Airbus and Boeing products running behind schedule

[CheshireTom]

Preferences as to which plane is more comfortable is simply bullshit. If you didn't know what you were on, Boeing or Air Bus you wouldn't know the difference. The difference is how they are fitted out. I have been on shit Boeings and Air Buses. Some airlines have bigger and better seats and some have a better entertainment setup.

 

The difference is very simple. On a 777 you are stuck in a 3-3-3 configuration (that is you have two people to climb over evertime you want to get out if you are in a window seat and you have two people climbing over you if you are in an aisle seat ..... Emirates is worse with a 3-4-3 configuration, as is the 747). On the A330/340 they are set out in a 2-4-2 configuration which is a lot less hassle for everybody involved.

 

 

The problem when you produce anything the way AB, and alot of European companies do, using differenct countries to make differnent pieces of a whole you run into problems.

 

That doesn't bode well for the 787 which is actually being built mainly in Japan with other major components coming from Italy, Australia and the UK to name a few. It is only being assembled in the US.

[don_dadda]

That doesn't bode well for the 787 which is actually being built mainly in Japan with other major components coming from Italy, Australia and the UK to name a few. It is only being assembled in the US.

 

Unless my reference is out of date, which it very well could be, it will be assembled only in the US.

 

 

Boeing intends to build the 7E7 in a location that gives it the best opportunity to be successful. If the airplane is not assembled at a Boeing site in Washington State, the work will be done in one of the other states competing for the final assembly work. Boeing has identified the criteria it will consider in choosing the final assembly location. These are based on program needs that include comprehensive criteria for infrastructure, logistics and cost-competitiveness. Boeing has also decided that only US-based locations will be considered candidates for the final assembly location. McCallum Sweeney Consulting, Inc., has been retained to help conduct the site selection. Proposals from interested states were due June 20, 2003. A Boeing team, in partnership with McCallum Sweeney, will evaluate the proposals against the entire set of criteria. Proposals must meet all the criteria to remain in consideration

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...rcraft/b7e7.htm

Edited December 16, 2006 by don_dadda

[wacmedia]

Hi,

 

I think it will be manufactured all over the place. Maybe assembled in America ?

[CheshireTom]

Unless my reference is out of date, which it very well could be, it will be assembled only in the US.

 

Which is what I said,

 

That doesn't bode well for the 787 which is actually being built mainly in Japan with other major components coming from Italy, Australia and the UK to name a few. It is only being assembled in the US.

 

And the Airbus is only assembled in France. Same, same.

 

The critical difference is that Airbus major components are built by Airbus, whilst the 787 is contracted out to "risk sharing" partners such as Kawasaki and Mitsubishi.

[BigDUSA]

Boeing has been outsourcing major component work for many years. Nothing new.

[Guest speedbonnieboat]

If Airbus had not come on as it did, as a government supported and controlled entity, that recent events have proven it to be, and who undercut the market to get a foothold (because it wasn't necessary to make a profit as France, Germany, Spain and the UK were paying the bills), there is a very good chance that Lockheed and McDonnell/Douglas would still be building commercial airliners.

 

 

It was Boeing that put McDonnell/Douglas out of business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

and as for Boeing not being Government supported.....>>

 

 

"Boeing is one of the largest Pentagon contractors, second only to Lockheed Martin. From fiscal year 1998 through 2003, Boeing received US$82-billion in contracts from the Department of Defense. About half of that money was for aircraft components; slightly less than one-fourth was for R&D.

 

EU officials claim Boeing's research and development numbers amount to a subsidy, because R&D done on the Pentagon's dime can reap benefits for Boeing's commercial undertakings. With higher defence spending in the United States, Boeing has more chances for defence contracts.

 

But to the degree some Boeing contracts appear illegitimate, "subsidy" just might be the correct word. The Pentagon characterizes 60% of Boeing's military contracts between 1998 and 2003 as "not full and open," suggesting Boeing may have received favouritism in awarding contracts.

 

 

Boeing also benefits from civil government contracts, including research programs from NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration. On these contracts, the definition of "subsidy" is nuanced. But one aspect of the federal government 's support for Boeing is unquestionably a subsidy: Export-Import Bank financing"

[Samsonite]

It was Boeing that put McDonnell/Douglas out of business !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Simply not true.

Lockheed, which is still in business, and McDonnell/Douglas could not afford to sell aircraft at a loss. They have to make a profit to stay in business. Something some people willingly overlook in the Boeing vs. Airbus debate.

