HP Forum Archive 15

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

lew platt Message #1 Posted by bill platt on 8 Feb 2006, 12:50 p.m. http://blogs.linux.ie/stuff/2005/09/11/lew-platt-hps-heavy-hand-takes-the-long-walk/

Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #2 Posted by Karl Schneider on 10 Feb 2006, 12:04 a.m., in response to message #1 by bill platt Bill -- Well, that was an easy-to-read, if not particularly insightful, short blog about Lew Platt, former exec at HP and Boeing who died on 8 Sep, 2005. The entry was dated 11 Sep 2005, making it almost five months old. The author's pseudonym(?) was "irishblogs", perhaps suggesting a non-continental Euro-centric view of things... The blog entry contained more than a few grammatical errors, causing me some skepticism about the intellectual quality of its content. One assertion that struck me was, Quote: "It’s interesting that Platt died in service while at Boeing, the US aerospace giant which appears to have run out of fresh ideas and is getting it’s ass handed to it by Airbus. Just like HP it’s greatest triumphs are relics of the past... Apparently the author hadn't heard of the new model 787, revolutionary for its composite-material airframe, as well as many other innovations in passenger ergonomics. Boeing appears also to have surpassed Airbus on new sales, according to figures released after September 2005. As for "relics of the past", the modern and well-regarded model 777 debuted in 1995, and was the first aircraft to have been designed entirely on CAD. Maybe 11 years is ancient history, according to the blogger. Well, enough from me about this loosely-related, but off-topic subject. -- KS Edited: 10 Feb 2006, 12:38 a.m.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #3 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 10 Feb 2006, 10:41 a.m., in response to message #2 by Karl Schneider I agree. Boeing had a difficult time a couple of years ago, but they managed to get their act together, launch a brand new airplane (the 787) while maintaining their lead in the long range category with the 777-200LR. I am a bit worried though about Boeing's move at shedding of manufacturing units (e.g. the Wichita plant sold lock-stock-and-barrel to Canada'a Onex Corp.). Boeing is also transfering a lot of technology to sub-contractors so that they can deliver complete aircraft sub-assemblies (i.e. entire sections in flight ready, fully integrated configuration). While this has obvious short term benefits, I am not sure whether this is a particularly bright long term strategy. > Boeing appears also to have surpassed Airbus on new sales, > according to figures released after September 2005 Actually, "Airbus beat Boeing in the end-of-year tally of net orders, gaining 51% of the marketshare with 1055 versus 1002 aircraft and also surpassed its rival in deliveries, with 378 versus 290 aircraft" (Aviation Week and SPace Technology, Jan. 23, 2006). I suspect though that because Boeing sold more twin-aisle planes, they may well end with higher $ sales, although this is hard to determine as many deals do not mention actual prices. **vp

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #4 Posted by gifron on 10 Feb 2006, 5:11 p.m., in response to message #3 by Vassilis Prevelakis Though I don't remember the "actual estimates," it is widely believed that Boeing handily beat Airbus in terms of $$ - I think it was something along the lines of 60-40 in favor of Boeing. Of course, Airbus is still delivering more planes than Boeing, and that's where the money comes from.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #5 Posted by John Noble on 11 Feb 2006, 10:46 p.m., in response to message #3 by Vassilis Prevelakis Quote: Boeing had a difficult time a couple of years ago, but they managed to get their act together, launch a brand new airplane (the 787) while maintaining their lead in the long range category with the 777-200LR. I would much rather cross the pond on a 1960's technology 747, thanks. 777s may be more efficient, but they are also slower than and not as inherently safe as 4-engine 747s. Those big 777 engines are cool, but maybe they need an afterburner or something -- I don't appreciate the extra hour it takes for a 777 to get from, say, Houston to London.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #6 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 12 Feb 2006, 2:16 a.m., in response to message #5 by John Noble John Noble wrote: > I don't appreciate the extra hour it takes for a 777 to get from, > say, Houston to London. Are you sure your airline is not trying to save fuel by selecting a lower cruising speed? The 747-400 typical cruise speed is 0.85 Mach (around 567 mph), while the 777-200ER is 0.84 Mach (around 560 mph). (all figures from the Boeing web site) So the 777 is only 7 mph slower than the 747. This means that on a 10 hour journey you will end up only 70 miles behind. This hardly accounts for the 1 hour. So I'd suspect the airline. I have stopped flying USAir because of this extra time. Notice though that since they pad their timetables (so that they can arrive on time even if they are delayed), you may not be able to determine this behavior until you actually fly a few trips. **vp If you think how bad can it get??? I assure you it can get worse, in the UK a low-cost airline Ryan-Air is charging you extra if you check in luggage (BTW you are only allowed 6Kg/13lb as carry on luggage). Needless to say I have blacklisted such loosers.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #7 Posted by Trent Moseley on 12 Feb 2006, 10:54 p.m., in response to message #6 by Vassilis Prevelakis Off topic (sometimes this fun). As a once or twice a year flier, my favorite aircraft is the not mentioned Boeing 767. My 2¢. tm

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #8 Posted by John Noble on 13 Feb 2006, 3:17 a.m., in response to message #6 by Vassilis Prevelakis We are waaay off topic now. 333 to delete. Quote: Are you sure your airline is not trying to save fuel by selecting a lower cruising speed? Possibly. Since fuel and overall economy is the single reason for an airline to buy 777s, I'm sure the airlines maximize both. Still, 777s can't fly the same transoceanic routes as 747s -- they have to stick closer to airports. 777s can run ETOPS-180 (i.e. not more than 180 minutes from an airport at any time) over the North Atlantic, I think, while 747s have no such restrictions and can simply fly great circle routes.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #9 Posted by bill platt on 14 Feb 2006, 3:23 p.m., in response to message #8 by John Noble Is this because it has two engines?

