Frankly, I can only see one guy around "being full of himself" so far.
And since the new tech birds from Boeing actually come with a full FBW setup while the refined and older ones are of course stuck at the gear&pulley tech (which isn't bad at all, but doesn't represent current and weight saving tech), I also wonder on which fact basis you are working.
Do you think that any new Boeing design will come without FBW?
They even took the rather expensive way of also including some of this stuff in the only refined 747-8. The full FBW would have been a full redesign, which is much too expensive to achieve when you are watching the sales expectations and the "win" margins.
Since also having the type rating in mind, the 747-8 remained "old" (equalling in lower type rating efforts necessary when coming from the 747-400), while the newer 777 and 787 concept did not have to keep that status.
The "full of themselves" thingy is fully left to your observation of course. If you think that any of the marketing guys in the business (which includes
all devs) wears a white shirt with no stains on it, you are free to think this rather short sighted way (which is my impression) of course.
I actually don't expect a frequent Boeing press only reader to think in any other way. If that's a charming character trait? I don't know.
And, regarding your Boeing press room dependency, this paragraph of yours may show what I'm talking about.
Quote:they develop aircraft with their own money, and get stuff done without government subsidies and if anyone, Boeing should be full of themselves with all they've done on their own. Airbus could never have made the A380 without subsidies, or follow it with the A350, or even afford to have created the A320 the way they did.
I suggest you'd sit back, take some aviation history lessons, fill in quite some politics and then rethink what Boeing tells the world about
their competitor's policy.
I really doubt that you would go ask Microsoft about Apple or Oracle about SAP, so your sticking to biased "news" sources may actually show the very downside of your arguments.
If you think that there's one good player in the whole big money business of e. g. aviation you are more part of the problem than of any constructive solution in my eyes.
And as I told you before (seems you don't want to listen or just check my words), the Boeing against Airbus subsidies case is running since exactly that time since Boeing realized that the "minor distraction" from the European side actually eats up market numbers.
Talking about decades there and I think that only the "pro" parts are written in that press room of yours. The thing even goes back to the pre Concorde era and you can be very sure that my knowledge there consists more than just some fancy press words.
So maybe you consider at least some evolution on your main sources. Maybe not, it's up to you.
I appreciate your comments, but, as you see, wrong facts usually force some counteracting motion from my side. Sorry for that.
Pages: 
Paris Air Show Question (Read 29205 times)
