-hub aircraft out there that
are going to need replacement in the not-too-distant future, they may well
have made the better choice. Lots of DC-9's, older 737's, A319's, A320's,
etc., are going to be coming due for replacement in the next few years, and
with fuel economy being a growing concern in terms of meeting the bottom
line requirements, the 7E7 family will be well positioned to take a goodly
share of that market. Airbus may find itself in the unenviable position of
having a lock on the market for supers, but being a step behind in terms of
the larger share of the market that wants to recapitalize its smaller
airframe fleets.
Brooks
>
David Lednicer
the 767 line open, but this deal is dormant. If the USAF doesn't act soon,
they won't be able to buy 767s as the line closes real soon. With this
in mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is closed?
Kevin Brooks
"David Lednicer" <da...@amiwest.com> wrote in message
news:414B0CCC...@amiwest.com...
From what I have read, the E-10 concept is not completely locked into the
767 platform--the first operational test and eval aircraft will be a 767
platform, but no firm decision regarding later procurement has been made. If
Boeing wants to continue to pursue the 767 tanker option, it has the ability
to temporarily kill the line and restart it later, as long as they keep the
tooling and jigs--there has also already been mention made of possible 7E7
use in the E-10 role, and more remotely as a future tanker platform.
Brooks
>
>
AES/newspost
>
> They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST.
>
I guess I'll never understand how rational and technically intelligent
people could have thought that, even with the optimism of that time.
(But then, Popular Mechanics and the Bush administration continue to
believe in manned space flight to Mars.)
Roy Smith
AES/newspost <sie...@stanford.edu> wrote:
Imagine we found the mother lode and the price of oil dropped to
$10/barrel. We'd all be flying SST's as soon as they could get them off
the drawing board and start bending sheet metal.
Mike Rapoport
"Roy Smith" <r...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:roy-19F93C.1...@reader1.panix.com...
Oil was $10/bbl not too long ago and nobody started developing SSTs
Mike
MU-2
G Farris
>
>
>
>
>They thought that the passenger travel would be ALL SST. At the time
>that the SST took over, the 747s would be converted for cargo use. The
>747 nose was designed to hinge up to provide fast and easy cargo loading.
>
>Now, Airbus is comming out with the 380, a full length double decker.
>Boeing decided not to extend its 747 top the full length. Let's hope
>that Boeing made the right decision.
>
Why should we hope that??
G Faris
Jarg
news:cifmre$26da$1...@biggoron.nerim.net...
Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
more jobs and more money for Americans!
Jarg
Bob Noel
"Mike Rapoport" <rapopor...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Imagine we found the mother lode and the price of oil dropped to
> > $10/barrel. We'd all be flying SST's as soon as they could get them off
> > the drawing board and start bending sheet metal.
>
> Oil was $10/bbl not too long ago and nobody started developing SSTs
the noise nazis would have prevented it.
--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
"Bob Noel" <ihates...@netscape.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-754...@netnews.comcast.net...
ji...@specsol-spam-sux.com
> Mike
> MU-2
One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.
Roy Smith
> One wonders if the Concorde would have been such an economic loser
> if they had focused more on the long haul Pacific routes and less on
> the Atlantic though national pride and regs probably wouldn't allow the
> hubs to be SF and LA instead of London and Paris.
Did the Concorde have the range for trans-pacific routes? According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde, the range was 7250 km. I know
that can't quite be right, because they used to fly London to Dallas,
which is 7656 km.
San Francisco to Tokyo (a relatively short run by Pacific standards) is
8276 km. Los Angeles to Tokyo is 8815 km. Could they have made those?
Kevin Brooks
"R. David Steele" <steele...@verizon.net/OMEGA> wrote in message
news:102nk05ckb596rbd0...@4ax.com...
> the rest of the line?
>
> I assume that the market niche for the 757 and 767 is still
> there. It is just that they are not large enough to support the
> lines or just use other aircraft to cover that niche.
7E7 will offer airlines a new airframe (they can't fly the same old ones
forever) with what is promised to be unparalleled efficiency. Airlines have
to maximize efficiency in order to remain profitable. Note I got my
replaced-airframe list off-kilter (see other message in this thread).
Brooks
john smith
I thought it was to increase overseas sales and increase corporate
profit by reducing domestic labor/benefit/pension costs.
Jarg
news:wuO2d.47349$787....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
> Really? Is that why so much work is being outsourced overseas?
> I thought it was to increase overseas sales and increase corporate profit
> by reducing domestic labor/benefit/pension costs.
>
>
I take it you are having a tough time holding down a decent job? Well, you
shouldn't let your personal experiences color you ideas about the US
economy. For example, it ooks like you missed the insourcing of high paying
that is also occurring. Not to mention the strong growth of the American
economy which is the envy of the developed world.
Jarg
William Wright
"Kevin Brooks" <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:NJ-dnXpfI9q...@adelphia.com...
There are still 24 767s in the announced backlog which keeps the line open
until at least the end of 2006 though I would guess some parts of the supply
chain would shutdown sooner. I have never heard of any plans to mothball any
line at Boeing and don't really see how it could be done.
And of course the last 757 is in final assembly now.
>
> Brooks
> >
> >
>
>
Smutny
dominance in the civil market. It really comes down to a "comedy" of
errors.
It goes as far back as not taking Airbus seriously as a competitor
until the 1990's. It includes a staff of baboons running the company.
Putting too many McDonnell Douglas people in key positions after the
merger (they ran their company into the ground, why'd Boeing think
they'd do any different after the merger?). The 737 Next Generation
was an engineering, marketing and production mistake. The money
pissed away on the Sonic Cruiser in the name of perceived innovation
when everyone knew that what was to become the 7E7 would be the
correct answer. A hostile and demotivating work enviornment that saps
the employees desire and drive to see the company do well. Flavor of
the month programs that never see the benefits pitched in the
beginning and rarely see full implementation, even after millions of
dollars are spent. A sales staff that couldn't sell a sandwich to a
starving millionare.
