Current Production

[Guest]

Hi all, Question... Of the following Boeing aircraft types, which are NO LONGER in production? 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777. If any model of the above types are in production I would consider the type in production.Thanks - swj

[Chris_CYWG 0]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/overview/overview3.html

[Guest]

Thanks Chris.

[Guest BP]

Add to your list of Non-Production (future), the Sonic Transport. That concept was recently scrubbed due to lack of customer demand/support/interest and extremely high R&D costs. Maybe in 20 years though.

[Guest gooper]

u may soon, unfortunately, add the 757 to that list as i read an article today stating that if orders do not pick up soon that plane will join the 707,727 in the graveyard.

[tgibson 11]

Yeah, replaced by the 3rd generation 737-800/900's with transcon range capability.-- Tom GibsonCalifornia Classic Propliners: http://www.calclassic.com/Cal Classic Alco Page: http://www.calclassic.com/alco/Freeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.com/ San Diego Model RR Museum: http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/Drop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[tgibson 11]

Of course, this lists only their past jet airliners, not "airplanes" as stated on the web page. Other past airliners by "Boeing":B247B307 StratolinerB377 StratocruiserDC-1DC-2DC-3DC-4DC-5DC-6DC-7:)-- Tom GibsonCalifornia Classic Propliners: http://www.calclassic.com/Cal Classic Alco Page: http://www.calclassic.com/alco/Freeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.com/ San Diego Model RR Museum: http://www.sdmodelrailroadm.com/Drop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Guest]

In production:717 - In production in Long Beach CA, where the great DC jetliners were all made. Formerly the MD-95. Pretty much a DC-9 30 or 50 series with a full glass cockpit, FMC and much more powerful, fuel efficient engines and I think a more fuel-efficient wing. Last in the long line of historic Douglas airliners. Unless I have my dates wrong, it was designed by Douglas before the McDonnell merger.C-17 - In production, also at Long Beach. High tech, high performance cargo jet, capable of getting in and out of very tight fields, both improved and unimproved (read cow pasture). Survived teething pains to become a very successful jet for the Air Force. Designed by McDonnel Douglas before the merger.737 - 600,700 and 800 + a convertable freighter in production at Renton, WA. See my notes about the 757 and mother-in-laws and you will get a sense about how I feel about a 737 that can fly from Boston to San Francisco. I am very happy to see an A-320 at the gate for anything longer than a 2 hour flight vs. a 737 or 757. More room, wider seats, less cramped. 757 - 200 and 300 series plus a 200 freigher in production at Renton as well - won't cry a drop if they stop making it. Most uncomfortable plane for a passenger, period. Pretty much a stretch 737, except faster. Bloody flying school bus in anything but AA's more legroom configuration and UAL's Premiere Plus seating area. Do everything you can to avoid flying one in Delta, Northwest or US Airways unless you want to get to know your chiropractor better. Too few lavs except for the few carriers that didn't rip out the mid-cabin sit-downs for more seats. Of course, the mid cabin lavs smelled bad if you were unfortunate enough to sit near one....The newest 757 (the 300 - having trouble finding it, look for the planes that look like stretch DC-8s with two engines, landing with no more than 2 degrees nose up at the airport for fear of breaking off the tail...) adds even more seats (and probably no more lavs). Some carriers fly these beasts trans-atlantic. Would rather spend a weeked at my mother in laws than sit in a 757 for more than 2 hours. An interesting note is that the plane almost didn't make production because the time needed to turn the plane around wouldn't fit most airline's economic models. It takes too bloody long to get everyone on and off - nice thing to remember if you ever have to get off in a hurry (like the plane is on fire...). Not sure what the fix was here - other than changes in training and/or schedules. 747 - 400 model and 400-cargo liner in production at Everett WA. Queen of the skies. Nice plane if you don't have to sit in the middle section and don't score an aisle seat (there are a lot of those). Look to Boeing to introduce new variants to counter the Airbus A380 flying apartment buildings which will be appearing at airports near you in three to four years. An ER version just recieved certification, and I think a lot of folks expect the second deck to be extended or another fuselage plug to add more seats. According to Boeing, this is the fastest commercial plane out there. 767 In production - 200, 300 and 400 models plus a dedicated freighter at Everett WA. Popular now mostly on Trans-Atlantic and trans-con routes. Delta flys more than any other airline - especially the older 200 models. UAL has a bunch too. Lots of aisle and window seats. The 300 is a nice plane, accomodating three classes easilly. The 200s are tired and Boeing now only makes an extended range version for oceanic flights. The were introduced in the late seventies or early 80-s and the design is showing its age. I also understand from reading some pilot's sites they fly like pigs as well - the 300 was a big improvement in flight handeling. 777 In production in two models, the 200 and 300, with long and extra long range versions of both, also at Everett. Flat out the best plane for passenger comfort and ammenities. Steep sided fuselage makes it much less claustrophobic than the flying pencil 757 or the still very round 767. Lots of lavs. Fast as well. UAL's come with private video screens on each seat. Nice touch.

