From personal experience the MD products are built like a brick s*it house. I have 1600 hours in DC-9's with the Navy and the ones I am flying were built in 67/68. As old as me. We beat the the heck out of them during training, multiple touch and go's and we even do approach to stalls on every training flight. I have flown one around the world and made too many translants and transpacs in em. They are very reliable from my stand point.
Boeing vs. Airbus + Politics
- Thread starter outrun
- Start date
- Status
Both Australian domestic carriers (Ansett-ANA and TAA) ordered DC-9-30 in July 65. Last deliveries 1971. TAA's VH-TJJ and VH-TJK established a world reliability record for the type while in service. ansett withdrew theirs from service but TAA wanted to continue even looking unsuccessfully to obtain further aircraft second-hand. TAA under its new name Australian Airlines in 89 during the pilots strike. Final flight was VH-TJU 17th November Brisbane to Melbourne. A very well liked aircraft by operators and maintenance crews alike.
I have long thought that Boeing buying MD's commercial aircraft business was much worse for Boeing than the situation would have been had MD been able to stay in the commercial aircraft business on it's own.
No industry likes to get itself into a single source situation. When Boeing bought MD, they in some ways pushed more customer business into Airbus' hands. American Airlines, for example, used to buy a lot of MD aircraft as well as some Boeings. Now they buy Airbus and Boeing. Did Boeing think that they would end up with 100% of American Airlines' business by buying the MD piece of things?
John
No industry likes to get itself into a single source situation. When Boeing bought MD, they in some ways pushed more customer business into Airbus' hands. American Airlines, for example, used to buy a lot of MD aircraft as well as some Boeings. Now they buy Airbus and Boeing. Did Boeing think that they would end up with 100% of American Airlines' business by buying the MD piece of things?
John
It is not realy fair to compare a new airbus to an older 747. That comparison should be made to a 777 (which is fly by wire, and probably the most advanced airplane flying).
They're fine, as long as the cargo door in the DC10 stays shut
A340-600 is the direct competitor to 747-400. A330 versus 777. I have a call in to Australian Aviation chasing editor Jim Thorns Airbus & Boeing tech article. Jim Thorn is one of the worlds most respected aviation writers and happens to reside here in Canberra. If I can get a copy of it I'll type it in but I'm not looking forward to that as a one finger typist. FWIW Airbus has sold 2073 into Nth America up till 31st Jan 2004 to America West, American, Air Canada, Air Transat, Canadian Armed forces, Canadian International Airlines, Continental, Delta, Eastern, Federal Express, Frontier, GECAS, ILFC, JetBlue, Northwest, Skyservice, Ryan International, Tradewinds Airlines, United, UPS, US Airways, USA 3000 Airlines etc etc. Somebody there likes 'em.
If you think about how many flights these planes make, day in day out, they are ALL very impressive. When there is a design flaw, it appears years down the road, such as the elevator (tail) control problem on the MD-80 (I think it was an MD 80), and often involve improper maintenance (such as the DC-10 which lost an engine after departing ORD).
Keep in mind also that there are "black market" parts being made in the Orient that are sub-standard.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: DockHoliday ]
Keep in mind also that there are "black market" parts being made in the Orient that are sub-standard.
[ March 01, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: DockHoliday ]
Dock you are so correct. I remember years back a TV program on the DC-10 and its inherent tech problems. From memory an open-ended hydraulic sys was one and the flaps required hydraulic pressure to keep them in/up or whatever. I believe that contributed to the DC-10 crash near Chicago I think? When pilots later flew simulator for same engine loss and realised flap down they successfully countered it. And yes big probs with remanufactured parts not up to spec.
My point with the 747 is that it is a very old design, even though they are still being produced. I suppose the 747 does not get replaced/redesigned until there is a competitor which forces the issue. As for the 777, it is a wide body plane, but I do not know if it has the range of the 747, which is a huge factor in the some markets (such as Australia). I hear the new Airbus is king of the long range now, which used to be the 747's throne.
Singapore Airlines jut operated the longest nonstop commercial airline service in the world. A340-500 flew Singapore LAX Feb 3rd 7971nm (14,762km) sector in 14 hours 42 mins an hour shorter than scheduled due to favourable winds. New daily service is over 540nm (1000km) longer than previos record distance HK to Newark. Later this year even longer Singapore-New York direct via North Pole will be initiated, an 18hr flight.
Here's some stuff on Boeing subsidies which also benefits from government R&D contracts and production then applies that to it's commercial business.
