EADS over Boeing and BAE?

UK Plane Talks

found this interesting..

Yeah EADS has a huge advantage over Boeing and Lockheed in that technology transfer is easier, Currency works better with a corporation trading in Euro's, and finally, they make the BEST equipment!

EADS is defintily better. it embodies all parts of boeing and lockheed. the infrastructure in europe is better and the scientist working for eads are much better educated. although there is a brain drain from europe to the usa, the top scientist are still loyal to their origin.
and even in civilian aricraft eads has overtaken boeing. i think that says everything.

Originally posted by Nucleartomato
EADS is defintily better. it embodies all parts of boeing and lockheed. the infrastructure in europe is better and the scientist working for eads are much better educated. although there is a brain drain from europe to the usa, the top scientist are still loyal to their origin.
and even in civilian aricraft eads has overtaken boeing. i think that says everything.

As soon as EADS has a greater profit margin than Boeing or Lockheed I will believe that they are doing it better and cheaper. Till then I will stick with the American companies, they set the standard for the rest of the world to follow.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Nucleartomato
EADS is defintily better. it embodies all parts of boeing and lockheed. the infrastructure in europe is better and the scientist working for eads are much better educated. although there is a brain drain from europe to the usa, the top scientist are still loyal to their origin.
and even in civilian aricraft eads has overtaken boeing. i think that says everything.

As soon as EADS has a greater profit margin than Boeing or Lockheed I will believe that they are doing it better and cheaper. Till then I will stick with the American companies, they set the standard for the rest of the world to follow.

well...as long as we are talking military aircraft...probably yes. the americans are currently way to advanced. but considereing civilian aircraft, eg A380..there is nothing comparable that boeing can offer, except for the 747...which is well behind the technology and design used in the airbus.

well...as long as we are talking military aircraft...probably yes. the americans are currently way to advanced. but considereing civilian aircraft, eg A380..there is nothing comparable that boeing can offer, except for the 747...which is well behind the technology and design used in the airbus.

And what about this one?



Boeing sonic cruiser :
it will carry 225 passengers, about half as many as a Boeing 747, the plane that opened the era of widebody flight in 1969. Nudging the sound barrier at Mach .98, the Sonic Cruiser will move hundreds of miles per hour slower than the British-French Concorde SST, which also has been flying since 1969. Despite these apparent limitations, the new Boeing plane has caused a stir within the aviation industry because it promises, at long last, to deliver what passengers say they most want from modern jet travel�a faster and more comfortable ride to distant destinations. Take off from New York City after a late breakfast and arrive in downtown Los Angeles for lunch. The trip is roughly an hour faster than the current ride on conventional airliners, which travel at about Mach .80. Raw speed is only part of the reason for the faster flight. The Sonic Cruiser flies at 45,000 ft. "Flying higher offers a smoother ride and gets you above most traffic," says Mike Bair, Boeing's executive vice president for aviation services. Getting to cruising altitude won't necessarily make the Sonic Cruiser popular with the white-knuckle crowd. After a brisk dash down the runway, it will climb out steep and fast, leveling off at nearly 2 miles higher than other airliners. Landing will begin with a shallow dive instead of a gentle descent. But putting the thrill back in flying is just icing on the cake. The reason for the fast climb and descent is to spend as much time as possible at the more efficient higher altitude.

I have on HUGE query here!

"The Pentagon has held up a contract valued at more than $20 billion for Boeing to provide 100 767 tankers to the U.S. Air Force"

But Britain only gets 20 aircraft for its $24billion!

Add to this, for Britains 20 billion it doesnt even own the aircraft, whereas the USAF will own theirs.

How stupid is the British government? This is one pretty big rip off!

For 24 billion the RAF should get 125 aircraft?

Are this british tankers from Boeing or from other company???

The boeing sonic cruiser program has been cancelled.

And what others already said, Airbus is much more innovative than boeing (with civilian aircraft).
Boeing still relies on old 'fashioned' alumin(i)um, while Airbus will use (/ is already using) the much lighter, and stronger 'GLARE' material. Which is made of two thin layers of aluminum, and two layers of fibreglass bonded together, each layer about one millimetre thick.

I have had a piece of this material, it's very strong and super light.

www.delftaerospace.com...


[Edited on 20-4-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

Originally posted by ppp
I have on HUGE query here!

"The Pentagon has held up a contract valued at more than $20 billion for Boeing to provide 100 767 tankers to the U.S. Air Force"

But Britain only gets 20 aircraft for its $24billion!

Add to this, for Britains 20 billion it doesnt even own the aircraft, whereas the USAF will own theirs.

How stupid is the British government? This is one pretty big rip off!

For 24 billion the RAF should get 125 aircraft?

I believe that this has to do with the fact that the British gov can't pay for the upkeep of 100 tankers or they only need 20. with lower numbers comes much higher cost.

As for whoever made the comment that Europe scientists are better then American ones and they make the best stuff, I am just going to laugh in your face.

get real - you want to talk about education - go to MIT and see just how "uneducated" these guys are. Better yet, go check out just how low tech our military aircraft are.

Originally posted by longbow

well...as long as we are talking military aircraft...probably yes. the americans are currently way to advanced. but considereing civilian aircraft, eg A380..there is nothing comparable that boeing can offer, except for the 747...which is well behind the technology and design used in the airbus.

And what about this one?



Boeing sonic cruiser :
it will carry 225 passengers, about half as many as a Boeing 747, the plane that opened the era of widebody flight in 1969. Nudging the sound barrier at Mach .98, the Sonic Cruiser will move hundreds of miles per hour slower than the British-French Concorde SST, which also has been flying since 1969. Despite these apparent limitations, the new Boeing plane has caused a stir within the aviation industry because it promises, at long last, to deliver what passengers say they most want from modern jet travel�a faster and more comfortable ride to distant destinations. Take off from New York City after a late breakfast and arrive in downtown Los Angeles for lunch. The trip is roughly an hour faster than the current ride on conventional airliners, which travel at about Mach .80. Raw speed is only part of the reason for the faster flight. The Sonic Cruiser flies at 45,000 ft. "Flying higher offers a smoother ride and gets you above most traffic," says Mike Bair, Boeing's executive vice president for aviation services. Getting to cruising altitude won't necessarily make the Sonic Cruiser popular with the white-knuckle crowd. After a brisk dash down the runway, it will climb out steep and fast, leveling off at nearly 2 miles higher than other airliners. Landing will begin with a shallow dive instead of a gentle descent. But putting the thrill back in flying is just icing on the cake. The reason for the fast climb and descent is to spend as much time as possible at the more efficient higher altitude.

It was canned some time ago, they then changed their future direction to longer range, cheaper aircraft and are now developing the 7E7

"I believe that this has to do with the fact that the British gov can't pay for the upkeep of 100 tankers or they only need 20. with lower numbers comes much higher cost."

Well in that case logic would say buy 100 aircraft, then keep 20 for the RAF, 20 in reserve, and let the RAF Tornado F3 have fun with the other 60, or just sell/give them to British airline companies to help them hammer their competition!

This would save 4 billion which can be spent on a few hundred extra nuclear warheads for dumping on any country that sounds like France, Germany, China or Russia