[Guest]

Thank you all for the info!, I think I found out way more than I asked, but this is a good thing...I guess with the exception of the 777, all the Boeings are getting a little long in tooth. Having read the cancellation of the 'Sonic', I wonder what they will come up with next. With a trans-con 737 it seems they have the bases covered for passenger and the 747 for hauling freight and large numbers. It just seems odd that a company I looked up to as kid seems to be relying on 30+ year old designs to carry it into the future. I guess the economic stakes are just too high.

[Guest]

You are not the first person to come to that conclusion. In one sense, it is a testament to the soundness of the original design that the venerable 737 has evolved into a plane as large as the original 707. On the other hand, Airbus is eating Boeing's lunch, and it is not just because of the government subsidies you hear so much about. Airlines and passengers like their airplanes. Airlines in particular, because it is so easy to transition pilots between their various models as the cockpits are essentially identical in all. Boeing does offer a complete family of planes, as does Airbus. But were you to take a tour of randomly selected 737, 747, 757, 767 and 777 models (I left out the 717 becuase it came with the McDonnel deal) at a major airline like United, you would find a confusing array of cockpit layouts, even within models. The 737, for example, has 300- and 400-series models with analogue gauges, 300-, 400- and 500- models with semi-glass cockpits with FMCs, and 600, 700 and 800 models with full glass cockpits that look a lot like the 747 and 777 cockpits. That's a lot of training keeping the airline from cross training pilots so they can be used where they are needed most. I think that Boeing never really intended to make the Sonic Cruiser. It feels a lot like their highly publicized move of their corporate headquarters (sticking it to Washington State in a big way, I might add)to Chicago - more publicity stunt than anything else. I think the company still has top-notch designers and engineers. The Sonic Cruiser was probably the same idea as concept car at an auto show: "Gee whiz, aren't we clever, look what we can come up with. " But their marketing folks are clueless. They completely missed the standardized cockpit. They are going to miss out on the super-jumbo market which appears to be much larger than they thought. And they continue to churn out planes like the 737 NG, the 757-300 and the 767-400 based on 1970's designs that are not all that passenger friendly. I avoid 737s and 757s on long flights as much as possible. It's a good thing war looms on the horizon. They are going to need those sales.

[WAD3 0]

swj, Good question.cwr, Very interesting reading. I like to hear your opinons, I have flown on the 737 various models I agree with you, the 767 liked that very much. Did an MD-11 to Saudi Arabia that was the worst flight ever. Been on the 727 and an MD80 fortunately those flights were nearly empty otherwise it would have been tight. Thank you.Andrew

[Guest]

Thanks Andrew, and yes cwr does supply some very interesting information. I happen to prefer the Boeing to the Airbus, I guess because I grew up with them. The few Airbus flights I have had (A-300), did not give me warm fuzzys (AA A-300 between KEWR and KMIA), both times very unpleasant hydraulic noises (although stuck in a 757 to Europe was not very pleasant either). However cwr does offer a good argument with 'commonality' in the Airbus fleet. The expense of cross-training the flight crews, maintenance, parts, etc. must be immense. Maybe this is part of the reason (emphasize 'part') why airlines with such a diversified fleet (like United) are having trouble while Southwest and JetBlue seem to be doing OK. I know there is more to the economics then just which airplane you fly, but operating costs must be a big part.