This is topic Step Aside Airbus! Boeing Just Left You In The Dust in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004772

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-18-2006, 07:45 PM:
 
From the Boeing Web Site News.......

"Boeing has rolled the first 747-400 Large Cargo Freighter (LCF) out of the hangar at Taipei's Chiang Kai-Shek International Airport. The enormous airplane is the first of three specially modified jets that will be used to transport major assemblies for the all-new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

"This is one of the most unusual modifications Boeing has ever done," said Scott Strode, 787 vice president of Airplane Development and Production. "We've relied on the world's best talent to design and build the LCF and we can all be proud today to see it standing on the tarmac."

Ground testing is under way to prepare the LCF for its first flight. After initial flight testing in Taipei, the LCF will fly to Seattle to complete the flight test program. First flight and the ferry flight to Seattle are expected to occur by the end of August.

The modifications have been performed by Evergreen Aviation Technologies Corp. (EGAT), a joint venture of EVA Air and General Electric and a part of Taiwan's Evergreen Group. The second airplane continues to be modified and will be completed this fall. The third airplane will begin modification next year. The first two LCFs enter service in 2007 to support the final assembly of the first Dreamliners.


 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-18-2006, 09:25 PM:
 
Kind of similar to the original "Guppy" and "Super Guppy" that were used to ferry huge rockets and other components for NASA (among other big things). I see thru Google that NASA has a newer Super Guppy, built by Airbus for the European Space Agency, originally.

NASA Super Guppy

I used to often see the first Guppy's parked outside their home-base hangars at Santa Barbara Airport, many years ago (gosh .. has it been almost 40!). They were operated by Aero Spacelines. To me, they were even more impressive than these new ones, as they didn't have an already-huge fuselage to start with.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-18-2006, 10:24 PM:
 

quote:

---

ESA supplied the aircraft to offset the cost to NASA of carrying ESA experiment equipment to the station as part of two future Space Shuttle flights.

---

Humm, In return for them carrying me to the ISS I could supply them with a working Sensurround processor to make the lift off noise even more realistic. Super Guppy certainly more represents the name "Airbus"!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-19-2006, 03:26 AM:
 
This Boeing vs. Airbus thing seems to be a "patrotic" fixation for Mark rather than a technical interest. Exactly what I meant when I said Mark is always ready for flagwaving but when he is called on to actually serve his country as in performing jury duty, the patrotism goes right out of the window.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-19-2006, 08:41 AM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

but when he is called on to actually serve his country as in performing jury duty

---

Humm, I never refused to do Jury Duty... I will definately make fun of the jury duty selection system.. or lack of it and I definately would not want to do jury duty but would do so if they insisted. There are plenty of retired folk they can tap for that purpose that have all day to do nothing. When I got my notice earlier this year I wrote on the return notice that they'd have to contact me through my employer if they needed me and that I'd probably have to drive back from Wyoming or Montana. IE: Since I am the only road tech for a large area it would have created a hardship for my employer and the Mormon legal system here happens to be sensitive to that .

As for Boeing VS Airbus... I have to admit that Airbus will never catch up to Boeing. The relative sizes of the Jets is irrelevant and the 747 will continute to outsell the Giant Airbus by a long shot because its prooven and more practical. A Boeing Jet lands or takes off somewhere in the world about every 2 seconds, One of the 5009 delivered 737's lands or takes off every 4.5 seconds.... While I am somewhat of a flag waver I still prefer to present the facts. Statistically Boeing also builds safer Jets.... # of crashes vs. hours of safe flight time.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Mark Hajducki (Member # 1732) on 08-19-2006, 09:16 AM:
 
Airbus already have a extra large cargo plane:



http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfamilies/beluga/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_Beluga
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-19-2006, 10:35 AM:
 
Its apparent that Boeing will have a hundred 787's flying before there are 6 of the new Airbus aloft.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-19-2006, 12:54 PM:
 
I found a neat web site, "All About Guppys", that tells (and shows) a lot of the history of these things.