Boeing is open about the fact that they don't want to be a civil
aircraft "manufacturer". All manufacturing will be done by
subcontractors. Boeing will only do the final assembly, testing and
delivery. The 7E7 will be the first in this business model.
Their product line will eventually be the 747, 777 and 7E7. The last
757 rolls out this month. The 737 sales book is starting to thin out.
If the KC-767 doesn't happen, the 767 will be history, the order book
is almost empty. The 7E7 has the potential to fill in the slots of
the 737-700 thru the 767-200 with various fuselage lengths. They'll
give up the 100 to 150 seat aircraft to the Canadair's and Embraer's
of the world. And the super jumbo is Airbus' to dominate.
Boeing seeks to balance it's revenue streams through a variety of
sources. Civil aircraft manufacturing being one. A larger one is
aircraft modification centers. Then there's the military and space
programs. And then dabbling in the high tech arena as well.
The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
where the circus sets up a couple times a year. 30% of the Renton
plant where the 737 and 757 are built has now been flattened. 25% of
the revetments at the Renton Airport where 737 and 757 pre-flight
preperation was done have bee given to the City of Renton.
Oh yeah, and it's all because Airbus gets government subsidies.
Right?
-j-
Thomas Borchert
> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
> more jobs and more money for Americans!
>
And who would be "we"? This is the Internet, not the USAnet.
More to the point: A large portion of the A380 (40 percent, IIRC) will be
built in the US.
You ever heard of this new-fangled thing called globalizaton? It's here,
man.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Matthew Chidester
replace the p-3...
I agree, it seems like Canadair and Embraer will take over the small stuff
and most start up airlines are sticking with Airbus (lower maintenance
costs?) I wish someone would post the prices and performance of the aircraft
so we could compare and see why airlines pick the planes they do.
Matthew
Smutny
The entire airplane should have been replaced and fit into the 'common
family' scheme started by the 757/767. (Which is now being started
over with the 7E7) Instead, all they did was update of the
-300/-400/-500 updates of the 1960's -100/-200 technology. And chip
away at 757 sales with the -900.
The engineering updates almost required a new Type Certificate.
Things like the new emergency exit design held up delivery and cost
the company millions. I remember when there wasn't a spare square
foot on the Renton tarmac and all the 737's were under tents as mods
were made after the FAA finally caved and approved the extensive mods
to the old airframe.
As a result, now 10 years later the plane is loosing sales to the more
technologically advanced and more economical A319/320/321. Boeing
should have seized the opportunity to leapfrog the Airbus narrowbodies
at that time. They're coming late to the party with the 7E7, their
only hope of large sales being to replace aging narrowbodies of both
makes.
One of the major reasons there was such a large movement to buy the
Next Gen's in the first place was the stricter economic and noise
regulations which were forcing airlines to retire the older DC-9, 727
and 737's. Now that rush is not there anymore. So the replacements
will be dictated by airframe life. Which even Boeing is entering the
market to extend by many years.
Regarding the P-737 contract, it is my understanding a good number of
the Navy airframes will not be new-builds. But rather come from
Whitetails sitting in the desert. I'd have to go back and double
check that, but I know that was part of the original MoU.
As far as 'sticker prices' for the aircraft... That's all blue sky
crap. No airline ever pays sticker. It all comes down to what kind
of deal can be struck. Hell, I remember a deal that involved Boeing
finding a re-seller for a few tons of men's silk underwear in order to
sell a few airplanes. Or a deal that involved the flag carrier's
homeland to get a real good deal and State Department approval to
purchase, and then produce sub-componenets, for F/A-18's. Airliner
sales is wheeling and dealing at it's best and purest form.
-j-
Kevin Brooks
"Smutny" <smutny...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u8eqk05g7eg6530lf...@4ax.com...
> You can't point to one event as the root of Boeing's fall from
> dominance in the civil market. It really comes down to a "comedy" of
> errors.
>
> It goes as far back as not taking Airbus seriously as a competitor
> until the 1990's.
A bit too wide an indictment. It is understandable that Boeing would not
become the worlds's sole, or even predominant, supplier of airliners
worldwide. It is the last US major producer, and if you think that should
translate into a realistic scenario of it being the worlds primary supplier,
you are sadly mistaken.
It includes a staff of baboons running the company.
> Putting too many McDonnell Douglas people in key positions after the
> merger (they ran their company into the ground, why'd Boeing think
> they'd do any different after the merger?). The 737 Next Generation
> was an engineering, marketing and production mistake.
Well over a thousand NG 737's sold to date, with orders still on the books
and more coming in, right? Not to mention the sale of C-40 models to the USN
and ANG, the recent announcement of the NG getting the P-3 replacment
contract with the USN (likely to involve 108 aircraft), sales of AWACS
versions to Turkey and Australia...my goodness, if the 737 NG is a *dog* in
your estimation, then just what the hell would you consider a *success*?
The money
> pissed away on the Sonic Cruiser in the name of perceived innovation
> when everyone knew that what was to become the 7E7 would be the
> correct answer.
Apparently eveyone did not *know* any such thing; your own ability to look
into your personal crystal ball is rather unique.
<snip>
> A sales staff that couldn't sell a sandwich to a
> starving millionare.
How many thousands of NG sales would you have to have in order to be happy
with their marketing? How many 7E7 firm orders beyond the current
sixty-some, two years before construction of the maiden aircraft, would you
require?
>
> Boeing is open about the fact that they don't want to be a civil
> aircraft "manufacturer". All manufacturing will be done by
> subcontractors. Boeing will only do the final assembly, testing and
> delivery. The 7E7 will be the first in this business model.
That appears to be the way most large businesses are moving; ever look at
how Airbus does its manufactruring process? Globalization is here man--you
don't like it, tough tomatos.
>
> Their product line will eventually be the 747, 777 and 7E7. The last
> 757 rolls out this month. The 737 sales book is starting to thin out.
Really? "17 May 2004 - Brazil's GOL Orders Up To 43 Boeing 737-800s 15 Firm
Orders, purchase rights to 28 additional by 2010...12 Nov 2003 - China
Orders 30 More Airplanes from Boeing...21 July 2003 - Boeing Confirms 15
More 737-700s for Southwest Airlines...1 July 2003 - AirTran Airways Orders
up to 110 Boeing 737s and 717s." www.b737.org.uk/ordersanddeliveries.htm
That would be 88 firm orders and 78 options over the past fifteen months.
But you think that is "starting to thin out", right? And that does not
include the C-40 and MMA programs for the USN. Where do you get these
strange ideas?
> If the KC-767 doesn't happen, the 767 will be history, the order book
> is almost empty. The 7E7 has the potential to fill in the slots of
> the 737-700 thru the 767-200 with various fuselage lengths. They'll
> give up the 100 to 150 seat aircraft to the Canadair's and Embraer's
> of the world. And the super jumbo is Airbus' to dominate.
Would that it were so. The 737 NG is going to be cranking off the assembly
line for many more years yet; the MMA's are not expected to start arriving
into service until the next decade, with a delivery rate that will keep it
going for around seven or eight years by itself.
>
> Boeing seeks to balance it's revenue streams through a variety of
> sources. Civil aircraft manufacturing being one. A larger one is
> aircraft modification centers. Then there's the military and space
> programs. And then dabbling in the high tech arena as well.
>
> The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
> more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
> down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
> where the circus sets up a couple times a year. 30% of the Renton
> plant where the 737 and 757 are built has now been flattened. 25% of
> the revetments at the Renton Airport where 737 and 757 pre-flight
> preperation was done have bee given to the City of Renton.
>
> Oh yeah, and it's all because Airbus gets government subsidies.
> Right?
No, it is more due to this danged thing called globalization...
Brooks
>
> -j-
Kevin Brooks
> Yes, in the long run the 737 Next Gen was a mistake.
Yeah, sure it was. How many thousands produced do you require in order for
it not to be a mistake?
Brooks
<snip>
Jarg
news:VA.0000662...@hotmail.com...
> Jarg,
>
>> Because we like American companies to be successful as it translates into
>> more jobs and more money for Americans!
>>
>
> And who would be "we"? This is the Internet, not the USAnet.
>
The we I am referring to is the American part.
> More to the point: A large portion of the A380 (40 percent, IIRC) will be
> built in the US.
>
Great! Even more of the Boeing product will be built here.
> You ever heard of this new-fangled thing called globalizaton? It's here,
> man.
>
Absolutely and I'm a big fan. Of course I like the American part of the
process the best.
Jarg
Smutny
all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
historical sales figures.
What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.
Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.
-j-
Kevin Brooks
> As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
> all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
> historical sales figures.
>
> What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
> product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
> market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
> design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
> they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.
That "rehash" has sold well--you said it did not. And it is *still* selling
quite well, despite your protestation otherwise. The 737 is a classic, and
its latest derivitives continue to compete with and beat later designs. -700
thru -900 sales currently over one thousand copies, and still growing, is
nothing to sneeze at.
>
> Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
> new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.
I'd posit that developing a truly high efficiency airliner while the
airlines are struggling, and hence have to maximize efficiency whereever
possible, is not such a bad thing. The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even
737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on some routes that can use the greater
capacity, and that it has already garnered sixty-some odd firm orders almost
three years before first flight. At the current order rate they will have
some 250 on the books when the aircraft makes its maiden flight. All of that
indicates that some airlines think Boeing is on the right track.
Brooks
Smutny
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:32:53 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Smutny" <smutny...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:u8eqk05g7eg6530lf...@4ax.com...
>> You can't point to one event as the root of Boeing's fall from
>> dominance in the civil market. It really comes down to a "comedy" of
>> errors.
>>
>> It goes as far back as not taking Airbus seriously as a competitor
>> until the 1990's.
>
>A bit too wide an indictment. It is understandable that Boeing would not
>become the worlds's sole, or even predominant, supplier of airliners
>worldwide. It is the last US major producer, and if you think that should
>translate into a realistic scenario of it being the worlds primary supplier,
>you are sadly mistaken.
>
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Boeing did have the
ability to remain the market share leader. A lot of factors
contributed to that loss. *One* of those items was being arrogant and
not taking the competition seriously. They didn't take Tupolev
seriously either and lost a big order for 757's to Tu-204's in Egypt.
They had just become too comfortable and sat back on their laurels.
>It includes a staff of baboons running the company.
>> Putting too many McDonnell Douglas people in key positions after the
>> merger (they ran their company into the ground, why'd Boeing think
>> they'd do any different after the merger?). The 737 Next Generation
>> was an engineering, marketing and production mistake.
>
>Well over a thousand NG 737's sold to date, with orders still on the books
>and more coming in, right? Not to mention the sale of C-40 models to the USN
>and ANG, the recent announcement of the NG getting the P-3 replacment
>contract with the USN (likely to involve 108 aircraft), sales of AWACS
>versions to Turkey and Australia...my goodness, if the 737 NG is a *dog* in
>your estimation, then just what the hell would you consider a *success*?
>
As mentioned in my previous post, I didn't say that the 737 was
unsuccesful. I never said it was a dog. In fact, I think it's a kick
ass plane to fly. I was pointing out that Boeing has put itself in a
position to possibly loose dominance in the narrowbody arena simply by
not seizing the moment years ago and starting the ball rolling on a
new design then.
>The money
>> pissed away on the Sonic Cruiser in the name of perceived innovation
>> when everyone knew that what was to become the 7E7 would be the
>> correct answer.
>
>Apparently eveyone did not *know* any such thing; your own ability to look
>into your personal crystal ball is rather unique.
