Boeing to delay first delivery of 787

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.travel.air mrtravel wrote:
William Black wrote:


I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city of
Bombay...


Isn't it called Mumbai now?

Yep. It is. BOM = VABB = Mumbai.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHDuyIyBkZmuMZ8L8RAg3NAKDhwHgzDUK92jQ7I0Y9JI 0/Bmv5FACfdX3U
JstD4/OTfV/fiamqw/t/Hv4=
=/DAd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. ..
William Black wrote:


I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city
of Bombay...


Isn't it called Mumbai now?

Sometimes, by some people.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore

"mrtravel" wrote in message
. ..
William Black wrote:


I love to know where to put the next Bombay airport, so would the city
of Bombay...


Isn't it called Mumbai now?

Depends on who you talk to.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Oct 11, 11:22 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:24:30 -0700, me
wrote:
[snip]
Again true, but it is looking increasingly likely that Boeing was dead
right about the A380 and it is looking increasingly unlikely that
enough will be sold to make a profit, especially with all the
penalties Aitbus has to pay

I was one who basically figured Boeing knew what they
were talking about, so it's a little self serving for me to be
predicting the A380 demise. They figure these things it
terms of decades and alot can change in that time. Airbus'
troubles are relatively short term there. Their problem
will be if they don't ever achieve their efficiency/capacity
problems. But if they do, and markets change
in their favor, they have to sell something like 500 of them
to be safely into profits. On a world wide scale, with
roughly no direct competition, that's not alot of aircraft.
Boeing thinks the overall market has room for about 900
of this "class".

Well, I don't know where these supposed market changes are supposed to
come from.

They are already here to some extent. The entire Asian continent
and
surrounding areas are expanding fast commercially. It's part
of what is driving up the price of oil. The prediction is that as
these
economic expansions filter down and create "middle class" like
income brackets, you'll see greater mobility of those classes,
and they'll demand transportation.

The A380 may make sense for cases where true airport
capacity has been reached (like Heathrow) and a few routes already
defined, but the 787 makes a lot more sense on most other routes where
more frequent smaller capacity is what is desired by customers

One of the possible scenarios is that BOTH planes will do
very well. The 787 will provide alot of point to point capacity,
and the A380 will provide the kind of mass movement between
major destinations that are becoming relatively capacity limited.
I just have trouble with that model. The tendency up to now has
to been to use more, smaller, flights and pursue point to point
flights. When airport capacity is reached, you start using other
airports. There will be a handful of places that don't have
airports available within a couple hours, but can one build an
aircraft design for basically just because of those airports?

John Kulp wrote:

I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.

That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.


Why is it called the 747-8 and not the 747-500? What's the
significance of the number "8?" If Boeing were going to go
to single-digit version numbers, one would've thought that
they'd call the new one the 747-5.



Geoff

--
"Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the
vanquished were of course exterminated. -- Voltaire

Frank F. Matthews writes:

Isn't it called Mumbai now?

By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.


The Economist, being left of center, uses "Mumbai" and "Myanmar."



Geoff

--
"Since the whole affair had become one of religion, the
vanquished were of course exterminated. -- Voltaire

"Geoff Miller" wrote in message
...


Frank F. Matthews writes:

Isn't it called Mumbai now?

By some. I haven't noticed what the BBC uses. It was interesting to
hear their constant use of burma during their discussions of the recent
events there.


The Economist, being left of center, uses "Mumbai" and "Myanmar."

Which is interesting because 'Mumbai' was introduced by extreme right
wingers.

Mind you, I assume you mean the US Economist.

I which case we can assume the usual incredible level of ignorance about
anything outside the Continental United States that hasn't been bombed by
the USAF in the past couple of years...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Oct 12, 12:26 pm, (Geoff Miller) wrote:
John Kulp wrote:
I assume you're refering to the 747-8. This isn't quite the plane
Boeing originally try to sell to compete with the A380. They had
something a bit closer to 500 seats. They gave up on that one.
The -8 is just another in a long line of stretches and engine
mods.
That's the plane alright. And they are selling as freighters.

Why is it called the 747-8 and not the 747-500? What's the
significance of the number "8?" If Boeing were going to go
to single-digit version numbers, one would've thought that
they'd call the new one the 747-5.


FWIW wikipikiea says:

"Boeing named the new airliner "747-8" because of the technology it
will share with that [787] aircraft."

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:38:16 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
wrote:


So did Airbus. So what's the big deal? The 787 is infinitely more
successful than the A380 which may well never be profitable and then
tried to flog a basic A350 as an alternative to the 787 which
absolutely no one wanted. New aircraft delays are nothing new anyway.
Big deal.

You missed the point. Airbus was the first with delays, yes.
Boeing (here we go again) *publicly stated* that they would not
encounter any delays in the production of the B787.


Big deal.


Now they've come full circle and say they have delays. That
totally tarnishes all that they've said in the buildup to the B787.
They really can't talk now. They have delays too. It's like when David
Lee Roth left Van Halen. He released an album called "Eat 'em and
Smile" while VH with Sammy Hagar releaed "5150". 5150 didn't sell as
well as Eat 'em and Smile. Then Roth released Hot in the Shade, which
bombed. Egg on his face. VH released "OU812" which skyrocketed. Both
album titles were messages to the other party who were enemies.


Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the
787.

On Oct 12, 1:45 pm, (John Kulp) wrote:
[snip]
Big deal. They only have the most successful airplane ever in the 787.

Not sure how you're measuring that, but they might have a tough time
ever surpassing the DC-3. The 727 was pretty good too, depending upon
ones basis of measure. And the truth is the 747 is still going so to
speak.
Can't exactly close the book on it.