If they can't survive on government welfare, to heck with em.
I agree with that actually. The education standards were very high when I was in school, but around 2000-ish when my kids were born the Government schools had really declined in quality. We put ours through private school.
As far as Boeing is concerned, see and find who supplied the machine gun ammunition in the Vietnam war to the US Army.
They were famously bad shots, averaging 50,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier, firing from helicopters.
That same analogy applies...they are too important to be allowed to sink, and they might pull a nationalistic stunt when asked about quality etc.
The only way you can stay alive may be to fly in a different aircraft type.
They were famously bad shots, averaging 50,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier, firing from helicopters.
That same analogy applies...they are too important to be allowed to sink, and they might pull a nationalistic stunt when asked about quality etc.
The only way you can stay alive may be to fly in a different aircraft type.
While there are private schools in Germany there are not many for a number of reasons. Firstly teacher is a high status job and at state schools they are guaranteed a job for life, promotions ie pay rises according to years worked plus very, very good health insurance ie way above the standard which is already good.
Consequently the staff available to private schools are those teachers who failed the state exam.
Rich parents usually refuse private education because they already paid in taxes and future employers usually think there is something wrong with you if you went to a private school. Not sure if you are familiar with the UK schools but my sister went to Realschule (middle school in our streaming system) and so left aged 16. The UK authorities (UCAS) said her qualifications are equivalent to 6 A levels. Myself I went to Grammar school in Germany and thus hold the equivalent of 12 A levels (plus 1 I gained at college here in the UK).
No, that would be a disaster.
Just get rid of the Douglas mentality and go back to building planes.
There are lots of good people in Boeing... it's just the beancounters in HQ. The 787 is an example... which even though they outsourced too much stuff out, they still took a huge risk and went with brand new technologies. Airbus? Heck, they went conservative and built the 350.
Oh, don't fool yourself... Airbus ain't that much better. They are subsidized big time by the Euros and do not take any risks.
So, now, Boeing is in a position to take the mature technology from the 787 and build a 797 which should really put the 320Neo out to pasture.
...
Have you noticed how it has become in style for the Mainstream Propaganda Machine to run stories against Boeing now?
But no one is talking about the maintenance procedures at Delta, Alaska Air, etc...
As usual, follow the money.
"Airbus ain't that much better. They are subsidized big time by the Euros and do not take any risks."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Large US corporations are highly subsidized through our tax system.
And if Boeing kills people through negligence, and puts others at risk, they deserve the bad press.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Large US corporations are highly subsidized through our tax system.
And if Boeing kills people through negligence, and puts others at risk, they deserve the bad press.
Can we please get back on topic. Corporations throughout the world are subsidized, I spent an entire career analyzing companies with the care of a pathologist!
I fear that the mods may kill this topic, but there are several commentators who are extremely knowledgeable in the topic, pilots and such, and there is much to learn.
I fear that the mods may kill this topic, but there are several commentators who are extremely knowledgeable in the topic, pilots and such, and there is much to learn.
I agree that a clean sheet narrowbody is what would shake up the industry and allow Boeing to leave its ill-fated MAX behind.
But can you explain how the A350 is less advanced than the B787? The only unique thing I am aware of is that the B787 got rid of the bleed air system which is commendable. The A350, on the other hand, has a higher carbon fiber content and lower seat per mile cost. Interestingly, the B787 does have a better weight to seat or payload ratio but does not convert this advantage into lower fuel burn per seat or payload. The A350 wins hands down in passenger comfort (noise, spaciousness, seats).
The only other advantage the B787 has to airlines, and this is purely commercial/strategic, is that it can be ordered with both P&W and RR engines whereas the bus is only available with RR.
Airbus was dragged into using composite materials in the 350 fuselage. It wasn't something they wanted to do and indeed at the beginning, when they first announced the 350, they stated that using composite materials was unproven technology. Only when the airlines pushed them, did they change their design.
Furthermore, the 787 is all electric... meaning it has no bleed air. This means it is a more advanced aircraft and the experience with the batteries and engines positions Boeing in a much better position (technologically) to build a second non bleed aircraft.
The 787, being the very first in the industry, is obviously overengineered in some areas which a 2nd aircraft will learn from. Besides, the 787 is still new, it has a lot of changes in the future.
Again, the 787 is the more modern when compared to the 350.
Availability of engine choice is a current thing... these things change. OTOH, Use of bleed air, vs non bleed electric is fundamental and will require a 360 ( that is, fundamentally a new airframe).
BTW, I've flown the 787 on a transoceanic route and it was quite a comfortable aircraft. You could feel the humidity and the different sound signature.
To be quite honest, I tend to avoid Airbus... except this summer I'm not quite sure if it's a 767 or Airbus we're booked on.
Furthermore, the 787 is all electric... meaning it has no bleed air. This means it is a more advanced aircraft and the experience with the batteries and engines positions Boeing in a much better position (technologically) to build a second non bleed aircraft.
The 787, being the very first in the industry, is obviously overengineered in some areas which a 2nd aircraft will learn from. Besides, the 787 is still new, it has a lot of changes in the future.