>
No crystal ball, just used my ears. I was working in Customer Support
when the Sonic Cruiser was pitched. The airlines liked the
innovation, but when looked at from a practical standpoint, it didn't
fit very many airlines' needs and desires. And all that data was
available from customer focus groups that were in process during the
SC's initial development.
><snip>
>
>> A sales staff that couldn't sell a sandwich to a
>> starving millionare.
>
>How many thousands of NG sales would you have to have in order to be happy
>with their marketing? How many 7E7 firm orders beyond the current
>sixty-some, two years before construction of the maiden aircraft, would you
>require?
>
It's hard to verbalize here in the newsgroup. But in short, Boeing
desprately needs new talent. There are ideas that they've rolled out
that make little sense now in the real world and it is affecting the
order book. Many European airlines that had all Boeing fleets are now
switching to Airbus equipment.
It's also confusing as Boeing trys to keep the 767 alive while
offering a replacement in the 7E7. What's the incentive to commit to
a lame duck?
>>
>> Boeing is open about the fact that they don't want to be a civil
>> aircraft "manufacturer". All manufacturing will be done by
>> subcontractors. Boeing will only do the final assembly, testing and
>> delivery. The 7E7 will be the first in this business model.
>
>That appears to be the way most large businesses are moving; ever look at
>how Airbus does its manufactruring process? Globalization is here man--you
>don't like it, tough tomatos.
>
I wasn't stating anything for or against 'globalization'. Just
pointing out to the previous poster that Boeing has publicly indicated
its desired direction. And that isn't as a manufacturer. You can
keep your tomatos.
>>
>> Their product line will eventually be the 747, 777 and 7E7. The last
>> 757 rolls out this month. The 737 sales book is starting to thin out.
>
>Really? "17 May 2004 - Brazil's GOL Orders Up To 43 Boeing 737-800s 15 Firm
>Orders, purchase rights to 28 additional by 2010...12 Nov 2003 - China
>Orders 30 More Airplanes from Boeing...21 July 2003 - Boeing Confirms 15
>More 737-700s for Southwest Airlines...1 July 2003 - AirTran Airways Orders
>up to 110 Boeing 737s and 717s." www.b737.org.uk/ordersanddeliveries.htm
>
>That would be 88 firm orders and 78 options over the past fifteen months.
>But you think that is "starting to thin out", right? And that does not
>include the C-40 and MMA programs for the USN. Where do you get these
>strange ideas?
>
These 'strange ideas' come from how historically the order book was
much fatter and the (for the lack of a better word) "creative"
financing that Boeing has started doing. There's a reason that
they've developed their own finance division.
These days options are not confirmed nearly as often as they were 15
or 20 years ago.
>
>> If the KC-767 doesn't happen, the 767 will be history, the order book
>> is almost empty. The 7E7 has the potential to fill in the slots of
>> the 737-700 thru the 767-200 with various fuselage lengths. They'll
>> give up the 100 to 150 seat aircraft to the Canadair's and Embraer's
>> of the world. And the super jumbo is Airbus' to dominate.
>
>Would that it were so. The 737 NG is going to be cranking off the assembly
>line for many more years yet; the MMA's are not expected to start arriving
>into service until the next decade, with a delivery rate that will keep it
>going for around seven or eight years by itself.
Sigh.. Again, I never said that the 737 was not a successful airframe.
Just that it should have been replaced, not re-designed. Boeing could
have been in a much better market position if they had a new
narrowbody airframe to offer today.
>
>>
>> Boeing seeks to balance it's revenue streams through a variety of
>> sources. Civil aircraft manufacturing being one. A larger one is
>> aircraft modification centers. Then there's the military and space
>> programs. And then dabbling in the high tech arena as well.
>>
>> The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
>> more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
>> down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
>> where the circus sets up a couple times a year. 30% of the Renton
>> plant where the 737 and 757 are built has now been flattened. 25% of
>> the revetments at the Renton Airport where 737 and 757 pre-flight
>> preperation was done have bee given to the City of Renton.
>>
>> Oh yeah, and it's all because Airbus gets government subsidies.
>> Right?
>
>No, it is more due to this danged thing called globalization...
Christ Sparky, that was tounge in cheek..... You should try decaf...
>
>Brooks
>>
>> -j-
>
Look, the 737 was a successful airliner, that's without question. And
I hope the 7E7 will continue that legacy, especially for the tens of
thousands of folks around me who depend on a Boeing paycheck. But
Boeing put itself in a corner with dragging its feet and going off on
tangent projects. They lost dominance and now have an uphill battle
to regain it. It will take some sweeping changes, but it will
eventually happen. Then 10 or 15 odd years after that, Airbus, or
some other manufacturer, will knock them off the top again and they
cycle starts over again. It's how this industry works, and how it
has always worked.
-j-
Smutny
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Smutny" <smutny...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:arnsk018oc41nrjgj...@4ax.com...
>> As I mentioned, it is in the long run. I didn't say that the 737 in
>> all its variations was a mistake. That would be ignoring the
>> historical sales figures.
>>
>> What I was pointing to was that Boeing should have continued the
>> product line commonality idea started with the 757/767, bringing to
>> market a whole new airframe to replace the narrowbody fleet. That
>> design would have been reaching full production about now. Instead,
>> they opted to re-hash, for a third time, a 1960's design.
>
>That "rehash" has sold well--you said it did not. And it is *still* selling
>quite well, despite your protestation otherwise. The 737 is a classic, and
>its latest derivitives continue to compete with and beat later designs. -700
>thru -900 sales currently over one thousand copies, and still growing, is
>nothing to sneeze at.
I think I pretty much addressed this portion in my other post that I
just sent.
>
>>
>> Boeing has put itself in the precarious position now of developing a
>> new design as the worlds major airlines are struggling.