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir0714.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/502766/
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/Emu/wb8901.html
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir0714.htm
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/502766/
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/Emu/wb8901.html
A340-600 compaired to 747-400???? totally different-sure the A-340-600 can fly the distance but cannot carry anything when doing it. They lowered the pass. cap. from something like 310pass down to 160 to lighten it up so as to get better fuel mileage. The 747-400 carrys about 350pass flying almost the same distance(412pass in standard config/over500 pass when built for some of the Japan airlines). The basic difference between the A330 & the A340 is the wing and amount of engines/same body tube (w/different lenths) but with more engines. The A330(redo of the A310) is the 767's compeditor. Airbus has yet to even build anything as big as the 777 or the 747 but with the A380, it will trump the 747 and than some(if they can find airports to land it at!!! after proving whether it will even fly first?) The new 777-300ER(holds more pass and is bigger to be followed by the smaller version 777-200ER which will fly even further) will be the A340-600 compeditor when it gets delivered in a few mounths(have seen it flying overhead the last few months doing flite testing) Sorry for the MD comments, but they did have their problems and being I used to work for Boeing(76747's everett,wa.)I am a little opinionated.
I was wondering at the somewhat aggressive tone but I understand now. Australian Aviation called this morning and have the June 2003 backissue with the Airbus article. Lunchtime so I'll go get it. Good service from AA by the way, free backissue.
Another significant factor in the competitiveness of the Airbus v. Boeing is that the Airbus is built with more automation. Boeings are more hand built.
Today I worked on a Canadair CRJ700. I mostly work on Embraer ERJ145s- it's like comparing a '55 Buick to a new Kia. The ERJ is a beer can compared to the CRJ.
Today I worked on a Canadair CRJ700. I mostly work on Embraer ERJ145s- it's like comparing a '55 Buick to a new Kia. The ERJ is a beer can compared to the CRJ.
Can you provide some specifics?
I heard the 380's will have a pool on board
Casino too I hear
The 747-100 had fancy bars and other ornaments installed in the upper deck too when it was released. It was quickly scrapped when the airline companies realised more bums on seats = more revenue. I think the same will apply to the A 380.
the hand made for Boeing/automated for Airbus is true but Boeing is changing so as to be more price compeditive with Airbus. The larger sized of plane with Boeing the more options they offer. Boeing has always allowed the customer to have say in part of the building of the plane they order(Lab & gallies size/local, seat arrangments etc.) Boeing had never built "white tails" which is what Airbus has always built. Boeing would only build the plane if they had an order for it, every plane coming down the assembaly line has a comitted customer. Airbus builds them whether they are sold or not, something to do with their labor laws and layoffs via goverment job support, they are required to keep so many people working at all times. They build them, park them, then wait for a customer to show up which is how United ended up with A-320's. Airbus had a bunch of them sitting and gave them a "DEAL" on them just to get rid of them(whitetails=no commited customer when built). The smaller the plane(737-757)the less options, size limits inside for putting labs-gallies wherever. Boeing is moving more toward building "whitetails" with 737 so as to offer cheaper prices to be more price compeditive with Airbus. The optional customer layout changes is what I used to work on when I worked at Boeing.
quote:
Originally posted by outrun:
Having an interesting on going conversation with my dad...who had his fair share of aerospace engineering experiance.
Trying to get some incite from the board on these points.
A)If the world is left with two chief civil aviation companies, Boeing & Airbus that is will that sacrifice competition and innovation? Is it a dual monopoly of sort?
Yes, and it has always been that way. The worldwide market, excluding the former Soviet bloc, has only been a few hundred units annually. In the '40s and '50s it was Douglas and Lockheed, it shifted to Boeing and Douglas in the jet age. Now it is Airbus and Boeing.
Regional jets from Brazil and Canada are getting larger and are a threat to both the A-318 and 717.
In this case, all a customer knows that there leverage is better since they will get a guaranteed sale from 1/2 sole bidders.
The airlines have to mantain two healthy suppliers, otherwise there would be no price competition.
C) Boeing Aircraft are clearly superior than Airbus?
It depends on what you mean exactly. Airbus in general is an "engineers" airplane, while Boeing, including the former McDonnell Douglas, makes a "pilots" airplane. Airbus computers try to tell the pilot what he/she can and cannot do. OOPS, that didnt work in the case of the AA crash in where the tail fell off and Airbus wants to blame AA's pilot training. Boeing puts no artifcial limits on pilot input. Airbus cockpits look more advanced because of the "joystick" instead of the Boeing's traditional control wheel, but the 777 is still fly-by-wire.
D)Airbus has copied many American designs to get where they are today.
Actually, I think it was the experience doing the Concorde that formed the "critical mass" of skills that led to the current Airbus. All modern subsonic airliners are a long tube with low-mounted swept back wings and two podded turbofan engines. What american design was "copied", the B-47 bomber?
D)Many countries select Airbus just to politically shaft the united states?
Yes, but Boeing uses "offsets" which are subcontracting deals to help sell in other countries. Japan builds a lot of parts for Boieng and buys only Boeing airliners.
Counterpoints:
A)Then again Airbus does use American powerplants and avionics at the very least in there models. (General Electric, Pratt & Whitney eyc)
Right. About 40 percent of the content of an Airbus is US parts, especially GE engines
So I let this string loose for yall to eat up
Thanks i appreciate any notes you can add here!
- Status