All About Guppys

On the first page are pics of the new Boeing 747 LCF at roll out. With the added bits still in oxide primer.

Apparently, it was built in Taiwan! So much for All-American.

The site says the first 60's-versions, built by Aero Spacelines, were based on Boeing B-377 planes. And, of the old Guppy's that remain, one is located at Airbus! Kinda' ironic, huh? No doubt it taught them a lot about how to construct theirs.

Ron Yost
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-20-2006, 02:50 AM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

always ready for flagwaving

---

Exactly why now is it bad to flagwave? Or is it just bad for Americans to flagwave? This seems to be a common thread through the world that when Americans wave their flags they are seen as pushy and self serving, but any other country does it and the same people look at them and say to themselves "how darling".

And so many Americans in general seem to be ashamed to flag wave. I say lets get behind American companies and help them along. Lets tout what we have, not try to find some other alternative somewhere else because so many people here are suffering from some inner child problem.

GO AMERICA!!!
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-20-2006, 04:08 AM:
 
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

patriots are idolators whose reverence for a symbol is much deeper than their appreciation of what it purports to represent.

patriots feel more kinship for people thousands of miles away than those on the other side of a river, mountain range, or imaginary line.

patriots see every event in the world only as it affects their country, but refuse to acknowledge their country's effect on world events.

patriots divide the world into "us" and "them". they are the ideological stepchildren of racists, sexists, and other outmoded purveyors of bigotry. they fly planes into buildings. they put millions into concentration camps. they cheat at cards.

"The major cause of problems are solutions." every act of genocide is an act of patriotism, fully realized.

patriots. what on earth are they good for? absolutely nothing.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-20-2006, 05:11 AM:
 
Carl,

My god man.... who performed the brain washing on you? ?

Mark
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 08-20-2006, 05:35 AM:
 
i did it myself. but i am not your god man!
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-20-2006, 05:53 AM:
 

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Its apparent that Boeing will have a hundred 787's flying before there are 6 of the new Airbus aloft.

---

Quite possibly true, but hardly a valid comparison; have you ever considered a career in advertising, Mark? I'm sure that Airbus will sell more medium-sized passenger aircraft than Boeing will sell LCFs.

In recent years I've flown in four aircraft types; boeing 747, 767 and 777, and Airbus something, I'm not sure of the number, 340 possibly. I would say that I liked the 747 least, the Airbus next, and the 767 and 777 best; there were both advantages and didadvantages to the larger aircraft. Which company makes the better aircraft; I don't know, ask an airline; many of them operate aircraft from both manufacturers. By what criteria do you judge 'best' anyway? The accountants, maintenance people, pilots and passengers, amongst others, would no doubt all have different answers to that one.

From my point of veiw as a passenger, I would say that the airline involved made a much bigger difference than the make of the aircraft; come to think of it, the two aircraft that I liked least were operated by the airline that I liked least; they were also the older models; maybe that had something to do with it. I would certainly say that Continental were, in my limited experience, a much better airline than Virgin. Their aircraft were maintained in better condition, in terms of the passenger environment, I'm not suuesting that the Virgin craft were badly maintained in mechanical or safety terms, their cabin crew were much better, and there was far less annoying junk that you couldn't turn off on the seat-back monitors.

How much of Boeing aircraft are made in America, and how much of Airbus ones in Europe anyway? Many of the visible components are the same in both, and are clearly made by the same companies, no doubt in many different countries. If I was thinking of buying an aircraft, one of the last things I'd be considering would be where it was built, there are many other factors which would be of greater importance to me; even more so if I was simply thinking of flying in one, rather than buying it.

