flynhigh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by RedDog: The questions is when will the U.S. designers come up with a viable aleternative to those builders? That is the joy of the free world, competition. We just need to step up to the plate now. Actually, there is research being done on the Blended Wing Body design that would accomodate up to 800 passengers (conceivably). BWB 1 BWB 2 The A380 is supposed to carry up to 555 passengers. The problem with both of these is terminal access at current airports. Both of these designs are so large that most terminals can't handle them. Kind of off track, but interesting I think.
Guest goirishgo Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Personally, I think that the A380 is going to be less successful than projected. Many airports aren't even equipped for it, and it all depends on the market. Carrying THAT many pax may be beneficial for Pacific/Asia markets, but not necessarily state side. Does anyone know if any US carriers have bought the 380 yet? I also heard of a plan to modify the 747 to carry more pax, but will refrain from weighing in on it due to limited knowledge of the subject. It all depends on what the consumer will go for and what sells tickets. The 7E7 is so versatile and fuel efficient (fuel prices are not coming down any time soon), I think that in the long run it will sell more tickets and hopefully make comm. air travel more efficient. You can't blame Boeing for not following through with a super jumbo like the 380. It's risky and naive to think that it will really have all that great of an impact, plus it takes a bite out of their already existing 747 market. I think the 7E7 is a solid way to go, especially when in designing a new aircraft, Boeing basically has to invest their entire net worth to do so. If you lose, you lose big. I give Boeing a lot of credit for doing a pretty decent job in analyzing the market. In the end, I think France and Airbus have a short term goal: the biggest. That's all well and good and impressive but at the end of the day it could end up like the An-225 Myria did for so many years, sitting collecting dust while being scrapped for parts because it's an economic failure. Look at the Concorde... it was a total national pride issue. Yeah it was pretty cool to travel Mach 2+ and get from NY to London in a jiffy, but now it's a museum piece because the only things going from NY to UK that fast were the airplanes, their crews, and a few rich people(until, of course, they announced that the end was coming). Anyway, that's my 2 cents.. and some change..
Guest Ragansundowner Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I read a pretty interesting book a while back called "Barons of the Sky". It looks at the beginnings of the various aircraft designing/manufacturing companies and their founders. People like Glenn Curtiss, Donald Douglas, The Loughead brothers (Lockheed was used for easier pronunciation), Jack Northrop, and Alan Gross. It looks at the harshness and competitiveness of big business combined with their joint love of flying. I know the Airbus/Boeing issue is an international one, but the same thing happened in the early part of this century on the domestic front. Definitely worth picking up to see how the companies that remain today, got to where they are. -R.S.
ClearedHot Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by flynhigh: I partially agree Clearedhot. However, our industrial base here in the US really hasn't diminished as a result of the loss of manufacturers, in reality, there is just one single major manufacturer, Boeing. You may remember in 1997 or so when Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged? This was a result of foreign competition(i.e. Airbus). Some jobs may have been lost, but more jobs were probably saved in the long run by creating a single national "powerhouse" to compete with Airbus. Smaller manufacturers, such as McDonnell Douglas, would not have been able to compete against Airbus alone and would have went under. The FTC even launched an investigation into whether or not they should allow the merger. After agreeing that it would be best for national interests, they allowed the merger despite European rejection. Anyways, I understand your position and respect it! Flynhigh, Actually the job base has been reduced by nearly three quarters if you look at 1970’s-1980’s numbers (I know it is hard to pick a period given the economics of the Reagan build up). The main reason the merger was allowed to go through was it was doubtful either one would survive on it’s own so they tried to save what jobs they could. Look military aircraft production under the Clinton Administration, F-15E’s at a trickle rate, F-16’s at a moderate rate and the C-17 at full production rate. This is a huge decrease from past years (the peace dividend) that has translated into a very “old” average aircraft age for the U.S. military. The problem as has been pointed out many times by the regulators, is you are left with one major company to develop new military aircraft, which stifles R&D. In the end they choose the lesser of two evils. What is the answer? Subsidy for our aircraft makers? Tariffs on EU products? I don’t know, but in my opinion we need to stop playing nice with the French, who obviously are not our friends. Flynhigh, BTW, I respect your opinion as well.