With Airbus allegedly selling at a lost to gain a foothold in the market, Lockheed bowed out of the commercial market and M/D became so financially weak, Boeing took them over. M/D's early troubles with the DC-10 didn't help.

 

As to the old BULLSHIT about Boeing getting government subsidies, it is just that, a tired worthless rebuttal in an effort to obfuscate Airbus' own practices.

 

Of course Boeing gets government contracts. They are, among other things, a defense contractor, but those projects and contracts are audited. They are NOT give aways program designed to surreptitiously finance Boeing's commercial projects.

Pure European Union propaganda.

 

I'll give Airbus that. They are public about not being able to fund their own projects.

A private company would simply not be able to start a project they couldn't afford, could they?

Here is a novel idea: They could earn and save enough money from the sale of their current products to be able to fund a new project.

Sounds like basic econ 101, doesn't it.

 

Anyone want to take odds on whether or not the A380 is delayed again or not?

 

How about whether or not the project is actually finished and delivered?

 

How about whether or not Airbus is even in business a year or two from now?

There is a good chance that the fighting between the various governments involved, but mainly the French and Germans, bitter enemies for centuries, could scuttle the company.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Scalawag

[TheFiend]

Over on thaivisa.com is photographs of the A380 on display at Suvarnabhumi Airport....... wearing the Kings insignai.

[CheshireTom]

Boeing has been outsourcing major component work for many years. Nothing new.

 

The wings and fuselage sections are being built in Japan/Italy before being transhipped to the US; something Boeing has not done before. Airbus actually pioneered the process.

 

scalawag,

 

Anyone want to take odds on whether or not the A380 is delayed again or not?

 

 

How about whether or not the project is actually finished and delivered?

 

I thought this thread was about the 787 but thanks for the offer. I'll take USD 5k at evens on the aircraft being finished and delivered. I can lodge my cash with MM next week. I'm sure we can arrange cash or paypal for you to lodge your cash.

[don_dadda]

I would be willing to bet that it gets pushed back again

[Samsonite]

CheshireTom wrote:

 

>The wings and fuselage sections are being built in Japan/Italy

> before being transhipped to the US; something Boeing has not

> done before.

 

787 fuselage and wing assemblies are being made in Wichita, Kansas

and Chareston, South Carolina, U.S. A., and Italy and Japan. In Japan, Mitusbishi Heavy Industries and Fuji Heavy Industries are working on wing sections. They started putting the first wing box together last June. In Italy they are building, I think, two (maybe more) of the fuselage barrels. I know the first barrel containing the cockpit is being made in Wichita.

 

 

> I'll take USD 5k at evens on the aircraft being finished and

> delivered.

 

Sure you can afford to lose that much?

Edited December 17, 2006 by Scalawag

[Hub]

Simply not true.

Lockheed, which is still in business, and McDonnell/Douglas could not afford to sell aircraft at a loss. They have to make a profit to stay in business. Something some people willingly overlook in the Boeing vs. Airbus debate.

With Airbus allegedly selling at a lost to gain a foothold in the market, Lockheed bowed out of the commercial market and M/D became so financially weak, Boeing took them over. M/D's early troubles with the DC-10 didn't help.

 

As to the old BULLSHIT about Boeing getting government subsidies, it is just that, a tired worthless rebuttal in an effort to obfuscate Airbus' own practices.

 

Of course Boeing gets government contracts. They are, among other things, a defense contractor, but those projects and contracts are audited. They are NOT give aways program designed to surreptitiously finance Boeing's commercial projects.

Pure European Union propaganda.

 

I'll give Airbus that. They are public about not being able to fund their own projects.

A private company would simply not be able to start a project they couldn't afford, could they?

Here is a novel idea: They could earn and save enough money from the sale of their current products to be able to fund a new project.

Sounds like basic econ 101, doesn't it.

 

Anyone want to take odds on whether or not the A380 is delayed again or not?

 

How about whether or not the project is actually finished and delivered?

 

How about whether or not Airbus is even in business a year or two from now?

There is a good chance that the fighting between the various governments involved, but mainly the French and Germans, bitter enemies for centuries, could scuttle the company.

 

Scalawag:

 

Thanks for the very cogent and well-informed response. I liked the bit on the "evolutionary vs revolutionary" as well.

 

I see Tom at least took you up on your bet, even though he did not dispute any of your points.

 

So what is the current delivery date and delivered to whom? Usually, I like to throw a few bucks in with Tom on his bets, but I'll have to stay on the sidelines for this one. Maybe make it 500 baht payable to the charity of Tom's choice and I'll get in on the bet.