>
>I'd posit that developing a truly high efficiency airliner while the
>airlines are struggling, and hence have to maximize efficiency whereever
>possible, is not such a bad thing. The 7E7-3 will doubtless replace even
>737's (and their Airbus equivalents) on some routes that can use the greater
>capacity, and that it has already garnered sixty-some odd firm orders almost
>three years before first flight. At the current order rate they will have
>some 250 on the books when the aircraft makes its maiden flight. All of that
>indicates that some airlines think Boeing is on the right track.
>
Remember, the 757 biggest initial marketing campaign was that it was
(IIRC) 75% more efficient per seat mile than its nearest competitors.
I remember that Boeing was giving anyone and everyone these toy fuel
trucks that had a clear plastic tank that was 25% filled with water.
And look at the 757 line today... oh wait, nevermind, it's shut down.
Thomas Borchert
> Of course I like the American part of the
> process the best.
>
you talking about what's happening in Iraq? (sorry, couldn't resist)
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
Kevin Brooks
> Whoa Sparky! No need to be so bloody hostile!
>
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 14:32:53 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Smutny" <smutny...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:u8eqk05g7eg6530lf...@4ax.com...
> >> You can't point to one event as the root of Boeing's fall from
> >> dominance in the civil market. It really comes down to a "comedy" of
> >> errors.
> >>
> >> It goes as far back as not taking Airbus seriously as a competitor
> >> until the 1990's.
> >
> >A bit too wide an indictment. It is understandable that Boeing would not
> >become the worlds's sole, or even predominant, supplier of airliners
> >worldwide. It is the last US major producer, and if you think that should
> >translate into a realistic scenario of it being the worlds primary supplier,
> >you are sadly mistaken.
> >
>
> Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Boeing did have the
> ability to remain the market share leader. A lot of factors
> contributed to that loss. *One* of those items was being arrogant and
> not taking the competition seriously. They didn't take Tupolev
> seriously either and lost a big order for 757's to Tu-204's in Egypt.
> They had just become too comfortable and sat back on their laurels.
The Tupolev deal was more likely lost becuase they were obtained at
dirt-cheap prices in comparison to western products. As of yet, we
have not seen Tupolev make any major inroads into the western
commercial market--even the Chinese have been predominantly buying
western products. How can you expect Boeing to have continued to
maintain the lion's share of the market indefinitely? Airbus has done
an admirable job in taking their share of the pie--just as one would
expect given that they are one of only two truly major large airliner
suppliers in the world. Beating on Boeing for its dropping back to a
more equitable share of the airliner market is like trying to beat up
Ford for losing what was once a near monopoly on auto production here
in the US--misdirected and misguided.
>
> >It includes a staff of baboons running the company.
> >> Putting too many McDonnell Douglas people in key positions after the
> >> merger (they ran their company into the ground, why'd Boeing think
> >> they'd do any different after the merger?). The 737 Next Generation
> >> was an engineering, marketing and production mistake.
> >
> >Well over a thousand NG 737's sold to date, with orders still on the books
> >and more coming in, right? Not to mention the sale of C-40 models to the USN
> >and ANG, the recent announcement of the NG getting the P-3 replacment
> >contract with the USN (likely to involve 108 aircraft), sales of AWACS
> >versions to Turkey and Australia...my goodness, if the 737 NG is a *dog* in
> >your estimation, then just what the hell would you consider a *success*?
> >
>
> As mentioned in my previous post, I didn't say that the 737 was
> unsuccesful. I never said it was a dog. In fact, I think it's a kick
> ass plane to fly. I was pointing out that Boeing has put itself in a
> position to possibly loose dominance in the narrowbody arena simply by
> not seizing the moment years ago and starting the ball rolling on a
> new design then.
You said: "The 737 Next Generation was an engineering, marketing and
production mistake." Over one thousand -700 through -900 models sold
worldwide, and sales still rolling in, and you think that was a
*mistake*?
>
> >The money
> >> pissed away on the Sonic Cruiser in the name of perceived innovation
> >> when everyone knew that what was to become the 7E7 would be the
> >> correct answer.
> >
> >Apparently eveyone did not *know* any such thing; your own ability to look
> >into your personal crystal ball is rather unique.
> >
>
> No crystal ball, just used my ears. I was working in Customer Support
> when the Sonic Cruiser was pitched. The airlines liked the
> innovation, but when looked at from a practical standpoint, it didn't
> fit very many airlines' needs and desires. And all that data was
> available from customer focus groups that were in process during the
> SC's initial development.
Holy crap. That is like declaring that the presidential election need
not actually be conducted because you have some poll results
indicating that one candidate or another is likely to win (had we
followed that approach in 2000, you'd have had a fdifferent C-in-C for
the last four years). Focus groups are used in a wide variety of
fields, and the results of their ruminations are anything but always
concrete, final, and correct. Was the Sonic Cruiser a mistake? Yep, in
hindsight it definitely was--hindsight being 20:20 and all. Were some
folks opposed to it when it was in vogue? Of course. Were others
taking the opposite view? Yep again. But *everyone*, as you claimed,
did not think it was a really bad idea at the time.
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> A sales staff that couldn't sell a sandwich to a
> >> starving millionare.
> >
> >How many thousands of NG sales would you have to have in order to be happy
> >with their marketing? How many 7E7 firm orders beyond the current
> >sixty-some, two years before construction of the maiden aircraft, would you
> >require?
> >
>
> It's hard to verbalize here in the newsgroup. But in short, Boeing
> desprately needs new talent. There are ideas that they've rolled out
> that make little sense now in the real world and it is affecting the
> order book. Many European airlines that had all Boeing fleets are now
> switching to Airbus equipment.
Over one thousand new version 737 sales and they are still rolling in;
7E7 orders already healthy given its current status. But yet you are
completely deriscive of their sales staff...so what would it take to
make you satisfied with them? Only the complete and utter domination
of the marketplace, despite competition from Airbus? Not very likely,
IMO, in any real worldview.
