Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CAA bans Boeing 737 max 8

Reading the blurb I wonder what the Qataris will have to say about it, since their order of F15QA is supposedly the most advanced blah blah.


<Boeing> At the time of the order, the Qatari version was the most advanced <Boeing>
 
That order has been in the pipeline for quite some time. Expect further USAF F-15 orders in subsequent years.


Its been kicked about since Noah got dry feet, but the F-35 was the sexy new kid on the USAF block and all bowed down to Lockmart.

Its a very auspiciously timed multi year order for Boeing - high return, low risk contract, keeps the tills ringing for years while they sort out the 737.
 
Its been kicked about since Noah got dry feet, but the F-35 was the sexy new kid on the USAF block and all bowed down to Lockmart.

Its a very auspiciously timed multi year order for Boeing - high return, low risk contract, keeps the tills ringing for years while they sort out the 737.
This may be a silly question: military orders help Boeing's military arm - the money however pays for the items purchased - it cannot be used for something else as it funds what it pays for. So, very helpful to Boeings military side. How does that significantly help the civil side and specifically the Max programme? That is, it useful but accounted for income?
Edit: I get that it is good for confidence. I am more asking about the finances of the civil side of the operation.
 
Last edited:
You'll have cowls sitting on the ground with the new engines, not to mention different weights, thrust lines etc.
Their best bet is a new engine of similar size, not a great increase in thrust but with modern alloys, better combustor technology and a slightly larger fan for a 2:1 bypass. It should deliver better sfc and hence longer range.
 
This may be a silly question: military orders help Boeing's military arm - the money however pays for the items purchased - it cannot be used for something else as it funds what it pays for. So, very helpful to Boeings military side. How does that significantly help the civil side and specifically the Max programme? That is, it useful but accounted for income?
Edit: I get that it is good for confidence. I am more asking about the finances of the civil side of the operation.


Par example… Boeings 767 had run out of puff as a pax airliner, but soldiered on as a freighter.
Now, the 767 now lives on as a USAF tanker too, and wouldntchaknow it, Boeing can now press ahead with plans to develop the 767 as better freighter and a potentially a replacement for the 737 Max.
Naturally, none of that new captive 767 market courtesy of the USAF in any way funds the commercial 767's further development.
40% of Boeings revenue is US .Gov.
Whats good for Boeing is good for America as they say
 
This may be a silly question: military orders help Boeing's military arm - the money however pays for the items purchased - it cannot be used for something else as it funds what it pays for. So, very helpful to Boeings military side. How does that significantly help the civil side and specifically the Max programme? That is, it useful but accounted for income?
Edit: I get that it is good for confidence. I am more asking about the finances of the civil side of the operation.

Profit in one division reduces overall loss

Chap who runs an Ibiza "teen" hotel summed it up: We're making a profit on each guest, but still making a loss. However, the full year loss willl be less than if we'd stayed shut
 
Profit in one division reduces overall loss

Chap who runs an Ibiza "teen" hotel summed it up: We're making a profit on each guest, but still making a loss. However, the full year loss willl be less than if we'd stayed shut
Thanks - that makes sense.
I suppose, in that context, there will be economies in ceasing 747 production to factor in [though I don't know what the revenues from future sales might have been).

Edit - I just thought that through - airlines ceasing using the 747 = surplus airframes = few new orders!
 
Par example… Boeings 767 had run out of puff as a pax airliner, but soldiered on as a freighter.
Now, the 767 now lives on as a USAF tanker too, and wouldntchaknow it, Boeing can now press ahead with plans to develop the 767 as better freighter and a potentially a replacement for the 737 Max.
Naturally, none of that new captive 767 market courtesy of the USAF in any way funds the commercial 767's further development.
40% of Boeings revenue is US .Gov.
Whats good for Boeing is good for America as they say

The 767 was, is and would be (if re engineered) a great airframe but a 737 replacement? I don’t think so. Apart from anything else, the 787 ticks too many boxes the 767 used to tick.