In terms of safety figures, I have no idea how Boeing and Airbus compare. Even here, you have to be careful. For most of it's life Concorde had a safety record which showed it to be the safest aircraft in the World, in terms of the number of passenger km flown; overnight it suddenly became one of the worst. Was Concorde any less safe after that accident than it had been the day before? Of course not, the issues which were involved had always been there. If Concorde had been retired a few years earlier it would have had a perfect safety record; as it is, it has a rather poor one, a large proportion (one) of the aircraft built were lost in serious accidents. I can't remember exactly how many Concordes were built, but if the same proportion of say 767s had been lost it would be seen as totally disasterous; Was Concorde a safe or an unsafe aircraft? I would tend to say that it was unsafe, even if that accident had never happened, because the design faults which led to it were always there. If the accident had had happened many years ago, and the remaining aircraft had been modified early in their lives I think it reasonable so say that it would have been a safer aircraft, even though the same number would have been built, and the same number lost.

Does America make things better than anybody else? Absolutely not. I don't see that many everyday things over here made in America, most things these days are made in Asia. From what I do see of American-made products, both here and over there, they are just as capable of producing total junk as any other country in the World; they also produce some of the best stuff, there's a huge variation in quality, probably greater than in most other places. I think there is some similarity with this country, in that expensive, high quality, small volume American made items, the Technicolor camera would be a good example, tend to be of the highest quality, whereas cheaper, everyday items, many domestic electrical fittings for example, often tend to be of rather poor quality compared to those made elsewhere. Of course in this country we've got round that problem; we no longer make anything .
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-20-2006, 05:59 AM:
 

quote: Dave Williams

---

Exactly why now is it bad to flagwave? Or is it just bad for Americans to flagwave? This seems to be a common thread through the world that when Americans wave their flags they are seen as pushy and self serving, but any other country does it and the same people look at them and say to themselves "how darling".

---

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

I said Mark is always ready for flagwaving but when he is called on to actually serve his country as in performing jury duty, the patrotism goes right out of the window.

---

Just teasing Mark a little here, of course, he knows that. Just enjoying that he got himself a little bit in a rhetorical corner with his earlier post about jury duty and all that.

Still, in general, it shouldn't be too difficult to understand that whatever "patriotism" actually is, it is not a cold buffet. You can't flagwave about the fact that you live in a - relatively - free country and then complain about having to give back a little to the country for these rights. The jury system as a model for participatory democracy is one of the fundamental institutions of American democracy and it is not just everyone's right to be tried by a jury rather than being dispensed judgment from above, but also everyone's duty to serve in the jury system. In other words, you shouldn't take whatever freedoms you enjoy for granted and not complain about having to give back a little now and then.
That doesn't mean that you can't criticize details of the process. Mark came back with a good reply here explaining what he doesn't like about the way it is implemented. What I am teasing him about is that he said earlier that he would prefer not to register to vote if the price for that would be to be called for jury duty. That is extremely "unpatriotic" since both the right to vote and to jury trial are fundamental elements of American democracy.
I am surprised that I as a foreigner have to explain that to you. If you want to flagwave, you should at least roughly understand what you celebrate and live up to what you celebrate. I don't think there is anything wrong if people like where and how they live and want to celebrate that, but as you have demonstrated so well with your post, it gets hollow pretty easily and then what is left is a hollow symbolism which does indeed hold all the dangers which Carl listed. It has been seen time and time again throughout history that that sort of uncritical "patriotism" can actually become the worst enemy of democracy very quickly.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-20-2006, 02:58 PM:
 
Some good points Michael! And my previous posting about jury duty that you pointed out shows that I am not always a flag waver. I do feel that voting and jury duty should not be tied together. Its nothing more than a shortcut for a county that is not properly run to drum up Jurors. This seems to be more of a county based sort of decision and it is not this way in all counties across the U.S.... there also needs to be some consideration for those requested to serve jury duty. Some counties will place you under arrest for not showing up even though you might be having a stroke or heart attack. That is ludicrous at best. Many times having to serve jusy duty causes a hardship for that person, his family, or his employer and possibly all three. Jury duty could be served in a better capacity and with a more open mind later in life for those that need to be excused due to hardships. Really, with everything I have going on YOU wouldn't want to be tried by a jury that I would sitting on..... .... or while I am sitting there thinking about everything I am now behind on at work while all the evidence about your innocence is presented. Basically a county demanding that you serve jusy duty is not a free county to be living in. Serving jury duty should be an honorable thing that everyone should get to do at least once but at the right time in one's life.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-21-2006, 02:23 AM:
 
