Boeing 797 Blended Wing

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by 2bighorn
This article is BS. Nobody yet knows how Y3 will look like.

Besides, 747X (adv) has been resurrected as 747-8, a gap measure until Y3 arrives (if ever).



 Both manufacturer are looking to cover the entire market, although is true that Boeing wants to reduce down to 3 families (and possibly to only 3 fuselage diameters):
Y1 - 717, 737, 757 replacement (EIS 2012-15)
Y2 known as 787 - 767, 777 replacement (EIS 2008)
Y3 - 777, 747 replacement (EIS -unknown).

The 747-8 doesn't carry the R&D costs that a new airplane program would require in a bigger jet like the A380.  Besides, we don't have the taxpayers to dump the R&D costs onto as EADS did to the European taxpayers.   Sure, they'll keep the cash cow around, but a new cash cow bigger than the 747-8 isn't on the horizon.  The -8's primary customer is cargo airliners first, passenger plane 2nd.

[2bighorn]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sure, they'll keep the cash cow around, but a new cash cow bigger than the 747-8 isn't on the horizon.

That solely depends on the future oil prices. If they remain high, Boeing will enter VLA market with Y3 simply because larger planes have lower CASM.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Besides, we don't have the taxpayers to dump the R&D costs onto as EADS did to the European taxpayers.

Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).

Although I think all of this is the least any country should do for its industry I don't think you can complain about euro tax relief

[Debonair]

It'd be nice to see some creative thought in airliner design after 50 years of modified 707s (itself outwardly appears to be not too much more than a upscaled 262)...i miss the concorde

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).

Although I think all of this is the least any country should do for its industry I don't think you can complain about euro tax relief

Don't confuse Boeing Commercial Airplanes with IDS.  I'm sure EADS carries a few military contracts too, no?

EADS whines because the ONLY commercial jet that was funded solely by miliary monies was the Boeing 707 in 1955. 50 years ago, sir.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Errr Rip *cough* pot meet kettle. You do realise the US gets dragged in front of the WTO for tarrif violations for supposedly 'free trade' on a regular basis, plus theres backend loading from 'military projects', and the competitive info boeing get flicked from networks like echelon (funded by tax payers of course).
 

I'm sure EADS keeps the military and civilian project R&D completely separate.

[Mr Big]

Originally posted by Nilsen
Oh my... please dont let this thread turn into another retarded Airbus VS Boing thread.

why would you go and call Airbus retarded? That seems a little harsh.

[RAIDER14]

797 looks like something out of Star Wars:O

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Don't confuse Boeing Commercial Airplanes with IDS.  I'm sure EADS carries a few military contracts too, no?

EADS whines because the ONLY commercial jet that was funded solely by miliary monies was the Boeing 707 in 1955. 50 years ago, sir.

Wow someone that admits that.
But do you admit what that subsidy did to the European AC industry

[Vulcan]

Hey rip, doesn't take much to scratch the surface, I'm sure if I dug deeper it'd just get worse:

U.S. Government Subsidies

U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.

Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid - and in fact is not repaid
Since 1992, Boeing has received around $ 23 billon in subsidies from the U.S. government.
The total U.S. Government indirect support of the U.S. LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the U.S. LCA industry.
Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, e.g. Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing’s programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.
Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.2 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.
The real issue is one of competitiveness: From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programs since 1990.

US subsidies in the form of Defence Procurement

There are massive benefits accruing to Boeing’s large civil aircraft business from military R&D programmes and overpriced DoD contracts, e.g. sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to the US Department of Defence at inflated prices. Recent examples include:

Regarding the possible sale of B-767 refuelling “tanker” aircraft, a 2003 Morgan Stanley report establishes a subsidy margin of 9% or $1.6 to $2.3 billion in profits for Boeing. The report argues that the lease deal is the equivalent “at least 700 firm deliveries of Boeing 737s”, that the normal profit margin for the 767 is 6% and that the Pentagon plans to give Boeing up to 15%.
On 14 June 2004, the US Navy awarded Boeing a contract worth potentially about $44 billion until 2030 for the production and maintenance of 108 civil B-737 and their conversion into long-range submarine hunter Multi-Mission Aircraft. It appears that airplanes will be built at Boeing’s civil plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington.
US subsidies in the form of R&D expenditure

Boeing’s large civil aircraft business benefits significantly from NASA and DoD R&D programmes. In 2003 alone, Boeing received US$ 2.74 bn in subsidies, including around US$ 2 bn from the US Department of Defence and more than US$ 600 million from NASA.

The largest part of funds spent by the Government in R&D for a specifically aeronautical product constitutes a reduction in R&D expenses for the main potential user of the technology, i.e. Boeing. This is the case even if the R&D is eventually not successful.

Subsidies to the planned Boeing 7E7: over $ 6 billion

Planned subsidies for Boeing’s 7E7 programme from Washington State ($3.2bn), Kansas ($0.5bn), Oklahoma ($0.35bn). Washington State 7E7 subsidies alone are about as high as European launch investment for A380. The only difference is that A380 launch investment is paid back and is compatible with the 1992, while Washington support is not. In addition, Washington 7E7 production subsidies are illegal under the 1992 Agreement. To this must be added the planned 7E7 subsidies of around US$1.6 billion from Japan.

 

You're nieve if you think the US Govt doesn't subsidize boeing in any way.

[Chairboy]

You may be confusing 'subsidies' with 'purchases'.  I'm guessing that $21b is the  many airplanes the US has purchased from Boeing.  Airbus = no actual aircraft purchased.  Hence, subsidies vs. commerce.  Easy to confuse.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Chairboy
You may be confusing 'subsidies' with 'purchases'.  I'm guessing that $21b is the  many airplanes the US has purchased from Boeing.  Airbus = no actual aircraft purchased.  Hence, subsidies vs. commerce.  Easy to confuse.

The only difference is the Euro's are up front about it, the Yanks try and hide it in overinflated purchase prices (6% market rate margin vs 15% is a huge difference) or Defence "R&D".

Like I said, I'm not against it. I think any countries govt should look after homegrown industries first (although now Boeing is outsourcing and tax-evading offshore you have to wonder how wise that is). However I think its hypocritical to continually whinge about Airbus subsidies... hence pot meet kettle.

[J_A_B]

Who would want to travel in a 1000-passenger flying cattle car?   Heck, 737's are too cramped to be tolerable.



J_A_B

[Angus]

By the time this thing is possibly being tested there are going to be a few hundred Airbuses buzzing around. So, it's going to be a tough one.
For neither you'll need to completely redesign an airfield though, rather think of it as building or modyfying a terminal to receive those. I mean the batch of passengers is about the load of 2 Jumbo's which is nothing unhandlable.
Maybe we'll be riding those biggies on intercontinental flights in 10 years. I hope so

[Krusher]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Hey rip, doesn't take much to scratch the surface, I'm sure if I dug deeper it'd just get worse:

Well you didn't dig very deeply to start with. Your post is straight out of a Lawsuit filed in 2004. I would guess they (the filers) are not exactly representing both sides of the issue. But hey maybe lawyers in Europe are different