[ozijeff]

this thread explains a lot. the european based BM's stick up for airbus and the USA based ones cannot conceive that something good can be made outside the USA.

why cant we all get along?

some things made in some countries are good and others are shit!

eventually the market will decide.

[ozijeff]

just announced .... a new long range aircraft built by LOSAIR!

at last the new Pattaya LT 69/69 has been released.

this revolutionary new aircraft is to be initially flown by Thai Airlines and Qantas.

it is a full double deck configuration. the bottom deck features a large oval shaped bar with slung flat screen televisions beaming in sporting and entertainment events from around the globe.

large high backed stools with seatbelts will encircle the bar.

food and beverages will be available from the bar served by attractive young attendants. a small cup will be on the bar to fascilitate easy payment.

should passengers feel the need to relax on a long haul flight, the attendants will guide them to the upper deck and the new ST class rooms.

also the toilets are unusually large (spa provided). in fact some staff say 4 people could throw a party in them comfortably! a cushioned bench with handrails is provided for your use and safety.

on the shakedown flights these have proved to be very popular.

there have been no complaints so far on how slow the aircraft actually flies!

in fact on the maiden flight from bangkok to sydney there was one small problem.

it took 3 hrs and 25 minutes to convince the passengers the flight was over and to have them decant the aircraft.

stay tuned!

Edited December 17, 2006 by ozijeff

[don_dadda]

just announced .... a new long range aircraft built by LOSAIR!

at last the new Pattaya LT 69/69 has been released.

this revolutionary new aircraft is to be initially flown by Thai Airlines and Qantas.

it is a full double deck configuration. the bottom deck features a large oval shaped bar with slung flat screen televisions beaming in sporting and entertainment events from around the globe.

large high backed stools with seatbelts will encircle the bar.

food and beverages will be available from the bar served by attractive young attendants. a small cup will be on the bar to fascilitate easy payment.

should passengers feel the need to relax on a long haul flight, the attendants will guide them to the upper deck and the new ST class rooms.

also the toilets are unusually large (spa provided). in fact some staff say 4 people could throw a party in them comfortably! a cushioned bench with handrails is provided for your use and safety.

on the shakedown flights these have proved to be very popular.

there have been no complaints so far on how slow the aircraft actually flies!

in fact on the maiden flight from bangkok to sydney there was one small problem.

it took 3 hrs and 25 minutes to convince the passengers the flight was over and to have them decant the aircraft.

stay tuned!

 

HOW MUCH IS THAT FLIGHT AND WHERE CAN I GET A TICKET

 

on second thought

 

who cares how much the flight is..

 

thats what I call riding in comfort

[ozijeff]

manracer (dr mick) came up with a good idea.

the plane wouldnt have to leave the ground. it could just taxi around the airport!

huge savings to be had!

[don_dadda]

manracer (dr mick) came up with a good idea.

the plane wouldnt have to leave the ground. it could just taxi around the airport!

huge savings to be had!

hell why waste gas taxiing around the runway. We could use this

 

http://www.lilligren.com/Redneck/redneck_airplane.htm

[CheshireTom]

Scalawag:

 

Thanks for the very cogent and well-informed response. I liked the bit on the "evolutionary vs revolutionary" as well.

 

I see Tom at least took you up on your bet, even though he did not dispute any of your points.

 

So what is the current delivery date and delivered to whom? Usually, I like to throw a few bucks in with Tom on his bets, but I'll have to stay on the sidelines for this one. Maybe make it 500 baht payable to the charity of Tom's choice and I'll get in on the bet.

 

Hub,

 

The first aircraft is currently due to be delivered to Singapore next year ......... when is irrelevant, only that it will be delivered at some point.

 

I don't waste my breath on scalawag/samsonite any more but I'm quite happy to take his cash. I'm sure he will confirm how he wants to lodge his part of the bet.

 

Scalawag,

 

No problem losing bets as Hub can testify. Just let us know how/when you want to lodge your 5K since you forgot to mention that small detail in your post.

[Emil]

Hub,

 

The first aircraft is currently due to be delivered to Singapore next year ......... when is irrelevant, only that it will be delivered at some point.

 

I'm getting confused with this thread. Was Hub's question about delivery date reagarding the A380 or the 787? If it was the 787 my source shows the year 2008, it is Boeing last years annual report so maybe they have moved up the date since then.

 

I don't know when Airbus first start manufacturing different parts of the fuselage in different locations, but I do know that the F-22 was assembled in like manner by the Lockhead/Boeing team and rollout of the first aircraft was April 97. I would assume that when that team built their prototype a few years before, for the flyoff for source selection for USAF, that they used the same process. Whether Airbus or Boeing was the first to do this type of assembly, its been around for over a decade.