>
> It's also confusing as Boeing trys to keep the 767 alive while
> offering a replacement in the 7E7. What's the incentive to commit to
> a lame duck?
I have not seen much evidence that Boeing is really trying to keep the
767 alive other than in its military guises.
>
> >>
> >> Boeing is open about the fact that they don't want to be a civil
> >> aircraft "manufacturer". All manufacturing will be done by
> >> subcontractors. Boeing will only do the final assembly, testing and
> >> delivery. The 7E7 will be the first in this business model.
> >
> >That appears to be the way most large businesses are moving; ever look at
> >how Airbus does its manufactruring process? Globalization is here man--you
> >don't like it, tough tomatos.
> >
>
> I wasn't stating anything for or against 'globalization'. Just
> pointing out to the previous poster that Boeing has publicly indicated
> its desired direction. And that isn't as a manufacturer. You can
> keep your tomatos.
It is the way of the world these days; Boeing did not really have much
choice in the matter. had they tried to do otherwise, you would no
doubt have hammered them for further losing out to Airbus, which has
also gone the assembly-of-parts-from-disparate-sources route.
>
> >>
> >> Their product line will eventually be the 747, 777 and 7E7. The last
> >> 757 rolls out this month. The 737 sales book is starting to thin out.
> >
> >Really? "17 May 2004 - Brazil's GOL Orders Up To 43 Boeing 737-800s 15 Firm
> >Orders, purchase rights to 28 additional by 2010...12 Nov 2003 - China
> >Orders 30 More Airplanes from Boeing...21 July 2003 - Boeing Confirms 15
> >More 737-700s for Southwest Airlines...1 July 2003 - AirTran Airways Orders
> >up to 110 Boeing 737s and 717s." www.b737.org.uk/ordersanddeliveries.htm
> >
> >That would be 88 firm orders and 78 options over the past fifteen months.
> >But you think that is "starting to thin out", right? And that does not
> >include the C-40 and MMA programs for the USN. Where do you get these
> >strange ideas?
> >
>
> These 'strange ideas' come from how historically the order book was
> much fatter and the (for the lack of a better word) "creative"
> financing that Boeing has started doing. There's a reason that
> they've developed their own finance division.
"Historically" the order books has been much fatter than it is now for
*both* Boeing and Airbus; the orders for the first half of this year
worldwide were down by one-third compared to last year
(www.flightinternational.com/FALANDING_184464.htm ). When you look at
the numbers for the 737 and 7E7, they are not bad at all, considering
the condition of the market. Argue with the actual numbers, in
comparison to the worldwide market conditions, instead of offering
unsupported and off-target generalities. So, what exactly is so bad
about those 88 firm orders and 78 options for 737NG, or the sixty-some
firm orders for 7E7, or the existing firm orders for Wedgetail, C-40,
and MMA, not to mention the future orders for MMA (which will be over
one hundred airframes alone)?
>
> These days options are not confirmed nearly as often as they were 15
> or 20 years ago.
Maybe not, but it appears that Boeing is taking its fair share of the
market that is currently available in terms of the 737, if not a bit
more than what Airbus has generated, or is looking to generate, over
the same timeframe.
>
> >
> >> If the KC-767 doesn't happen, the 767 will be history, the order book
> >> is almost empty. The 7E7 has the potential to fill in the slots of
> >> the 737-700 thru the 767-200 with various fuselage lengths. They'll
> >> give up the 100 to 150 seat aircraft to the Canadair's and Embraer's
> >> of the world. And the super jumbo is Airbus' to dominate.
> >
> >Would that it were so. The 737 NG is going to be cranking off the assembly
> >line for many more years yet; the MMA's are not expected to start arriving
> >into service until the next decade, with a delivery rate that will keep it
> >going for around seven or eight years by itself.
>
> Sigh.. Again, I never said that the 737 was not a successful airframe.
> Just that it should have been replaced, not re-designed. Boeing could
> have been in a much better market position if they had a new
> narrowbody airframe to offer today.
You just said that Boeing is giving up the 100-150 seat category; with
the 737-800 coming in at a very close 162 seats, and given that the
737 will indeed remain in production for many years to come, I don't
think that was a very accurate analysis. Add to that the fact that
Boeing is continuing to build and sell the 717 (only six orders this
year, but the line remains open). For how many more years the 717 will
remian in production we don't know right now, but for now they have
remained committed to that market. If you still have doubts regarding
Boeing's alleged retreat from the small airliner business, the
following appeared in the media this past week: "US aviation titan
Boeing, known for wide-body and jumbo jets, is considering a move into
planes with fewer than 100 seats if there is enough demand, president
and chief executive Harry Stonecipher said Wednesday."
http://pakistantimes.net/2004/09/16/business5.htm
>
> >
> >>
> >> Boeing seeks to balance it's revenue streams through a variety of
> >> sources. Civil aircraft manufacturing being one. A larger one is
> >> aircraft modification centers. Then there's the military and space
> >> programs. And then dabbling in the high tech arena as well.
> >>
> >> The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
> >> more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
> >> down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
> >> where the circus sets up a couple times a year. 30% of the Renton
> >> plant where the 737 and 757 are built has now been flattened. 25% of
> >> the revetments at the Renton Airport where 737 and 757 pre-flight
> >> preperation was done have bee given to the City of Renton.
> >>
> >> Oh yeah, and it's all because Airbus gets government subsidies.
> >> Right?
> >
> >No, it is more due to this danged thing called globalization...
>
> Christ Sparky, that was tounge in cheek..... You should try decaf...
You should try basing your arguments more on facts and less on your
(biased?) perceptions.
Brooks
Smutny
a couple times before lashing out....
On 20 Sep 2004 07:28:23 -0700, broo...@yahoo.com (Kevin Brooks)
wrote:
I didn't go into *why* Boeing lost the Egypt Air deal, just that they
sat back and expected the order because they didn't take Tupolev
seriously. And if you go to the last paragraph of my the posting I
already addressed your rant on Boeing's long term dominance.