Again, the 787 is the more modern when compared to the 350.
Availability of engine choice is a current thing... these things change. OTOH, Use of bleed air, vs non bleed electric is fundamental and will require a 360 ( that is, fundamentally a new airframe).
BTW, I've flown the 787 on a transoceanic route and it was quite a comfortable aircraft. You could feel the humidity and the different sound signature.
To be quite honest, I tend to avoid Airbus... except this summer I'm not quite sure if it's a 767 or Airbus we're booked on.
The bleedless system has one huge advantage in my eyes: you cannot have a fume event! Bleedless also has the potential to be more fuel efficient, but at the moment this still does not translate at the whole airplane level.
As far as cabin pressure and humidity are concerned, these two planes are the same and ahead of older models other than the A380.
I get to travel LH in one direction and NH, AC, UA in the other, so I have plenty of almost back-to-back A to B travel experience. Many pax surveys convey the same sentiment.
RR in general are more prone to fume events than others, even if it does not seem so bad (yet) with the Trent XWB. But the engine is not as reliable as it should be, meaning that at this time, Boeing are in better position with the P&W option selling like hot cakes.
As far as cabin pressure and humidity are concerned, these two planes are the same and ahead of older models other than the A380.
I get to travel LH in one direction and NH, AC, UA in the other, so I have plenty of almost back-to-back A to B travel experience. Many pax surveys convey the same sentiment.
RR in general are more prone to fume events than others, even if it does not seem so bad (yet) with the Trent XWB. But the engine is not as reliable as it should be, meaning that at this time, Boeing are in better position with the P&W option selling like hot cakes.
Last edited:
If you traveled on an A380 I reckon it would change your outlook (even if you wouldn't admit it 🙂 ). During a fully loaded steep climb after takeoff, the engines merely have a muted electric motor smooth whine somewhere in the background unlike any other plane I've been on. I was really surprised at the refinement. And the ride is noticeably smooth. Fantastic plane.
Interesting factoid...wings for the A380 and most other AIrbus airframes are/were manufactured in the same factory in Broughton, Wales, that made some of the Wellington and Lancaster bombers. Slightly updated of course! Last time I was in Wales (2016) I wanted to go and have a look but we didn't have time.
Last edited:
People I know who worked on the 787 have said, amongst other things, that the FAA bowed to pressure from Boeing every time a concern was expressed.
I don't know how Boeing can/could walk away from the 737 MAX given how much has been invested and with a few $ billion WIP.
Might be, like GM in 2008/9, the US government has to step in and say 'Scrap it, we will bail you out, but the price is you restructure, the whole Board of Directors go, and the FAA appoints an interim management team who focus will be to sort quality etc out'. Someone suggested splitting the mil and commercial divisions - might be that's what has to happen for reasons of national security.
I've flown on quite a few of the Airbus aircraft - they are very nice. As I said earlier in this thread, the last great plane Boeing did was the 777. I've never flown on the 787, so can't comment on that one - it seems the initial issues were resolved though, unless I am mistaken.
Might be, like GM in 2008/9, the US government has to step in and say 'Scrap it, we will bail you out, but the price is you restructure, the whole Board of Directors go, and the FAA appoints an interim management team who focus will be to sort quality etc out'. Someone suggested splitting the mil and commercial divisions - might be that's what has to happen for reasons of national security.
I've flown on quite a few of the Airbus aircraft - they are very nice. As I said earlier in this thread, the last great plane Boeing did was the 777. I've never flown on the 787, so can't comment on that one - it seems the initial issues were resolved though, unless I am mistaken.
The A380 is very nice for passengers but a gas guzzler with about 1.9x the fuel burn of an A350 at 1.6x the number of seats, and you have to sell all the seats in the first place.
I find the A350 equally comfortable and quiet but I haven't travelled on A380 / A350 back to back. Between either and the B787, my preference is clear. Between the pair A346 and B773, I'd still say the A346 is quieter, and it lacks the strange tail oscillations of the B777. Did fly a B764 year before last and it was much better than I remembered from older versions.
I completely agree.
Also, it’s technically “get rid of the McDonnell mentality” as McDonnell did the exact same thing to Douglas they later did to Boeing when they bought each with thier own money.
Douglas got into a huge cash crunch in 1966-67 where the order book was full and production was problematically slower than demand. McDonnell came in with a hostile takeover, turned it into McDonnell/Douglas.
30yr later, MDD did the same to Boeing. And here we are.
You can follow the money... the American Mainstream
IMHO, the 737MAX is now tainted goods... not necessarily from an engineering perspective but from the decisions that came from the sales and marketing group:
(1) Not requiring pilot certification for a new type.
(2) Allowing configurations with nonredundant systems to be sold.
This was done on account of a number of Fast Eastern airlines being CHEAP. Boeing should have stuck to its gun, but noooo, they chased the sales....
...then they started to outsource more and more and more...
At this time, BMAC needs to start ditching the MAX, require certification, lower the price and announce the 797. The 737Max was always a compromise when it was envisioned... there was too much risk then to go to a 787/797 pair. But now with the 787 mature, it should be reasonably cheap to build a single body.
