Boeing Gets Largest Order Ever - Pretty Big

[Jimbeaux]

230 Plane order. Nice catch there.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-locks-biggest...

[Deva Link]

I wonder if they'll ever deliver (and get paid for) any part of that contract?

[davepoth]

Amazing that the 737 is still "the right plane" after all these years.

[Jimbeaux]

Deva Link said:

I wonder if they'll ever deliver (and get paid for) any part of that contract?

Yea, I wonder what kind of mitigation, if any, is taken against that?

[Jimbeaux]

davepoth said:

Amazing that the 737 is still "the right plane" after all these years.

Sort of like the F-15; lasts through decades of electronic updates.

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

"Lion Air plans to pay for the planes over 12 years with bank financing."

Good luck with that, Boeing!

[Eric Mc]

davepoth said:

Amazing that the 737 is still "the right plane" after all these years.

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

[Jimbeaux]

Eric, the "cracked wings made in the UK" thing with Airbus.....is that some sort of design quirk, bad QA, or overblown issue? Are other consortium partners pointing fingers? Not to downplay "cracked wings" but I know that sometimes this is misinterpreted. It is usually not as if they are about to fly apart is it? What is your take?

Edited by Jimbeaux on Sunday 19th February 23:26

[davepoth]

Eric Mc said:

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

Absolutely - I expect the name is the only bit that's stayed the same. But in terms of general configuration it's not really all that different from the original.

[Eric Mc]

The basic fuselage is the same - essentially a cut down 707. Much of everything else is quite different.

At the moment, I'm knocking together the old Airfix model of the 737-200. At some point in the future I'll put together the Minicraft model of the 737-300/400 - so it will be interesting to compare the differences.
Model making is a good way to get a (literally) hands on feel for aircraft evolution.

Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 19th February 23:38

[Hooli]

davepoth said:

Eric Mc said:

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

Absolutely - I expect the name is the only bit that's stayed the same. But in terms of general configuration it's not really all that different from the original.

A fat tube, lots of seats, two engines & some horizontal bits. Could describe any airliner really (except for the number of engines).

[Jimbeaux]

Hooli said:

davepoth said:

Eric Mc said:

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

Absolutely - I expect the name is the only bit that's stayed the same. But in terms of general configuration it's not really all that different from the original.

A fat tube, lots of seats, two engines & some horizontal bits. Could describe any airliner really (except for the number of engines).

Don't be so scientific there, you are loosing me.

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

There's an advert on TV I think for Singapore airlines that says the A380 has enough cable inside to stretch from London to Newcastle - but funnily enough it doesn't mention wings made from ropey material built by taffs

[davepoth]

Hooli said:

davepoth said:

Eric Mc said:

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

Absolutely - I expect the name is the only bit that's stayed the same. But in terms of general configuration it's not really all that different from the original.

A fat tube, lots of seats, two engines & some horizontal bits. Could describe any airliner really (except for the number of engines).

It's not just that though - the airline passenger of 1967 was a lot different to the airline passenger of today, as were the airports. Lots of other planes have been designed and subsequently dropped since the 737, in the same sort of size class too, but none has been as successful.

[Chuck328]

davepoth said:

Hooli said:

davepoth said:

Eric Mc said:

The 737 of 2012 is a very different machine to the oroginal 737 of 1967.

Absolutely - I expect the name is the only bit that's stayed the same. But in terms of general configuration it's not really all that different from the original.

A fat tube, lots of seats, two engines & some horizontal bits. Could describe any airliner really (except for the number of engines).

It's not just that though - the airline passenger of 1967 was a lot different to the airline passenger of today, as were the airports. Lots of other planes have been designed and subsequently dropped since the 737, in the same sort of size class too, but none has been as successful.

Airbus aren't doing too badly given the time scale.

[Burnedout]

I love this bit about Lion Air:
Quote:
"In January 2012, the Transportation Ministry says that it sanctioned Lion Air because some of its pilots and crew members were found in recent months to be in possession of crystal methamphetamine. Lion Air has been reprimanded and the licenses of the pilots and crew have been revoked. In early 2011 a crew member was arrested by Jakarta Police for possessing crystal meth; in late 2011 Muhammad Nasri along with two other co-pilots were arrested at a party in Tangerang; and in early 2012 a pilot was caught in possession of crystal meth in Makassar.[9] On 4 February 2012, another pilot of Lion Air was arrested following an positive urinalysis test for use of methamphetamine, although he was scheduled to fly on Surabaya-Makassar-Balikpapan-Surabaya flight hours later.[10] In early February 2012, a former airline stewardess who resigned in 2008 received threats after claiming that most pilots were regular drug users. The threats came from Lion Air employees by SMS, although she did not specifically mention Lion Air in her television remarks.[11]"Quote