flynhigh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by Clearedhot: Actually the job base has been reduced by nearly three quarters if you look at 1970’s-1980’s numbers (I know it is hard to pick a period given the economics of the Reagan build up). Clearedhot, I think it may also be safe to say that the reduction in job base may also be due to technology. More and more manufacturing is automated on large aircraft. Robots doing work = less work for us humans. Although you do bring up a good point.
ClearedHot Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by RedDog: Clearedhot, I hear your point of view. I respect that you stand for something such as this. I agree with wishing all U.S. planes were made by U.S. companies. I am not going to let it dictate my family well being to that extent. Lets not even get into our cars/trucks. Lets not forget about other aircraft such as the CRJ/Embraer, etc. Where do we draw the line? The questions is when will the U.S. designers come up with a viable aleternative to those builders? That is the joy of the free world, competition. We just need to step up to the plate now. RedDog, I would never question your decision to take care of your family first. I also understand the argument about cars and that is a topic no one wants to talk about, (Hell my wife is buying the new Acura next month). Take a longer view and you might find that if the trend continues your kids may not have jobs when they grow up. It is a free world and competition is one thing, but when we have to step up to bat with one hand tied behind our back, something has to change.
Gravedigger Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 Hey guys most large airports in the US are equipped to handle the A380. Pretty much every Class B in the country has already been approved. Most of the changes are going to be by the airlines that fly them. Some terminals are going to need steps in the gangway to access the second level. Clearedhot- It's absolutley insulting that you find me unfit to be a military aviator because I love all types of aviation. Heres a little background for you though. My grandad worked at skunkworks and then moved to Marietta to manage the building of the 1st C-130 and C-5. My dad works on the C-130J with Lockheed right now. I have had models of the C-5, C-130, and C-141, hanging from my ceiling since I was 2. I have dreamed of flying for the USAF my entire life and I have family members that have been in the USAF. I find myself more fit to fly for a service that strives to help the world than some isolationist who can't get over his patriotism, and appreciate the incredible work that has been put in to such a plane.
flynhigh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by c17wannabe: Some terminals are going to need steps in the gangway to access the second level. Like I said, most terminals can't handle them. "Steps in the gangway" makes it sound like it's not going to be a big deal to accommodate the A380. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome that a double deck airliner is being built. But the logistics that go along with supporting it are going to make it hard for airlines/airports to transition to it. New jetways or boarding bridges, whatever you want to call them, are not going to be cheap. c17wannabe, I respect your views, but I just think it is going to take alot more than just manufacturing of this beast to get it into the air.
ClearedHot Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Originally posted by c17wannabe: Clearedhot- It's absolutley insulting that you find me unfit to be a military aviator because I love all types of aviation. Heres a little background for you though. My grandad worked at skunkworks and then moved to Marietta to manage the building of the 1st C-130 and C-5. My dad works on the C-130J with Lockheed right now. I have had models of the C-5, C-130, and C-141, hanging from my ceiling since I was 2. I have dreamed of flying for the USAF my entire life and I have family members that have been in the USAF. I find myself more fit to fly for a service that strives to help the world than some isolationist who can't get over his patriotism, and appreciate the incredible work that has been put in to such a plane. If you want to be insulted that is your issue not mine. I can throw the family tree around as well. My great-grandfather, Pilot #26 in the world, was a barnstormer and worked on the Spirit of St Louis and for Ryan Aircraft Corp. My Grandfather also a pilot, worked for Pitcairn Aircraft. My dad flew three tours in Vietnam in the F-4. All of that means diddly-squat to your argument. You might want to look up the word isolationist in the dictionary, let me help you, Isolationism = A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. I said we need to level the paying field based on subsidies the EU (Mainly France) pays to Airbus to make it fair for U.S. aircraft companies. I agree with preemption which is about as far from isolationism as you can get. As for the Airbus 380, great plane I am sure, but when I look at it I see the technology France has shared with our enemies. I see the Roland missiles and all sorts of other military technology they sold to Iraq, even after the UN resolution. I see my buds in the squadron who risked their lives fighting them during ONW, OSW, and OIF while you were laying in your room starring at pictures of the Airbus. I am not for isolationism. I respect a free market economy that is FAIR. However, this is not a zero-sum world, and if someone has to lose, I choose them.
