|
Originally Posted by slowplay
(Post 740479)
Gary Kelly disagrees. Look at his comments at the Next Generation Equity Research conference in December (should be available on you investor relations portion of your website). He called code sharing SWA's next great opportunity, but they need technology changes to make it work. I don't know your scope well enough, but Kelly seems to think it isn't an impediment.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
This time it is going to be an organized formal process, in the past it was a bit haphazard with boeing sometimes only listening to folks who happened to know someone, or who wanted to order some airplanes early. My understanding is that they will seek industry consensus next time (not sure how hard that is going to be)..
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
Maybe you haven't kept up on things...P&W is definitely designing a GTF which can power a NB. GE and RR are poking around with open rotors and improved conventional engines. Open Rotors are potentially more efficient, but they have serious technical drawbacks...the airframers delayed their next NB partly in order to give engine technology time to mature before they commit. An airframe has to be designed from a clean slate to use an open rotor.)..
Maybe you misread my post because I made no mention of Open Rotors! Again, GE and Rolls Royce have no plans to produce Geared fans.
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know of any plans at boeing (I know some senior managers there) to go to an all-common family. That would be too constraining on future designs if they had to stay backwards-compatible.
Constraining like Airbus with a family starting from the A318 to the A380?
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
And as I can attest from experience when you start pushing the edge of the envelope on commonality it gets hard for the crews to keep up with the differences. About half of the airlines who operate my airplane do not use a common pilot pool for different variants even though it would be legal...this is due to safety concerns. If I ever forget which variant I'm flying, I will bend metal on landing..
Which aircraft would that be?
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
It is unknown how far up the GTF can scale...it might be practically limited to NB or smaller aircraft, but at 15%+ improved fuel efficiency that is enough to justify a separate Mx program at an airline..
GTF will not go as far as the large turbofan market. In addition, PW is all but out of that market. They just couldn't match GE or Rolls!
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 740268)
GE could do it if they wanted to. It must not be that pressing of a business concern.
|
Originally Posted by alvrb211
(Post 740579)
GE have no experience with the kind of architecture Roll's employs. It is highly unlikely that GE will ever produce a family of large turbofans.
|
Originally Posted by Wasatch Phantom
(Post 739729)
I hope you are very wrong on this.
Boeing listened too much to SWA in the design of the 737 NG series and the result is a mediocre aircraft. I would much prefer Boeing start with a clean sheet of paper and design the best airplane they can. If SWA likes it: Great. If not: Too bad. Limiting your design so it has a common type rating (to make SWA happy) is starting with at least one hand tied behind your back. |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 739606)
After the B737NG, and on Boeing's 100th BDay......could this be the next to come??
China at it's best w/ 2014 right around the corner :confused: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919 |
Originally Posted by shiznit
(Post 740796)
You mean larger than the GE90 series that currently powers variants of the 777?
In answer to your question, it's highly unlikely that GE will offer a family of engines larger than the GE90. Al |
Originally Posted by Herkdrv
(Post 740901)
Why do you think its a mediocre aircraft?
I'll jump in here. I've flown the 73N, as well as several more modern Boeing designs. I was shocked when I displaced back to the -800. There must be 3 times the switches on the overhead panel. There's no EICAS, so you get to play "I've got a secret" when the lights and bells go off, despite the fact that in the bowels of the E&E compartment, it knows exactly what's out of sorts. That cockpit was left in it's antique state for one reason: so it could be flown as a common type with the '60s era 737-200. Boeing could have put a 777 cockpit on it, but then SWA would have had two categories. |
Yep, Boeing should have put the 757/767 overhead panel in the 737NG. :cool:
|
Herk,
I came off the 75/76 a few years ago and went thru 777 school, then quickly came to the 800 and was REAL disappointed! Do not know what FMS everyone else has but I sure do miss route 2 and abeam points. The box is mediocre at best, just has too much engineer in it for me and I thought the switching logic on the airplane itself would roughly parallel newer technology rather than the 727/old 737 days, but it is virtually the same. SAD!!! |
Originally Posted by Dirtdiver
(Post 741039)
I'll jump in here. I've flown the 73N, as well as several more modern Boeing designs. I was shocked when I displaced back to the -800. There must be 3 times the switches on the overhead panel. There's no EICAS, so you get to play "I've got a secret" when the lights and bells go off, despite the fact that in the bowels of the E&E compartment, it knows exactly what's out of sorts.
That cockpit was left in it's antique state for one reason: so it could be flown as a common type with the '60s era 737-200. Boeing could have put a 777 cockpit on it, but then SWA would have had two categories. I'm all for automation but I love performance. The -700 makes money flying HOU-AUS just the same as ISP-LAS. It's a very flexible aircraft and if it was so "marginal" there wouldn't be 3000+ aircraft in service. ;) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:41 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands