Author Topic: AIRBUS Engineers slam 7E7 (Read 2132 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #60 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:08:22 PM »

Fair point cpxxx, but that doesn't mean the French don't suck.

(Joke son, that's a joke!)

CyranoAH · « **Reply #61 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:09:58 PM »

So true cpxxx, the space industry works that way in many aspects. The technology for the upcoming 12 Ton Ariane 5 has been shared with the vector companies from the USA so that satellite manufacturers trust the new 12T launchers.

If there was just one company building them, companies wouldn't construct 12T satellites because they'd be limited to one launcher (and the prices they set).

Daniel

Pongo · « **Reply #62 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:20:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
I guess I don't see the similarity. The US government purchases airplanes from Boeing for use in the military. The EU gives Airbus money for nothing in return to bail it out of selling planes below cost.

One is business, the other is charity.

In one case the goverment give tax dollars to a company to make an airplane. In the other the goverment gives tax dollars to a company to make a plane. On each airbus they probably make good money but the development cost is probably moslty tax dollars. Very simular situations exist with Boeing. The 707 development was paid for by developeing the kc135. A long time ago you will say. But the europeans have wanted to make a competitor for Boeing. So they went back to the foundations of how that company got to where it is in the comercial airliner business. And US tax dollars have alot to do with that story.

Both are socialist business practices.

Dago · « **Reply #63 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:25:45 PM »

Quote

The nonsense stops now ... shall we?

Fine by me.

dago

beet1e · « **Reply #64 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:31:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dago
Beetle

Lets consider these facts:

1) Your anti-USA garbage started long before I ever disparaged France.

2) You aren't French, they can and have defended themselves without the assistance of a babbling British alcoholic

3) In your drunken state, you started the nastiness in this thread

4) The French government was happy to have Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam Hussein as long as they made money off him.

5) Dowding usually has to step in to most threads and try to defend you as you are incapable of doing it yourself

dago

LOL! - all this, out of a split infinitive

Dago · « **Reply #65 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:32:32 PM »

Quote

It was to free the 'good people of iraq'!

Now xrtoronto and straffo, all I would ask is solid proof of what YOU know was Bush's real reason for attacking Iraq.

Please limit yourself to proven or at least provable facts.

Avoid conjecture, avoid conspiracy theories, and avoid liberal babble, and offer real proof.

If you can't, then you are just another slightly distracting nuisance.

Of course, you are free to give your opinion, but that should limit you to comment only on your thoughts. Doesn't really give license to ridicule others.

dago

Dago · « **Reply #66 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:34:43 PM »

Quote

you're a prize dick -

Actually beetle, it all came from that comment. You English sure have an way with words.

dago

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #67 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:35:37 PM »

The 707 and the KC-135 modifications of the same airframe, but at a great risk to the financial future of Boeing.

By the time development of the 707 actually concluded, development costs had surpassed $185 million - more than the company's total net worth.

Boeing's development of a commercial jet airliner was a gamble on which the entire company was bet. Much the same as the gamble ot develop the 747, 15 years after they first bet the company.

Dago · « **Reply #68 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:44:01 PM »

Quote

Boeing's development of a commercial jet airliner was a gamble on which the entire company was bet. Much the same as the gamble ot develop the 747, 15 years after they first bet the company.

True enough, now I wonder if the new 7E7 is the same thing again? Make or break?

dago

Chairboy · « **Reply #69 on:** June 25, 2004, 06:46:56 PM »

I'll drop the thread w/ Pongo, because I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.

In regards to betting the company on the 747, that has to be one of the scariest and best decisions Boeing ever made. There was no turning back, they developed their entire Paine Field complex around the promise of Jumbo Jet construction, and it's astonishing how good that plane is.

Last I heard, the 747 remains the fastest subsonic (and now, w/o the Tupolev or the Concorde, the fastest period) airliner in service. Not only that, but it's so versatile, it's been used or will be used as:

1. Passenger liner
2. Cargo freighter
3. Spaceship transporter
4. ICBM interceptor (w/ laser)
5. Water dropper for fighting forest fires (for some reason)
and more.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #70 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:14:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy

5. Water dropper for fighting forest fires (for some reason)

What? Got any more info on that?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #71 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:17:59 PM »

Evergreen in McMinnville OR is converting one (747) to fight fire.

Pongo · « **Reply #72 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:44:22 PM »

Aggree with what? that there is no comparison between Boeing and Airbus as far as goverment mony contributed?
Then your blind. Yes the 747 was a huge expense with limited Military contribution. But the 707, that got boeing on the airliner map that is totally not the case. Most of the developement for that aircraft was paid for by the us goverment.

Its no crime. Its just assinine to throw stones at airbus for the same thing. Initial developement payed for by the goverment.

AKWeav · « **Reply #73 on:** June 25, 2004, 07:54:52 PM »

The Dash 80 was developed by Boeing with Boeing money. They risked the net worth of the company to build it. The US Airforce was not considering a jet powered refueling aircraft at the time. Boeing convinced them after it was built that it was far superior to prop refulers of the time. The KC-135 project actually caused Boeing's commercial 707 to lag behind the Douglas DC-8 in inital sales.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #74 on:** June 25, 2004, 08:06:24 PM »

There was a need for a jet refueler.

There was a need for a jet airliner.

Boeing risked more than the net worth of the company on the development of a largely common design that would fulfill both market niches. At the time of the development, the refueler was the first customer and not until Tex Johnson rolled the 707 over Lake Washington during the hydroplane races did they get their first civilian order.

That Boeing chose to amortize the development cost over the large number of military versions is not socialism, it is bookkeeping. 15 or 20 years of civilian sales could have more than paid for the development. A direct subsidy would have eliminated the risk to Boeing, but the risk of the decision to develop the 707/KC135 remained.

If the 707/KC135 had failed, Boeing would have ceased to exist. They were paid for their performance. The US government paid for a product and a product was delivered.

For example the cost of the Concorde, the Anglo/French cooperative production of which was the genesis of Airbus, was not fully amortized over the dozen or so that were produced.

The cost of that development program was paid for by a subsidy from the French and British people. A taxpayer subsidy without a corresponding production of aircraft.