>>
>> >It includes a staff of baboons running the company.
>> >> Putting too many McDonnell Douglas people in key positions after the
>> >> merger (they ran their company into the ground, why'd Boeing think
>> >> they'd do any different after the merger?). The 737 Next Generation
>> >> was an engineering, marketing and production mistake.
>> >
>> >Well over a thousand NG 737's sold to date, with orders still on the books
>> >and more coming in, right? Not to mention the sale of C-40 models to the USN
>> >and ANG, the recent announcement of the NG getting the P-3 replacment
>> >contract with the USN (likely to involve 108 aircraft), sales of AWACS
>> >versions to Turkey and Australia...my goodness, if the 737 NG is a *dog* in
>> >your estimation, then just what the hell would you consider a *success*?
>> >
>>
>> As mentioned in my previous post, I didn't say that the 737 was
>> unsuccesful. I never said it was a dog. In fact, I think it's a kick
>> ass plane to fly. I was pointing out that Boeing has put itself in a
>> position to possibly loose dominance in the narrowbody arena simply by
>> not seizing the moment years ago and starting the ball rolling on a
>> new design then.
>
>You said: "The 737 Next Generation was an engineering, marketing and
>production mistake." Over one thousand -700 through -900 models sold
>worldwide, and sales still rolling in, and you think that was a
>*mistake*?
>
Yes it was. Because now, in the mid-2000's Boeing has nothing new to
offer it's customers in narrowbodies. They are embroiled in the
development of another widebody that competes with their own 20 and 10
year old designs while still offering a 40 year old narrowbody.
I'm not disputing the 7E7 needs to be developed. It's the timing that
Boeing has choosen that is an issue with me.
>
>>
>> >The money
>> >> pissed away on the Sonic Cruiser in the name of perceived innovation
>> >> when everyone knew that what was to become the 7E7 would be the
>> >> correct answer.
>> >
>> >Apparently eveyone did not *know* any such thing; your own ability to look
>> >into your personal crystal ball is rather unique.
>> >
>>
>> No crystal ball, just used my ears. I was working in Customer Support
>> when the Sonic Cruiser was pitched. The airlines liked the
>> innovation, but when looked at from a practical standpoint, it didn't
>> fit very many airlines' needs and desires. And all that data was
>> available from customer focus groups that were in process during the
>> SC's initial development.
>
>Holy crap. That is like declaring that the presidential election need
>not actually be conducted because you have some poll results
>indicating that one candidate or another is likely to win (had we
>followed that approach in 2000, you'd have had a fdifferent C-in-C for
>the last four years). Focus groups are used in a wide variety of
>fields, and the results of their ruminations are anything but always
>concrete, final, and correct. Was the Sonic Cruiser a mistake? Yep, in
>hindsight it definitely was--hindsight being 20:20 and all. Were some
>folks opposed to it when it was in vogue? Of course. Were others
>taking the opposite view? Yep again. But *everyone*, as you claimed,
>did not think it was a really bad idea at the time.
>
The same thing happend with the 7J7. Instead of listening to what the
customers really were saying, Boeing charged off and spent millions
developing a white elephant. Instead of learning from that
experience, they repeated it with the SC.
Yes, using the word 'everyone' was a broad stroke generality. But I
didn't expect to get into a discussion about symantics. I figured the
adults here would understand that.
"Those that do not learn from history are destined to repeat it." -
don't know who said that, but it's so true...
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> A sales staff that couldn't sell a sandwich to a
>> >> starving millionare.
>> >
>> >How many thousands of NG sales would you have to have in order to be happy
>> >with their marketing? How many 7E7 firm orders beyond the current
>> >sixty-some, two years before construction of the maiden aircraft, would you
>> >require?
>> >
>>
>> It's hard to verbalize here in the newsgroup. But in short, Boeing
>> desprately needs new talent. There are ideas that they've rolled out
>> that make little sense now in the real world and it is affecting the
>> order book. Many European airlines that had all Boeing fleets are now
>> switching to Airbus equipment.
>
>Over one thousand new version 737 sales and they are still rolling in;
>7E7 orders already healthy given its current status. But yet you are
>completely deriscive of their sales staff...so what would it take to
>make you satisfied with them? Only the complete and utter domination
>of the marketplace, despite competition from Airbus? Not very likely,
>IMO, in any real worldview.
>
Boeing's cash cow is the 747. A large percentage of the sales price
is profit. The 737 is exactly the opposite. In order for Boeing to
make any money, they have to be sold in very large numbers. Now the
Next Gen re-design was extrememly expensive. It wasn't until past the
500 mark (IIRC) that Boeing started to see any real profit. But even
that isn't extensive.
As mentioned before, a number of former all Boeing fleets are now
mixed or going all Airbus. I've heard the rants and complaints from
the customers. Boeing needs to take stock of who they're sending out
into the field representing the company.
>>
>> It's also confusing as Boeing trys to keep the 767 alive while
>> offering a replacement in the 7E7. What's the incentive to commit to
>> a lame duck?
>
>I have not seen much evidence that Boeing is really trying to keep the
>767 alive other than in its military guises.
>
While Boeing is waiting on the final decision on the KC-767, sales is
running around the world offering deep discounts on 767's to keep the
line open. A la MD-11...
>>
>> >>
>> >> Boeing is open about the fact that they don't want to be a civil
>> >> aircraft "manufacturer". All manufacturing will be done by
>> >> subcontractors. Boeing will only do the final assembly, testing and
>> >> delivery. The 7E7 will be the first in this business model.
>> >
>> >That appears to be the way most large businesses are moving; ever look at
>> >how Airbus does its manufactruring process? Globalization is here man--you
>> >don't like it, tough tomatos.