Kill off the 320Neo
13 foot cabin.
6 abreast.
3000/5000 mile range.
180/200/240 seating
791, 792, 793... 792ER/LR
In source it back.
I completely agree, the issue being that the bulk of the overall efficency gains in an aircraft are in the engine, not the airframe. The next narrowbody will probably be built around the next engine, and not sooner. (CFM Rise, most likely… but could be a different ducted turbofan) and it’s still going to require an actual efficiency boost in the airframe as well… which is a pretty big engineering demand and will require a significantly different wing compared to what things look like.
Would a mini 787 (I.E., narrowbody single-aisle, about 150pax, to replace the 737) actually be something worth building? I honestly don’t think so because it would essentially be an A320 built in Renton with a few more composite parts, and that’s not enough gains (perhaps 1.5%…?) to make it worthwhile. They should have done a new narrowbody instead of the 737NG in the late 90s, but that ship has sailed and waiting for the next generation engine is the way forward now.
For what it’s worth, for those outside the industry looking in, airplanes, from the Wright Brothers forward, have always been built around the engines, not the other way around. Powerplant dictates absolutely everything else on an aircraft.
For bonus points, google CFM RISE engine, transonic strut-braced wing, X-66, and NASA Sugar
Would a mini 787 (I.E., narrowbody single-aisle, about 150pax, to replace the 737) actually be something worth building? I honestly don’t think so because it would essentially be an A320 built in Renton with a few more composite parts, and that’s not enough gains (perhaps 1.5%…?) to make it worthwhile. They should have done a new narrowbody instead of the 737NG in the late 90s, but that ship has sailed and waiting for the next generation engine is the way forward now.
For what it’s worth, for those outside the industry looking in, airplanes, from the Wright Brothers forward, have always been built around the engines, not the other way around. Powerplant dictates absolutely everything else on an aircraft.
For bonus points, google CFM RISE engine, transonic strut-braced wing, X-66, and NASA Sugar
It should be a cooperation... it takes a long time to build a new engine/airframe... and Boeing has little time with the MAX.
They've pretty much blown it... they will have to take some serious steps and drop the price. I think the market is pushing Boeing to do a 797 narrow body at this point.
For a new narrow body, 797, I think the bleed less engine is a big step forward because it removes one of the big interdepencies between the engine and airframe. If you remember the original designs for the 787, the fuselage and wings were pretty extreme then... eventually they made them more "normal" but even so, the wings incorporate the winglets into its fundamental design, they are no longer add ons. I guess the next step will be to design a wing that has less drag yet more lift... perhaps a dynamic wing with low drag surfaces that can change the curvature/lift at different speeds.
A twisting wing? Wouldn't that be Jetson's like?
Also, I don't see a supersonic jet for the foreseeable future. It looks like Mach 0.9 is as far as we'll go. So just hope for a 22 inch seat with at least a 33 inch pitch. Those long 11 hour flights are a killer. (Hint, we got two coming up, so we popped extra for the exit row seats.. hmm... hmmm..... no comment ).
Longer term, we might see an electric jet, but that will require a fundamentally different power plant....
+++
I still wonder where the money is coming to push all of that anti-Boeing news?
At the risk of getting political, it could always be a Shiny Object to obfuscate what is really going on?
They've pretty much blown it... they will have to take some serious steps and drop the price. I think the market is pushing Boeing to do a 797 narrow body at this point.
For a new narrow body, 797, I think the bleed less engine is a big step forward because it removes one of the big interdepencies between the engine and airframe. If you remember the original designs for the 787, the fuselage and wings were pretty extreme then... eventually they made them more "normal" but even so, the wings incorporate the winglets into its fundamental design, they are no longer add ons. I guess the next step will be to design a wing that has less drag yet more lift... perhaps a dynamic wing with low drag surfaces that can change the curvature/lift at different speeds.
A twisting wing? Wouldn't that be Jetson's like?
Also, I don't see a supersonic jet for the foreseeable future. It looks like Mach 0.9 is as far as we'll go. So just hope for a 22 inch seat with at least a 33 inch pitch. Those long 11 hour flights are a killer. (Hint, we got two coming up, so we popped extra for the exit row seats.. hmm... hmmm..... no comment ).
Longer term, we might see an electric jet, but that will require a fundamentally different power plant....
+++
I still wonder where the money is coming to push all of that anti-Boeing news?
At the risk of getting political, it could always be a Shiny Object to obfuscate what is really going on?
In the chess game of global aviation that might be a pawn airbus are willing to sacrifice. If you give credence to some of the stories (and I don't) then Airbus have been setting things up to weaken boeing just enough to give them an advantage in the market but not enough for them to completely lose the plot. Getting them to spaff another pile of cubic dollars to gain traction against an already profitable model would seem a good next step. Hindsight of course enables all sorts of correlations that don't exist 🙂 But if they were willing to spend $10^10 to build the A380 just to kill off the 747* who knows what they are plotting.
*not proven!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.