Edited December 17, 2006 by Emil

[CheshireTom]

I'm getting confused with this thread. Was Hub's question about delivery date reagarding the A380 or the 787? If it was the 787 my source shows the year 2008, it is Boeing last years annual report so maybe they have moved up the date since then.

 

I don't know when Airbus first start manufacturing different parts of the fuselage in different locations, but I do know that the F-22 was assembled in like manner by the Lockhead/Boeing team and rollout of the first aircraft was April 97. I would assume that when that team built their prototype a few years before, for the flyoff for source selection for USAF, that they used the same process. Whether Airbus or Boeing was the first to do this type of assembly, its been around for over a decade.

 

Emil,

 

Scalawag's offer quite clearly related to the 380 .........

 

Anyone want to take odds on whether or not the A380 is delayed again or not?

 

How about whether or not the project is actually finished and delivered?

 

How about whether or not Airbus is even in business a year or two from now?

 

The original question about the construction/assembly process related to the poster who questioned Airbus' practice of undertaking the construction of the major components in different countries, not merely different locations. The Airbus Beluga aircraft have been around for a while now to facilitate this and I understand Boeing are using similarl newly converted 747s for the trans Pacific/Atlantic movement of the said 787 components.

 

When are you in town again?

 

Tom

[TheFiend]

BigDUSA brought up the subject of the A380 on the very first line of his post opening this thread and it got mention a few times more - This thread was intended as a slagging off of the A380, whilst hyping up the 787.

 

At the end of the day the two planes, although both long-range planes are targeted at different markets - so why the slagging off of the A380?

 

The A380 is aimed at the high-volume routes where airlines can pack more people on so in effect it is targeted at the 747 market.

[CheshireTom]

BigDUSA brought up the subject of the A380 on the very first line of his post opening this thread and it got mention a few times more - This thread was intended as a slagging off of the A380, whilst hyping up the 787.

 

At the end of the day the two planes, although both long-range planes are targeted at different markets - so why the slagging off of the A380?

 

The A380 is aimed at the high-volume routes where airlines can pack more people on so in effect it is targeted at the 747 market.

 

Fiend,

 

The 380 and 787 threads are just an excuse for some bitter Yanks to have a go at Airbus ....... apparently because they think its unethical to spend taxpayers money on assisting employment that results in the production of a commercial aeroplane.

 

Apparently, taxpayers money is meant to be squandered on military aircraft which can then be used to bomb other countries back to the stone age. Just a small difference in perception of what constitutes ethical.

 

Tom

 

 

Hub,

 

I had problems getting you the pics posted from the volleyball ...........

[Emil]

Emil,

 

Scalawag's offer quite clearly related to the 380 .........

The original question about the construction/assembly process related to the poster who questioned Airbus' practice of undertaking the construction of the major components in different countries, not merely different locations. The Airbus Beluga aircraft have been around for a while now to facilitate this and I understand Boeing are using similarl newly converted 747s for the trans Pacific/Atlantic movement of the said 787 components.

 

When are you in town again?

 

Tom

 

Tom,

 

When you reach my age everything gets a little fuzzy. I just got back to the states on the 12th and I'm cold, the food taste bland and I'm bored as you can see from me reading some of these threads. At least I've got the NFL games to look forward to later today. Fortunately I'm outta here on the 9th and will stay until the 20th of Feb.

[CheshireTom]

Tom,

 

When you reach my age everything gets a little fuzzy. I just got back to the states on the 12th and I'm cold, the food taste bland and I'm bored as you can see from me reading some of these threads. At least I've got the NFL games to look forward to later today. Fortunately I'm outta here on the 9th and will stay until the 20th of Feb.

 

Yes, I'm a bit confused myself ............ sat here in the middle of the desert and the place is flooded!

 

Will catch up with you in January.

 

Tom

 

Another couple for Hub .......

[Emil]

Yes, I'm a bit confused myself ............ sat here in the middle of the desert and the place is flooded!

 

Will catch up with you in January.

 

Tom

 

Another couple for Hub .......

 

 

Where you there in Doha attending the Asian Games? My TGF loves watching the SEA Games, Olympics, and the Asian Games when the Thai are involved and I don't complain as I enjoy watching and am glad shes not into the Thai soaps. I'm really impressed with the eye-foot coordination of that sport they seems to excel in, which is like volleyball only that they use their head and feet to contact the ball.