Article

2006-09-15 Europe

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-09-15 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 BAE is bailing?

Posted by 6 2006-09-15 00:43|| 2006-09-15 00:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Boeing officials were unavailable for comment due to 'round-the-clock mandatory attendance smirking sessions.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-15 01:54|| 2006-09-15 01:54|| Front Page Top

#3 And, of course, the new 5% investment by the Ruskies is sure to turn things around for EADS

Posted by Captain America 2006-09-15 02:42|| 2006-09-15 02:42|| Front Page Top

#4 Yes, BAE is bailing. Think they know when they see a turkey?

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-09-15 10:40|| 2006-09-15 10:40|| Front Page Top

#5 ROFLMAO!!! What a pic accompanying the article posted.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-09-15 11:22|| 2006-09-15 11:22|| Front Page Top

#6 BAE decide to pull out last spring. And, Zen, Boeing has nothing to smirk about. They've bet the whole farm on the 787 and Mullaly waited for the perfect moment to screw them by abruptly leaving. They better hope everything continues on an even keel for the 787. They haven't won a fighter contract since they took over McDonnell, which used to win with regularity. Their other operations are behind schedule or losing orders. I think their existence depends on 787. But, it should. That's their core and they need to get back to it.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-09-15 11:30|| 2006-09-15 11:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Turner also said he believes there are risks over Airbus' A400M military transport plane program.

Wonder if that had anything to do with yesterday's announcement that NATO would buy C-17s for their airlift capacity.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-09-15 11:32|| 2006-09-15 11:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Since BAE has yet to sell its stake in EADS, why would Turner be speaking openly about problems at Airbus that could diminish the value of that investment?

Posted by Classical_Liberal 2006-09-15 13:24|| 2006-09-15 13:24|| Front Page Top

#9 BAE has been saying publicly that they are (considering) selling for about a month or better. Don't underestimate Boeing and their product line. prediction: the LCF airplanes they built (three specially configured 747s for hauling 787 parts) for internal use will be sought after by other operators of outsize air cargo, and BCAC will be only too happy to recoup their investment in them. There are an awful lot of older 747 airframes out there that are prime candidates for the conversion. It starts with cutting away about all but the wings, cockpit and landing gear and putting new skin on it.

Posted by USN, ret. 2006-09-15 16:08|| 2006-09-15 16:08|| Front Page Top

#10 ....chortle...chortle....heh...heh...hah....hah....OH! Excuse me. I was just laughing my ass off. Kinda get that way when another euro program is going down the crapper.

Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-09-15 16:22|| 2006-09-15 16:22|| Front Page Top

#11 SOP35/Rat, right about now, anything that puts the kibosh on Europe's oversized hijacker's wet dream suits me just fine. Boeing has done their homework and presented the market with exactly what cost-conscious and fuel-conserving carriers need. An intermediate range craft with good passenger capacity and light-weight composite construction.

Compare this to the European behemoth that can seat almost 900 people and the extremely restricted market appeal it will have and I think Boeing has positioned themselves rather well. Yes, business could be better but at least Boeing has brought a useful design to market.

Posted by Zenster 2006-09-15 16:55|| 2006-09-15 16:55|| Front Page Top

#12 Here is a free idea (possibly indicating its worth, heh) for Boeing to put in their proposal to the USAF.

There is a sh*tload of B-747-200 airframes out there to buy up cheap. They ought to carry 230,000 lb of payload, IIRC. Reconfigure to fly remotely, and install a magazine to hold 8-10 MOABS. Configure a tube in the pressure hull like a torpedo tube, an airlock, if you will. Make the whole thing work like a revolver pistol. You can fly hellacious MOAB loads over places like Iran, one after another and systematically take out serious infrastructure. Just an off-the-napkin idea for getting a govt. Contract. Will haul more that a BUFF any day.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-09-15 20:35|| 2006-09-15 20:35|| Front Page Top

#13 Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's feasible. It would make for a VERY challenging flight control problem, I suspect, even if the 747s were fly by wire (which they're not, IIUC).

But maybe someone else here is more knowledgeable on that than I am.

Posted by lotp 2006-09-15 21:09|| 2006-09-15 21:09|| Front Page Top

#14 Yes, lotp, but it was a cool idea.

Who's gonna leak it to the NY Times?

Posted by Bobby 2006-09-15 22:04|| 2006-09-15 22:04|| Front Page Top

#15 Or just fill the 747-200 airframe with MOAB type explosives and enough electronics to turn it into a big damm cruise missile.

Posted by 3dc 2006-09-15 22:20|| 2006-09-15 22:20|| Front Page Top

23:57 anon1
23:55 trailing wife
23:46 anon1
23:36 anon1
23:36 Rafael
23:32 DMFD
23:30 Swamp Blondie
23:26 trailing wife
23:24 macofromoc
23:24 tipper
23:20 anon1
23:19 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:15 anon1
23:15 Rafael
23:15 Zenster
23:13 Swamp Blondie
23:12 djohn66
23:11 Zenster
23:10 Zenster
23:08 Zenster
23:07 Bernardz
23:06 anon1
23:06 FOTSGreg