There's nothing wrong at all with wanting to celebrate what you feel are the positive aspects of 'your' country (defined as the one the one you were born in and/or relocated to), just as long as that doesn't make you blind to its problems and/or lead to inconsistencies. For example, most western democracies, the US included, operate the principle that free trade within and between countries should be allowed to happen unless there is a very powerful reason not to allow it. That annoys me somewhat about the Airbus/Boeing business: surely airlines should be buying the best plane for the job in hand, not having a situation whereby US airlines buy Boeings simply because they're American, or Air France buys Airbuses simply because they're built in Chirac's back yard. In reality, the industry needs at least two makers of big airliners, both to ensure price competition, global security (if there was only one, it or the government above it could start restricting the sale of planes for political reasons) and ongoing R & D. The current system, whereby Boeing is massively subsidised by US Government military contracts and Airbus through the EU gravy train, doesn't look particularly good on paper, but it appears to more-or-less work in practice.

I now fly quite frequently for work (around 20-30 trips a year, including 2-3 long hauls), and to be honest I've never seriously worried about safety in relation to aircraft type; because maintenance and design are now so reliable that your chances of being involved in an air accident are a lot lower than being killed while driving to work. One of my memories of growing up in the '70s and '80s was that there would be a plane crash (or hijacking) on the news seemingly all the time: now, an airliner being lost with all on board is very rare indeed, and when it does happen, the culprit is usually Air Sodomistan (i.e. some dodgy third world outfit), not a reputable airline in a developed country.

I do remember the Chicago DC-10 crash and the subsequent accusations that it was a fundamentally unsafe aircraft, and I have to admit that I was just a tiny bit nervous when I started flying long haul regularly to be doing so on, you guessed it, DC-10s. I've now done about 15 transatlantic trips in them, and the worst that ever happened was the reading light and video projector used for the in-flight film not working. After the first flight I didn't really worry about DC-10 crashes again, except when trading bad-taste jokes with my cousin (an aeronautical engineer). Northwest are now getting rid of them and last month I took my first trip in their replacement, the A330. Comfort and facilities wise it was a massive improvement: in particular it was a lot quieter in the cabin. I'm sure its direct Boeing competitor (the 777?) is, too. Presumably this US airline bought Airbuses because they were most suited to the routes and passenger loads that had previously used DC-10s, and/or the price was right; just as a French or UK airline would have no hesistation in buying Boeings for the same reason.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 08-21-2006, 03:44 AM:
 

quote: Michael Schaffer

---

I am surprised that I as a foreigner have to explain that to you. If you want to flagwave, you should at least roughly understand what you celebrate and live up to what you celebrate. I don't think there is anything wrong if people like where and how they live and want to celebrate that, but as you have demonstrated so well with your post, it gets hollow pretty easily and then what is left is a hollow symbolism which does indeed hold all the dangers which Carl listed. It has been seen time and time again throughout history that that sort of uncritical "patriotism" can actually become the worst enemy of democracy very quickly.

---

quote: Leo Enticknap

---

I do remember the Chicago DC-10 crash and the subsequent accusations that it was a fundamentally unsafe aircraft, and I have to admit that I was just a tiny bit nervous when I started flying long haul regularly to be doing so on, you guessed it, DC-10s.

---

Having lost a Kodak colleague on that fateful ORD to LAX DC-10 flight, I think about it every time I fly. I said goodbye to John Lakotas that morning, as he left for his flight back home after a Rochester meeting.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-21-2006, 01:49 PM:
 

quote: Carl Martin

---

the first is samuel johnson

---

quote: Carl Martin

---

the second is by eric severeid

---