Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Moves Towards New Planes
maliabu writes "Boeing has named its new plane DreamLiner with plans for its future, which is set to fly in 2008. It'll be interesting to see how 'internet-ready' this 7E7 is. It can be very entertaining for all ages as you can brower the net, check emails, weather, watch movies (on demand), listen to music (on demand) or even cut codes some 30,000 feet in the sky! These articles also stated that "The 200-seat 7E7 is meant to replace [a faster plane called] Sonic Cruiser as Boeing's next new major commercial initiative" " I think most people following the airplane builders knew the Sonic Cruiser was dead before birth; but I still don't see how this plane is going to solve Boeing's sales problems.
Quoth the article:
"The 7E7, whose main selling point would be 10% or greater fuel efficiency through the use of lightweight composite materials and advanced engine technology"
Well, maybe it is. When you read the article you will see that one of the plane's selling points is greater fuel efficiency/lower operating costs. It is being aimed precisely at airlines that are being forced to become more efficient in order to stay afloat. And Boeing is expecting the first sales to be to Asian airlines anyway.
This post is dedicated to all of those
Here is the link to the 7E7 site on boeing webpage. It has a few mock-ups so you can see what it looks like.
Great Linux Site
The Sonic Cruiser idea was to take a bunch of process and technology improvements that Boeing have developed and at the SAME cost of operations, create a bigger/better/faster plane.
Same Money, More Zing!
But nobody wanted to buy it...
SO! This NEW plane, takes the same new developments, and essentially creates a plane that fits in a current purchasing slot and (MAIN POINT HERE) costs 25% less to run.
Airlines will buy this plane in droves because it will be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to run, saving a fortune in jet fuel. 25% decrease in costs means a realistic chance of getting your profits back, which given the current world situation, is a big selling point.
The plane will sell itself. Stuff the internal features. That's just fluff.
Enjoy
--sig fault--
Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago in 2000.
Not that it was quite a brewery, but the now defunct Swissair did roll a barrell of beer into the first - and business class cabin on a flight to Chicago.
Not that I really needed a beer at that time, but the concept was so intriguing, that I er! topped off my slightly intoxicated state.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
So far, Airbus has a nice start...link
A320 A330 ranges etc.
The difference is that Airbus have been giving their customers what they are asking for and Boeing have been giving customers what they've got.
EasyJet are a prime example of a company switching to Airbus A319s over 737s because the operating costs are significantly lower.
http://www.easyjet.com/EN/about/aircraft.html
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Erm no it didn't; the tail was recovered in two pieces, the main structure of the tail and the rudder itself. What was unusual was that the rudder had cleanly separated from the tail.
The tail of that airliner passed all airworthiness checks and has been found to have exceeded its design requirements.
Flight 587 had flown into the wake turbulence of a JAL 747, the pilot followed normal procedures and tried to stabilise his aircraft using the ailerons, which is standard procedure.
When that failed, he used the tail rudder five times to add extra force to his corrections. These imposed enormous strains on the tail structure which was torn off of the aircraft.
Again, the tail did not fail because of any structural weakness, it failed because a load was imposed on the structure that lay outside of the design parameters. Such loads had never been anticipated during the design process, nor had they been experienced before this crash.
American Airlines and Airbus are still fighting over who is to blame. AA claim that Airbus withheld information about the upper limits of forces that can be applied to their airliners, Airbus say that AA did not train their crews correctly.
However, guidelines have been sent to all airlines and the operators of all types of airliner informing them of the possibility of failure of the tail during excessive rudder movements.
And remember that Airbus aren't alone in discovering unexpected behaviours in their airliners. The Boeing 737 seems to have suffered a number of crashes resulting from excessive or abberent rudder movements; notably United flight 585 in Colorado and US Air flight 427 in Pennsylvania.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Airbuses glide too: link - landed at night as well.
There are no backups for multiple engine failure on any dual-engine airliner - one engine backs up the other, and that's it. Having a backup engine wouldn't help anyway if you've run out of fuel, which (believe it or not) is the main cause of all-engines-fail on big airliners (and it isn't considered near-impossible, there are many documented occurences).
I think one possibility is that Boeing may be pushing for sales of airplanes based on the 7E7 design to the USAF.
This means air-refuelling tankers, 2-3 VIP transports, a combination AWACS/JSTARS airborne radar platform and Electronic Intelligence/Signals Intelligence (ELINT/SIGINT) planes to replace the aging RC-135W/X fleet.
Yes. It's a current model.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
re:Of course, if the personnel costs are too high (like United), nothing will help.
Have you looked at those costs lately. Have you looked at them throughout the century. Do more homework than just reading USA Today. Just so you know, I'll be working half again as many hours for 45% less money. I'm not complaining- just want you to know some facts. It seems common practice to bash (rightly sometimes) labor and ignore (wrongly most of the time) management's missteps. Can't think of any examples of management misdeeds? How 'bout a recent one: American's senior mngt greed got Carty fired about a month ago. Another one: Delta's CEO Leo Mulin was pretty well compensated for an unprofitable airline screaming about need of labor savings- even the politicians thought so. There's much more but I've most likely lost your attention. Do a Google search, but remember how slanted towards business the big media are.
Go here: http://www.alpa.org/ for a different perspective.
Lastly, be careful what you ask for. If you pay chump wages, you'll get chump product. This goes for software as well as pilots and mechanics. Do you really want the guy flying you somewhere to be a novice who quits for better pay just at the point where his experience becomes valuable to your safety? Flying is very safe, but its not because of management's drive to reduce costs and put pesky labor in its place!
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Good question. I would say the answer to that is the same as for a user of any product, be it an airplane or even a software application. Any user can be a judge of the quality of the product in question simply by using it. The relevance of their opinion can be assessed by their perspective, training and experience.
To elaborate on my previous comment, I was speaking not from the perspective of a pasesnger but from that of the pilot. I have flown (piloted and passengered) both Boeing (737,757,767,777) and Airbus(A319,A320) and I stand by my opinion that Boeing build aircraft of a higher quality, and furthermore, are less difficult to operate (pilot).
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Those are more than a fair points to make, and I'd certainly have a hard time disagreeing about Boeing having some significant government support from defense contracts. I'd completely forgotten about the A300 and the standard cargo palette issue.
;). Even if the bottom line can be padded by DoD sales, the executives in charge of the commercial airliner unit have to be in the black, at least as far as the shareholders are concerned.
And, I certainly wouldn't want to fly in a world where only one multinational company made all the planes. In retrospect, I could have been more clear that I was looking at the issue from a Boeing perspective, and they certainly see new model development as more of a gamble, given the fact that the failure of a commercial airliner program could mean thousands of jobs in Everett and significant losses that shareholders alone must cover (which is never good for that executive career path
I thought about the fly-by-wire issue when writing my first post, but the thought that popped into my head was the (not unusual for any new development) crash of the A320 in Paris during its debut. It's not fair to view the A320 program based on that one incident, but the risk in development of non-traditional control linkages is why Boeing avoided the issue. In that regard, they didn't gamble, but that's as much a fear of irritating the FAA as much as anything. Heck, I also recall that there was nearly a wholesale pilot union revolt across the U.S. carriers with the 2-man crewing trend. I think Boeing felt they were already pushing the comfort level enough.
And in the interest of equal time, I hope Boeing chooses something besides the brittle, flammable insulation on its electrical wiring in future projects. It's the Hindenburg all over again (TWA 800 == Hindenburg... Kerosene vapor == Hydrogen... burning insulation == doped-up zepplin skin, which were both the real and deserately-hidden causes because they pointed to a significantly larger design flaw).
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.