7E7 Windows

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
it's not fuel, but thrust. the A321 has barely enough for full loads on
hot/high airports.


The original A340-300 had barely enough for full loads at any airport. Yet,
they built 2 stretches, the 500 and 600 with new more powerful engines. And
they now build -300s with improved engines that give newer -300s a less
letharigc performance.

I suspect that it is a question of market predictions. Where frequent service
is needed, nothing much bigger than 320/321 will be wanted by airlines. And
where frequency isn't an issue, airlines will want the bigger, more efficient
aircraft at least 767 sized.

In article , nobody
wrote:

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
it's not fuel, but thrust. the A321 has barely enough for full loads on
hot/high airports.


The original A340-300 had barely enough for full loads at any airport. Yet,
they built 2 stretches, the 500 and 600 with new more powerful engines. And

Do you think the A321 has clearance for a bigger fan?

they now build -300s with improved engines that give newer -300s a less
letharigc performance.

"less lethargic". means that it isn't as bad as it used to be but is
pretty bad.....

I suspect that it is a question of market predictions. Where frequent service
is needed, nothing much bigger than 320/321 will be wanted by airlines. And
where frequency isn't an issue, airlines will want the bigger, more efficient
aircraft at least 767 sized.

Nik wrote:


"erikg3" wrote in message ...


James Anatidae wrote:



It's rather ironic that when Boeing took over McDonnell-Douglas

Actually, if you look at the board make-up, etc. MacDAC took over Boeing!


Ah - ha - this must be the reason why Boeing is loosing out to Airbus!

Nik.

Ah - no. The actual reason is that NO company on earth can ever win against a
company that is subsidized by the governments of 4 major countries willing to
pour unlimited BILLIONS of euros into it to ensure that it is the dominant
aircraft manufacturer in the world.

Boeing, being no fools, realized this years ago and threw in the towel, moved to
Chicago, and the rest is history.

John wrote:
Ah - no. The actual reason is that NO company on earth can ever win against a
company that is subsidized by the governments of 4 major countries willing to
pour unlimited BILLIONS of euros into it to ensure that it is the dominant
aircraft manufacturer in the world.

The subsidies Airbus gets are now pale on comparison to the subsidies Boeing
gets. Didn't Bush Jr just sign a 400 BILLION dollar military budget, above and
beyond the 87 billion for his invasion of iraq ? I suspect that a substantial
proportion of that amount will go to Boeing. And then there are all the
subsidies Boeing gets by overcharging NASA for all the work Boeing does for
NASA. And then consider the recent subsidies to keep the 767 production line open.


Airbus also gets military contracts (aka: subsidies), but not anywhere near in
the same order of magnitude.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
John wrote:
Ah - no. The actual reason is that NO company on earth can ever win
against a
company that is subsidized by the governments of 4 major countries
willing to
pour unlimited BILLIONS of euros into it to ensure that it is the
dominant
aircraft manufacturer in the world.

The subsidies Airbus gets are now pale on comparison to the subsidies
Boeing
gets. Didn't Bush Jr just sign a 400 BILLION dollar military budget, above
and
beyond the 87 billion for his invasion of iraq ? I suspect that a
substantial
proportion of that amount will go to Boeing. And then there are all the
subsidies Boeing gets by overcharging NASA for all the work Boeing does
for
NASA. And then consider the recent subsidies to keep the 767 production
line open.


Airbus also gets military contracts (aka: subsidies), but not anywhere
near in
the same order of magnitude.

And do not forget the sweet tax deals that Boeing has been enjoying for
years on their export! Government support comes in many forms and shapes!

Nik