>> >
>>
>> I wasn't stating anything for or against 'globalization'. Just
>> pointing out to the previous poster that Boeing has publicly indicated
>> its desired direction. And that isn't as a manufacturer. You can
>> keep your tomatos.
>
>It is the way of the world these days; Boeing did not really have much
>choice in the matter. had they tried to do otherwise, you would no
>doubt have hammered them for further losing out to Airbus, which has
>also gone the assembly-of-parts-from-disparate-sources route.
>
Dude, I wasn't arguing that damn point. Just stating a public fact
for the benefit of the previous poster. Get over it!
All I offer in any of my posts has been my opinion based on what I've
read and experienced in my association with the company . Besides,
arguing published numbers is moot. It's cashflow that keeps the
company afloat.
Well, 162 seats is still a waste for a low density route. Empty seats
don't create revenue. The 717 doesn't have long to live, 5 years at
the most. When the last one rolls out it'll close without fanfare.
It's a good airframe, but orphaned. Harry makes a lot of statements,
I see his comments in the media. The fact is that with 7E7
development now in full swing, rolling out a whole new airliner is
closer to 7-10 years down the road. By then there will be a lot of
small jets on the market. And hopefully by then the focus will be on
a 737 replacement, not just a 717 replacement.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Boeing seeks to balance it's revenue streams through a variety of
>> >> sources. Civil aircraft manufacturing being one. A larger one is
>> >> aircraft modification centers. Then there's the military and space
>> >> programs. And then dabbling in the high tech arena as well.
>> >>
>> >> The bottom line is that Boeing as we've known it for 88 years is no
>> >> more. As a Seattle resident, it pains me to see the plants being torn
>> >> down, to see engineering and sales buildings turned into parking lots
>> >> where the circus sets up a couple times a year. 30% of the Renton
>> >> plant where the 737 and 757 are built has now been flattened. 25% of
>> >> the revetments at the Renton Airport where 737 and 757 pre-flight
>> >> preperation was done have bee given to the City of Renton.
>> >>
>> >> Oh yeah, and it's all because Airbus gets government subsidies.
>> >> Right?
>> >
>> >No, it is more due to this danged thing called globalization...
>>
>> Christ Sparky, that was tounge in cheek..... You should try decaf...
>
>You should try basing your arguments more on facts and less on your
>(biased?) perceptions.
>
Of course I'm biased. I said before it sickens me to see the demise
of what was a fantastic company. And I direct my blame at the
company's management. They were the reason I quit the company,
couldn't sit there and watch them alienate the customers and the
employees without remorse or a clue. Besides, since neither of us sit
on the board, all this crap is conjecture anyway.
john smith
I also know that outsourcing usually ends up costing more as time goes
on and doesn't allow for flexibily and agility in the market due to
contractual obigations.
What jobs have been "insources"?
Some companies have learned that outsourcing is not the cure-all their
leaders lead them to believe it was and have taken back the jobs at the
end of the contract term or bought out the remainder of the term.
Jarg
>I have a secure "niche" job.
> I also know that outsourcing usually ends up costing more as time goes on
> and doesn't allow for flexibily and agility in the market due to
> contractual obigations.
> What jobs have been "insources"?
> Some companies have learned that outsourcing is not the cure-all their
> leaders lead them to believe it was and have taken back the jobs at the
> end of the contract term or bought out the remainder of the term.
>
http://www.ofii.org/insourcing/
Jarg
David Lednicer
I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one
and Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The
DoD didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing
either refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end
result being that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B
they had bought and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the
E-8B to Omega for a pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid
Northrop Grumman a fortune to rebuild them so they could be used as
E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are
getting very difficult to maintain, so they will have to reengine them.
They could have had new 707 airframes, with new CFM56 engines (ala'
the E-8B), if they had just done things right.
I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as
the E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe
without spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move
from the 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer
range 7E7 won't be available in time. The only choice will be used
767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
were built from.
Kevin Brooks
>
> I wish I was half as optimistic as you - I see the J-STARS fiasco
> happening all over again. In that case, the DoD thought that they could
> wait forever to order 707 airframes to use as E-8Bs. They ordered one and
> Boeing told them to hurry up and order the others - or else. The DoD
> didn't believe them and Boeing shut the 707 line down. Boeing either
> refused to reopen it or quoted huge reopening costs - the end result being
> that the DoD was stuck with the one white elephant E-8B they had bought
> and no other airframes. The DoD ended up trading the E-8B to Omega for a
> pile of worn-out 707-320Cs. The DoD then paid Northrop Grumman a fortune
> to rebuild them so they could be used as E-8Cs. Now, they are complaining
> that the JT3Ds on the aircraft are getting very difficult to maintain, so
> they will have to reengine them. They could have had new 707 airframes,
> with new CFM56 engines (ala' the E-8B), if they had just done things
> right.
The focus for the E-10 as of now is getting the systems integrated; the
airframe is apparently of secondary concern, from what I read earlier. E-10
is not showing up anytime real soon, remember.
>
> I also have trouble believing that the E-10 will be easily platform
> independent. A lot of engineering goes into creating a system such as the
> E-10. You can't just plug and play with a different airframe without
> spending huge piles of money. And if they were going to move from the
> 767-400ER airframe, what will they use? The bigger, longer range 7E7
> won't be available in time.
Yeah, it would be available. NG is not required ot have the E-10
demonstration radar completed until around 2010, according to the AFA (
www.afa.org/magazine/july2004/0704world.asp ); 7E7 first flies in 2007.
Globalsecurity.com says that the delivery to the USAF is currently scheduled
for 2012, which might slip by two years.
The only choice will be used
> 767-400ERs. At least these will be younger than the 707s that the E-8Cs
> were built from.
Maybe all of this is why the USAF has only committed to the 767 for the
single test and eval airframe as of yet.
Brooks
>
Fritz
> With this
> in mind; how are they going to buy E-10s (767-400ERs) if the line is closed?
Dismissed ones ?
--
Fritz