The same is true of the 747. It was iconic, fit for its time but that time has gone. Whichever way you cut it, 4 engines are more expensive than two and the failure of the 747-8 or whatever it’s called this week to sell is testament to the fact that airlines don’t need an airframe that can do very little other, more cheaply operated airframes can’t do. The slow death rattle of the A340 and A380 also refers although both were lame ducks from the off imho.

The only decent (Civi) airframe Airbus have produced is the A320 family which is a) why there’s loads of them about and b) another reason why I don’t see the 767 coming back to challenge that section of the market.
 
You'll have cowls sitting on the ground with the new engines, not to mention different weights, thrust lines etc.
Their best bet is a new engine of similar size, not a great increase in thrust but with modern alloys, better combustor technology and a slightly larger fan for a 2:1 bypass. It should deliver better sfc and hence longer range.

Which is why all of the bids in the competition are one-for-one engine replacements using similar size and thrust (but much more modern and fuel-efficient) engines from business jets. All of the entrants are apparently reliable enough, that they won't need overhauled for the remaining planned life of the B-52... (each maintainer costs you $100K per year to employ; I wonder how many people on a B-52 squadron are involved in maintaining 50-year-old engines...)





Rolls-Royce have been pushing a BR700 variant (the F-130) for the job. About the same size and thrust as the engine it replaces, just 400kg lighter (each, there's eight of them)...

 
The 767 was, is and would be (if re engineered) a great airframe but a 737 replacement? I don’t think so. Apart from anything else, the 787 ticks too many boxes the 767 used to tick.

The same is true of the 747. It was iconic, fit for its time but that time has gone. Whichever way you cut it, 4 engines are more expensive than two and the failure of the 747-8 or whatever it’s called this week to sell is testament to the fact that airlines don’t need an airframe that can do very little other, more cheaply operated airframes can’t do. The slow death rattle of the A340 and A380 also refers although both were lame ducks from the off imho.

The only decent (Civi) airframe Airbus have produced is the A320 family which is a) why there’s loads of them about and b) another reason why I don’t see the 767 coming back to challenge that section of the market.

well, Boeing are widely reported to be looking at a 767-X with GEnx engines.
The 767 isn’t going away, it’s a popular freighter, and now a tanker, so a better 767 makes financial sense. And having done the legwork on a shiny upgraded F version, a passenger version isn’t such a big jump from the 737 Max and is a conservative plane that could hold the line and buy them time to design a proper clean sheet 737 replacement.
 
The 767 is a good piece larger than the 737 (about twice the empty weight ) -

Im somewhat less than convinced a 73 operator looking to modernise the fleet is going to be tempted by something with significantly higher operating costs*. Never mind if it can physically get into some of these mickey duck airfields Ryan Scare uses.

*Fuel, landing/handling fees
 
The 767 is a good piece larger than the 737 (about twice the empty weight ) -

Im somewhat less than convinced a 73 operator looking to modernise the fleet is going to be tempted by something with significantly higher operating costs*. Never mind if it can physically get into some of these mickey duck airfields Ryan Scare uses.

*Fuel, landing/handling fees
I think the plan was for Embraer to design and supply the 737 replacement, but that plan fell through.
 
well, Boeing are widely reported to be looking at a 767-X with GEnx engines.
The 767 isn’t going away, it’s a popular freighter, and now a tanker, so a better 767 makes financial sense. And having done the legwork on a shiny upgraded F version, a passenger version isn’t such a big jump from the 737 Max and is a conservative plane that could hold the line and buy them time to design a proper clean sheet 737 replacement.

I guess it depends on how much the re-engineer it. The GENx is a great engine that offers economy but my “FFS, not again” sensors twitched on reading that! The current GENx is fecking huge compared to the CF6-80 that powers many current 767s so I can foresee redesign needs there.

Which went well last time they tried to bolt a new engine on a old airframe.
 
Which went well last time they tried to bolt a new engine on a old airframe.
Nah, just move the engine pylons out and forward a bit, lengthen the undercarriage and ......ah.
...I'll get me coat....
 

Latest Threads

Top