M2 Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Guys One thing I have learned over the years is that it is never too wise to have everyone sit too far to one side in a lifeboat. If everybody does it then the damn thing will tip over, and we will all end up in the water as sharkbait. Some people will always want to sit to one far side or the other, but luckily most other folks are willing to sit somewhere in between. It balances everything out... By the way, that story has nothing to do with lifeboats, in case you hadn't noticed... :rolleyes: Cheers! M2
Guest Ragansundowner Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Flynhigh, I would never want to leave out Clyde Cessna or Walter Beech. They did amazing things. The book just focused on the big guns I mentioned. I think the author felt that they had the largest impact as individual people on the world market of aircraft. Boeing wasn't even discussed much because it was formed out of conglomerate (sp?) of other companies later in the middle of last century. -R.S. P.S. what does everything think about Cirrus out-selling Cessna in the GA department last year? Think we're going to start seeing a trend?
ClearedHot Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 I had no idea the Cirrus SR was so popular. A great friend and UPT classmate was killed on a test flight five years ago. Glad to see it was for a worthy cause. I have also noticed the FAA has lightened up on allowing major sections of homebuilts to be assembled by third party companies (51% rule).
flynhigh Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Ragansundowner, I understood where you were coming from! I just wanted to throw those names out for those who may be unfamiliar. As far as the Cirrus outselling Cessna, oh boy! The SR-22 is a bada$$ airplane. A friend of my dads has one, the Cadillac of general aviation! Glass cockpit and all... I think Cessna's biggest focus right now is in the corporate aircraft arena (i.e. Citation's). It may mean lost jobs in Independence, KS, though!
Guest Ragansundowner Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 Yeah Cessna is outselling Cirrus by a lot in total aircraft sales because of their huge corporate jet market. I saw a few Cirrus' fly into our local airport the other day. They do look nice and the pilots flying them said they handled beautifully with a decent amount of power. -R.S.
ClearedHot Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by gearpig: Cleared Hot, I kinda agree, but I'll play devil's advocate. Obviously you have very strong feelings on the subject and I assume you've flown the airlines a fair amount. Chances are, you've flown an Airbus. Have you ever not flown with an airline because they were to put you on an airbus? Probly not. I'm pretty sure the airlines are looking for cheapest product that meets thier specs. Then they're gonna turn around and sell it to you. And you're buying. But, you've just contributed to your own problem. They're gonna do that irregardless of who shot what made by whom who lives in the same country as he who also makes the other thing at your buddy. They don't care because they know you're not gonna rip up your boarding pass at the end of the jetway, no matter what your feelings are. The government isn't gonna punish the airlines because Boeing can't win the contract. And Boeing isn't about to fold. The driving factor is profit not ethics. I respect your opinion but I think we'll both be flying the cheapest airline. Gearpig, If you read my posts you will not find me slamming the airlines. I already posted that of course the airlines will purchase the cheaper product because they are in business to make a profit. I have flown on the Airbus with United and I think the other was Air Jamaica. Boeing can’t win the contracts because of the way Airbus and the French government sell aircraft to the airlines. Airbus receives huge subsidies from the EU (mainly France), so they can sell their aircraft at what would otherwise be a loss and rely on the government to provide the difference. There is no way Boeing can compete in this unfair market. It is an economic model that has been applied by other countries on everything from cotton to wine. It has also been ruled illegal by the world court. However, when it comes to great powers of the world, it is very rare to apply sanctions for fear of starting a greater trade war. Congress has been looking at legislation for the past two years that would apply a tariff, but the airline industry is in such dire straights post 911, it has been put on the back burner. They funny thing is Airbus has blatantly stated they want to put Boeing out of business, when that happens they are free to charge whatever they want. The whole situation reinforces the conclusion that I have come to over the past ten years in the USAF, France is an enemy of the United States. It is one thing to vote independently on UN mandates and resolutions. I understand the argument that they are a sovereign nation and want to exercise policies that are in their interest. It is another to sell munitions, weapons systems, technology, and information to countries that mean to do us harm. I am going to France for two weeks in may to walk the battlefields of Verdun, Calais, and Normandy. Every time I think of the American lives that were lost making sure the French didn’t speak German for the next 100 years, it makes me sick to think how they have repaid us. Sorry for the rant, but I have actually done a lot of research on this subject and I truly hope our government finally decides to do something. [ 12. October 2004, 21:36: Message edited by: Clearedhot ]
Guest deweygcc Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 i agree with you clearedhot. I curse the german soldier that missed De gualle. I can;t stand that man, hes the MAIN reason its the way it is. I too have done extensive research and you are 100% correct. Heres a comment of classic french arrogance. Patton didnt want to go to Paris, De Gaulle said that if we didnt attack paris, we werent allowed to use the rail system! Most of the french issue, would ahve been solved if we had told them to shove it and not only would we USE the Rail and transportation system that ran using OUR railcars, we wold ALSO take our guns and tanks back from the "free leaning on the US for everything French forces" Thats a bunny trail but if you know anything about the french this is the classic. They take take take, and then screw YOU with what YOU just gave. france is STILL back in the old ages. They would attack the Royal Navy on the seas, if they could. The Iraq scandle is just a minor thing for france. India and pakistan DID NOT just figure out this nuke thing on their own, Neither did Iran. Do some research on the french, I suggest that WWII would NOT have happened if france hadnt buried the Germans so bad with the Versalles treaty. I suggest that if france could do that to us they would. Of course they would need US to liberate them before they turned the screws.
Guest Air_chompers Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 I read somewhere that they need to sell like 300 to pay for the R&D costs alone!
Guest Ragansundowner Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 They all kinda smell funny too...
Gravedigger Posted October 13, 2004 Author Posted October 13, 2004 F**k the French, long live the A-380! And Socata for that matter. I love the Trinidad and TBM-700 as well.
Guest Aces-High Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Is cirrus an American company? They are selling a ton of aircraft. There are at least three new ones at my airport already; probably more on the way. The glass cockpit is awesome and it's one sweet looking plane, it looks fast just sitting there. I can understand why they are selling so well. I've heard they are quickly outselling Cessna, but I think that is only in compairison to the 100 series (172-182RGs). I seriously doubt they will hurt much of Cessna's market share.
Hacker Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Ragansundowner: Boeing wasn't even discussed much because it was formed out of conglomerate (sp?) of other companies later in the middle of last century.Nope. Bill Boeing started the company in Seattle in the 'teens, first producing the Boeing B+W floatplane in 1916. Far from ever being a conglomerate until post-WWII when they diversified into helicopters, space and missiles, boats, and all kinds of stuff that got them in trouble.
flynhigh Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 Originally posted by Aces-High: Is cirrus an American company? Yes. They originally setup in Baraboo, WI, and then moved to Duluth, MN.
Guest Ragansundowner Posted October 13, 2004 Posted October 13, 2004 My mistake Hacker, I did a little more research and found out you were right. I thought I had remembered them discussing the conglomerate thing as the reason for Boeings beginnings in the book, but when I looked I discovered Boeing did start individually. -R.S. [ 13. October 2004, 12:27: Message edited by: Ragansundowner ]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now