From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jay Vassos-Libove) Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Date: 14 Mar 96 17:49:33 References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
I rarely find myself in disagreement with Robert, but in this case I wonder -- he says that "for anyone to attempt a *new* design is madness" ... but Boeing just did exactly that with the 777. Why is attempting a new design in any large, expensive, relatively limited market area by its very nature a recipe for madness/disaster? Robert Dorsett (email@example.com) wrote: : In article <airliners.1996.309@ohare.Chicago.COM> carvalho@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Tassio A. Carvalho) writes: : >That only happens because the 747 has been around for a long time. : >The A3XX is Airbus' self destruction button. : >Boeing's own production estimates for the 747 derivatives : >look pretty conservative (~25/year). : : The May 27, 1978 issue of FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL (back when the magazine was : actually pretty cool) had a story in which they discussed Boeing's finally : having recovered its development and production costs on the 747--at the : 400-airplane mark. : : Even adjusted for inflation, development costs for a new airplane are going : to be astronomical, and for anyone to attempt a *new* design is madness, : assuming that the development and production costs are to be provided by : actual sales of the product. -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@MindSpring.com 11575 Laurel Lake Drive +1 770 552 0543 Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A.