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #10 Posted by John Noble on 14 Feb 2006, 5:55 p.m., in response to message #9 by bill platt Quote: Is this because it has two engines? Yes. Check out this discussion for some more information. Boeing and the airlines have done a lot of arm twisting to raise ETOPS limits for 777s. In a parallel post, you said: Quote: My last flight from the West coast was at 530 statute MPH according to the Capitan. It was Continental or Northwest on a 757 or something. Going west, ground speed could be 50-100 MPH higher than airspeed, depending on jet stream conditions. I've seen ground speeds close to 600 MPH going west ... and c. 450 MPH going east, at which point I begin to wonder if (in Princess Leia's words) it would help if I got out and pushed. :-) ------- 333 to delete.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #11 Posted by Dave Shaffer on 15 Feb 2006, 1:19 p.m., in response to message #10 by John Noble I think you've got that backwards. In the continental United States, the prevailing winds, including the jetstream, are generally FROM west TO east. Hence, ground speeds will generally be higher when travelling from west to east.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #12 Posted by John Noble on 15 Feb 2006, 2:06 p.m., in response to message #11 by Dave Shaffer Quote: I think you've got that backwards. You are correct. I knew what I wanted to say, but it came out backward. I was thinking in Reverse Polish Navigation. --- 333 to delete Edited: 15 Feb 2006, 2:07 p.m.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #13 Posted by bill platt on 17 Feb 2006, 9:32 a.m., in response to message #12 by John Noble "Reverse Polish Navigation" :-D

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #14 Posted by bill platt on 14 Feb 2006, 3:20 p.m., in response to message #6 by Vassilis Prevelakis My last flight from the West coast was at 530 statute MPH according to the Capitan. It was Continental or Northwest on a 757 or something.

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #15 Posted by Neil on 16 Feb 2006, 2:22 p.m., in response to message #6 by Vassilis Prevelakis I've been using Ryanair regularly for the past couple of years, and in fact I'm travelling with them tomorrow. In my experience, they are dirt cheap, punctual, clean, and you get what you pay for. By the way, the actual planes (mostly Boeing 737's) are pretty new. By that I mean they are mostly less than 5 years old. Unless Ryanair happen to have changed their baggage allowances in the last couple of months, then your statement about having to pay for excess baggage over 6kg is not correct. You are permitted to check in up to 15 kg (33 lbs), and in addition take up to 10 kg (22 lbs) hand baggage, at no extra cost. You can check the details of the baggage allowances here: http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=bag&quest=baggageallowance

Re: Consider the source (Lew Platt blog item) Message #16 Posted by Vassilis Prevelakis on 17 Feb 2006, 1:35 p.m., in response to message #15 by Neil Neil wrote: > You are permitted to check in up to 15 kg (33 lbs), and in addition > take up to 10 kg (22 lbs) hand baggage, at no extra cost. You can check > the details of the baggage allowances here: > http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=bag&quest=baggageallowance I stand corrected. My statement was based on the following BBC News article of Jan 25, 2006: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4647906.stm "Ryanair planning baggage charge, Low-cost airline Ryanair is to begin charging passengers extra for checking in their baggage before flights" I was wrong in thinking that this was the current policy, while as the article suggests it is not yet in effect (it will start on March 16). As far as the 6Kg carry-on limit, I was told by another airline (BA) that this was "mandated by EU regulations" Given Ryanair's policy, I am tempeted to believe that BA was simply interpreting EU regulations arbitrarily. **vp Edited: 17 Feb 2006, 1:45 p.m.

Re: lew platt Message #17 Posted by Bruce Horrocks on 14 Feb 2006, 6:52 p.m., in response to message #1 by bill platt Platt was the man who invited Dick Hackborn back to the board and tasked him with coming up with something radical. The result was the spinning off of the test and measurement division into Agilent. Hackborn relied heavily on uber-consultants McKinsey and the split was probably entirely their idea, it being the first leg of a masterplan to turn HP into a services company. Step one goes okay: Agilent spun off, only the employees thoroughly pissed-off so that's all right then. Step 2: beef up HP's consulting arm by acquiring PwC. Oh dear! Large fly in the ointment: PwC partners - being consultants - could see that it was a non-starter and they decided not to let themselves be bought. So McKinsey then brazenly wheel out plan B: buy Compaq instead. How on earth the HP board swallowed that one beggars belief. PwC and Compaq were chalk and cheese. Such a major re-think of strategy would normally require significant analysis but HP seemed to be committed to following up in ultra-quick time so it went ahead regardless. Which brings us to the present day, where no one is convinced that the merger worked and HP is still nowhere near to becoming a services company. Because of this fiasco, it seems inevitable that, sooner or later, HP will spin off the printer division while the rump of the company slowly declines into a small player, a la Unisys. 'Platt fell flat' seems to be his legacy.

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall