With the latest FAA ETOPS announcement, why would any airline purchase the Airbus A340-500 or A340-600 now? Unless Airbus will be giving them away, which may be a possibility, the Boeing 777 family just became more valuable to any airline who is operating it now and in the future. With the Airbus response to a long range twin many years away in the A350 family, Boeing should enjoy a virtual monopoly with their own 777/787 family. Way to go Boeing for having the correct insight years ago.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
It will be great if Boeing could build a new 747 with the exact dimensions of the A380 or better. Boeing has the knowledge, finances and technological know how. Come on Boeing, what are you waiting for?
Roger J., England
I was wondering if the design engineers for the 747-8I ever thought about or discussed about making the center wing box area on the 747-8I out of light weight carbon composites? Can it be done? Is it possible to do it on the 747-8I and if it can be done, is it too late in the design and development process to do it? How about the area just under the center fuselage were the ram air ducts, landing gear, wing to body flaring is? Can those panels be made out of composites because it looks like it’s just a shroud were the ram air ducts are? Then again, I am sure the design engineers have thought out side of the box and were open to any input from those at Boeing to make the 747-8I lighter. You know it will be great to finally see the 747-8I in flight testing and see the actual performance numbers and be surprised that this new 747-8I performs better than expected. Are the shrouds around the engines made out of light weight composites? Is it possible? Just trying to think of ways to make the plane lighter. I guess the 747 hump can’t be made out of composites because of the expansion and contraction differences between composites and aluminum.
Tim, Baltimore, Maryland
What is my dream of the future 737 series? My 737RS (replacement study) planes have 6 different models. The smallest one carries about 100-110 in 1 class and the second smallest one is similar to 737-600 nowadays. They share the smallest and similar wings, which is smaller than the 737NGs nowadays. Then, the two models are close to the class of 737-700 and 737-800 nowadays. And the largest two are close to 737-900ER and 757-200. The largest two can have 4x2 main landing gears. This is my little idea about 737RS (replacement study). These sizes optimize the market needs and extend the 737 market. Hope that all of you share more about the new 737!
Glen L, Beverly Hills, California
In regards to Boeing vs. Airbus, I like and prefer Boeing probably because I am a citizen of the USA. I’ve flown other airliners like the L1011 to Hawaii but other than that I’ve flown basically Boeing products. As far as creature comfort, the elbow to elbow seating arrangement on a 737 can be annoying especially on flights longer than 2 hrs. The 757’s are a lot more comfy because of the wider seats. I was curious on why can’t Boeing just put a little tweak on the width of the fuselage to make the 737’s a little more comfortable for passengers as well as I think more appealing to more airlines.
Andrew, Wasilla, Alaska
With the FAA abolishing ETOPS and allowing qualified Twin jets to fly over 5 hours away from a diversion airport, I feel Boeing’s long standing vision of point to point travel with fuel efficient twin jets just got the biggest seal of approval Boeing could have hoped for, as if the market hadn’t already spoken loudly enough with the 777s absolute trouncing of Airbus A340 product. I feel vindication is in the air, literally, for many people who have long argued that the steady but sure trend toward twinjets over 4-engined aircraft is here to stay.
Alexander R., Edinburgh, Scotland
I suggest Boeing has a party on July 7 to celebrate the fantastic 777 on the date 7/7/’07!
Richard M., Sydney
Many people ask, “What’s next from Boeing?” I would say, “give them a break!” Boeing launched 737-900ER, 787, 747-8 and 777-LRF recently. Boeing is in no hurry to launch another product. The 737NG is still selling like hot cakes and 777-300ER does not have any credible contender until 2015. In any case, narrow-body is such a big market that you do not have any time constraint to launch a new one. You can offer a 737 replacement three to five years after a new competitor without any strategic drawback. The situation is slightly different for the 777-300ER, but Boeing has more than six years to think about its replacement. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of both.
G.
It seems as though Singapore airlines has decided to purchase both the A350 and the 787. Given the costs of operating two different fleet types it doesn’t seem to make any sense to purchase two different aircraft of such similar capabilities. More astoundingly it seems that they plan to use the 787 for short haul service and the 350 for long haul service. Can you perhaps make any sense of their decision?
Brian, Virgina
This blog is a near-perfect example of what companies should be doing, but rarely do, to engage and inform the public that takes an interest in a particular line of business and a set of products. For every sort of industry there are thousands of well-informed observers and consumers whose intelligence and loyalty can be a decisive help in seeing that the work is done right, and that the news from both sides moves fast. Of course, there has to be a blogger who really wants an exchange among equals. That’s where this blog works and so many others don’t. Keep it going - you’re becoming an example far outside aerospace.
Steve M., Redwood City, California
I cannot understand how anyone could accuse Randy or Boeing of bashing Airbus. Boeing (and Randy) have always kept a professional touch to their press releases and statements. Boeing even publicly congratulated Airbus on the maiden flight of the A380. Airbus has, to my knowledge, never once congratulated Boeing on any of its achievements. Instead, Airbus focuses on casting shadow on anything not Airbus. They publicly called the 787 a Chinese copy of the A330, when now in fact the A350 looks to be a copy of the 787. Both manufacturers make great aircraft, but when it comes down to it, Boeing is far more mature when commenting on their rivals.
Hans M., Hannover, Germany
The new Intercontinental fills a wide niche between the 350 seat (777/340) and the 555 seat (380) planes. It surprises me that more airlines have not signed up for the 747-8i since the gap is so wide.
Dennis, Virginia
What I like about the blog (all corporate loyalty aside) is that you put out the company explanation in a straight forward manner. It’s good to see that, because I have come to expect nothing but a high speed spin cycle from the other side. I always thought that what Boeing lacked, as a non apologetic defense and explanation of the company and its position. I know its gotten morphed into political correctness, but there is more a washing out of companies and what they stand for. There is none of that in your blog. Airbus simply has no answer (but then they are just following you guys these days and maybe a look alike blog is more than they can even take!) If Harry Stonecipher had one thing right, it was you guys would go right after the competition, full tilt, no apologies and let the best company win. I think he put the spirit back into the company (or let Boeing know they could be proud of who you are and what you make and express that pride). So, keep up the good work, I look forward to checking in on a regular basis and even more so when the completion starts to rev up the PR machine.
Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska
Love reading your blog. I find it informative and entertaining. I am an aviation enthusiast and have been all my life. Have always been especially fascinated by the “big boys” (747’s, DC10’s, 777’s etc. First thing I did when I moved to Seattle was drive to Everett to gawk at all the widebodies sitting out there! Don’t take offense, but I can’t wait to see the A380 in person. That being said, I am going to do everything in my power to be somewhere in the vicinity of Paine Field the day the 787 makes her maiden flight!! Please keep us “airplane junkies” enlightened as to the progress of this exciting new aircraft. We appreciate the info you provide on your blog - keep it up. If you happen to cross paths with your Airbus counterpart, ask him if he can start one too - LOL
Bob S., Kent, Washington
Bon jour to Boeing - I’m fully aware of the purpose of your website. To detract the honesty of innovation which America has predominated since the 1950’s? Yes I am in support of innovation not standardization of your technical team, who continues to promote an old replica 747. Europeans have a vast knowledge of aerospace and aviation. Mr. Randy, we Europeans invented the airplane. By your nature of your culture everything is based on mass production. Not quality - as France, United Kingdom and Western Europe. Please do us a favor. You have to admit to defeat - yes, it happens to the best of companies including American cartels such as Boeing whom spot the MD-12 which Air France and KLM were interested in. Learn to say AIRBUS. I shall repeat learn to say AIRBUS - the leader of customized aircraft. Yes I find your website full of untruth regarding industry markets. AIRBUS has surpassed you on larger Jumbo aircraft. Boeing, the honest truth is the international market no longer belongs to Boeing, the lagger of 20th century technology.
Somanville, Lyon, France
I think it would be great if Boeing could install webcams for visitors to view planes outside your factories at Boeing and Paine fields. The information is already displayed on the internet in various places so it’s not like proprietary information you are disclosing on your company/customers.
John, Los Angeles, California
It really has been a great year! Boeing’s vision of the Future of Flight - it’s starting to “lift” my Commercial Aviation enthusiasm to a new level. I visited the Boeing factory in Everett and flew on a B777-300ER for the first time, and I know won’t be the last! B787 and B747-8I “Here I am” -Boeing keep UP these great airplanes.
Jorge T., Honduras
Congratulations for such a great order, hope to fly this Aircraft as a Pilot in some years. Lufthansa will have a great fleet with 346,380,748 and 787/350 all great Airplanes. Just a pity LH hasn’t ordered some 777 - would look so great! Randy: I love to read your Blog it’s always interesting.
Konstantin, FRA/Germany
I appreciate you and your colleagues at Boeing and congratulate you all on the fine job you’ve done putting Boeing in such a strong position in very challenging times. Thanks for your blog and very effective communications efforts throughout the year—I check it almost daily. While admittedly a Boeing cheerleader, your Company makes me proud as an American, a stockholder, and a 747 pilot.
Mark H., Anthem, Arizona
I appreciate you and your colleagues at Boeing and congratulate you all on the fine job you’ve done putting Boeing in such a strong position in very challenging times. Thanks for your blog and very effective communications efforts throughout the year—I check it almost daily. While admittedly a Boeing cheerleader, your Company makes me proud as an American, a stockholder, and a 747 pilot.
Geoff D., Thanet, UK
Thanks for you insights on the terrific year that Boeing has had. All your fans from all over the world can’t wait for the first flight of the Dreamliner and to see the magic 747 continue to grace the skies.
Chris G., Australia
I am curious to know why Boeing didn’t come up a with low gross weight version of the 787-9 (a la the 787-3 derivative of the 787-8)? Such an aircraft would work extremely on trans-Atlantic routes for many airlines and save costs on landing fees. I would also like to know why the range was limited to 3500nm for the 787-3? I would think that around 4500nm would be optimum, allowing for Caribbean/upper South American routes from North America and bringing into range most of Europe, Africa and Central and South Asia.
Keith L., Ottawa, Canada
The 777 and the upcoming 787 Dreamliner incorporate fly-by-wire instead of the usual hydraulic controls. Will the new 747-8 also have fly-by-wire as well?
Han, Newport News, Virginia
Looks like the 737 replacement better seat over 200 at the top end.
Gary G., Sydney, Australia
I have noticed the 747-8i virtual mockup and noticed that the 747 which is so clamed as old fashioned airplane by flying barrel maker Airbus executives, has sharper and sleeker design. It is impossible the A380 to have better aerodynamics mainly in the front section. The 747 nose shape is similar to an arrow what is logic on a machine that is supposed to fly. Airbus folks seem to forget about air resistance when they projected the A380. Some of the older drawings show better aerodynamics. As Airbus tried to improve the rest of the design, they moved the shape of the front section to a stage prior to DC-3s conception. If the DC-3 was about the same size as the A380, the DC-3 would have better aerodynamics in the front section.
Cristiano A., Campo Grande/MS, Brazil
Wish you the best with 787 development in the New Year and hope you don’t encounter last-minute teething pains like the A380.
Bankelele, Nairobi, Kenya
Now that Airbus has released all its claims and specs for the various A350 models, it’s up to you (and Boeing engineers) to one-up them with your 787-1000 and future 777 models (hint: add more composite component as you are doing on the 747-8I…)
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
I must say I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog! Congratulations to the company on the Lufthansa order! Many of us on the Internet applaud your reasoned commentary, and your ability to be above attacking the competition. Keep up the good work! Something that aggrieves me (not about the blog!) is the move away from the traditional Boeing numbering sequence in the sub-versions. 787-8/9 and 747-8 seem quite illogical to me. I know all about the number 8 and the Chinese, but was that the only reason behind all of this?
Trent, Dublin, Ireland
The week running from 4th to 8th December 2006 quite rightly had the slogan of ‘The Future is Now’. Congratulations on the stupendous order for the phenomenal Boeing 747-8Intercontinental! No doubt, this ultra-modern, efficient, economical and formidably capable 747 family will be around for many more decades to come. It is an airplane of superlatives, and I would expect the orders for both variants to continue to flood in! Playing off the pun of the 747-8, ‘The Shape of the Future’, I think Boeing can go even further when considering your industry leading Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and say, ‘Boeing IS the Future of Air Travel!’ Wishing you all the best for 2007!
Chris C., South Africa
Why is the forward “plug” on the 747-8 so much longer than the aft plug? Do the new engines or modified wing alter the center of gravity or center of lift?
Mark W., Houston, Texas
Remember the QTD2 on All Nippon Airways’ modified Boeing 777-300ER? Boeing tested chevrons on the rear engine cowling. Is that patented? Airbus could take your ideas and simply put it on their Airbus A350XWB, which clearly already look like the Boeing 787. It’s like using your ideas and stealing it and put it on their idea.
Andre D., Tacoma, Washington
The 747 is amazing… nothing to say! However, why is it that even though it’s no direct competitor to the A380, it still beats it on paper with superior operating economics?! Boeing beat Airbus in this section once again… to be confirmed as time goes by. If indeed after the 1st flight the 748 is still more economical than the Whalejet, then I expect the 747 to become as successful and iconic as in the 70s.
Maj M., Lausanne, VD, Switzerland
I saw your neat Website for the launch of the 747-8I and the cool video of it morphing from the current 747-400 to the 747-8I. My question is how much more does the new 747 wing is swept back than the 747-400? From the video morphing, it looks like Boeing not only swept back the wings more, but, there is more wing flex, but, I read that Boeing is making the inner wing thicker at the wing root. Also in the video, the vertical and horizontal tail is more curved. I was wondering if you ( if possible ) can go deeper into the technical aspects of the new changes on the 747-8I from the 400? And go deeper into the wing twist, aerodynamics that Boeing is doing on the wing? I know the new 747-8I will get many interior features from the 787, but, will it get the same good looking window panels that the 787 has? To be honest, the window panels from the 747-400 looks too 70ish.
Tim, Baltimore, Maryland
An order for 20 747-8’s in a direct competition with the A380/A340 by Lufthansa says a lot about the product strategy of Boeing. Well done - keep it up. BTW -I don’t find the attitude of the blog at all offensive. I don’t think your willingness to cultivate and project a vision for your present and future is at all a problem. Perhaps difficult to accept by supporters of organizations prone to grand gestures in lieu of recognizing market needs. Having worked in the manufacture of parts for Boeing, GEAE, Airbus, N-G, Bombardier and Rolls-Royce I enjoy the insight into the current and long-term vision of a major aircraft maker like Boeing. Your blog does an excellent job keeping interested people informed. It would be refreshing to see someone within Airbus willing to present their market direction but it looks like they would be just as well served re-printing Boeing’s ideas 5 years later and calling them “new”.
Seth, Ogden, Utah
Congratulation, the long awaited 747-8I order came in. Maybe Cathay Pacific or Air France/KLM is next.
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
At no point does Randy “bash” Airbus. He simply details all the information in a very factual manner. The facts tell the truth and it accurately depicts Airbus as the underdog in this market. The truth hurts. Airbus is the company infamous for its rival bashing, not Boeing. Boeing has always publicly regarded Airbus as a viable competitor and has always referred to Airbus with respect. The same cannot be said for Airbus - Just this week a top Airbus executive compared to the 748i to a failed 1960’s Ford. Such comments are unfounded, immature and inaccurate. As usual, I found Randy’s article to be extremely informative and eye-opening.
Jan E., Heidelberg, Germany
On 6 Dec 2006, Lufthansa announced its 747-8i order and became the first airline to buy the airplane. This order proves at least two things. Firstly, a “serious” airline like Lufthansa does order 747-8i. Secondly, an A380 customer can decide to buy 747-8i. Boeing’s strategy to put 747-8i’s capacity exactly at 20% above 777-300ER/A340-600 and at 20% below the A380 is paying.
G.
As a frequent flyer who logs many international miles, primarily long-haul, business class, I have seen the window shade situation getting worse and worse. On some daylight flights, the shades are drawn within a minute or two of climb out, and on almost all of the daylight flights (i.e. Bangkok-Tokyo-Los Angeles, the shades go down from a few minutes to an hour or so after takeoff, and remain down for the entire grueling time (on one of two of my trips to the far east within the last 3 weeks, the shades were down the entire time (19+ hours)including a beautiful morning arrival down the California coast into San Francisco. It is frustrating to pay 8 to 10,000 dollars and not see such beauty.
Steve A., Washington, D.C.
I have enjoyed your journal, and I think that Boeing has done their homework on this plane [747-8] and the customers seem to agree. I think that you should install air refueling on all the domestic units sold. Both a removable off-loading boom and a receptacle.
Mike H., Boise, Idaho
I just saw the rendering of the Lufthansa 747-8. She is indescribably beautiful. A fitting tribute to Joe Sutter and a brilliant design. Are these the latest winglets? Sweet.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Airbus exec McArtor said that the only reason Lufthansa ordered the 747-8 was because Airbus stumbled on the A380. Not true. Lufthansa has said the 747-8 will complement their fleet - fitting in between the A380 and A340-600. The 747-8 will be ordered by more airlines whether it be the passenger or freight versions, so the world must get used to seeing more brand new copies of this wonderful airplane for decades to come.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
Thanks for the insight you provide into Boeing’s thoughts every week! I really like both companies, but it is Airbus’ fault to be in such major trouble right now, and I believe that the XWB is just not the right plane to pull them out of the mess they are in. I fully agree with your comment on the extremely long delivery time - considering how many resources Airbus has invested in the A350 already, it seems ridiculous that it will take another 7 years until first delivery. This means 7 rather comfortable years for Boeing: you can watch the 787 sell well, update the 777 (which will bring it very close the the ‘superior’ A350) and work on an all-composite 737 successor, which will secure Boeing’s lead position for another 20 years.
Christopher M., Vienna, Austria
The launch of the A350 is healthy to the extent that it promotes competition between the two major suppliers of twin aisle aircraft. Imagine what would happen if one supplier dominated this market. At the other end of the scale - how long before the regional jets grow big enough to challenge the 737/A320 replacements? When will China get in on this gig?
Gary G., Sydney Australia
There is no way this is true! I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator.
Michael, Omaha, Nebraska
Actually Michael, Sir Richard has indeed used this quote many times - that the best way to become a millionaire is to start off as a billionaire and launch an airplane - although others may have said it as well!
Randy Baseler
Enjoy your blog and have a question. When you talk about overweight with respect to Boeing or Airbus, are you referring to an aircraft delivered without interior?? In the case of the A380 is it is 5 tonnes +/- with 550 passengers. What would it be with the seats required for 800+?
Len E., Indonesia
LOL, I have placed a 747 next to a picture of an A380 … guess the subject says it all! Don’t change the shape of the 747 PLLEEAASSE, it is just such an eye keeper!! What an awesome aircraft… as if it’s got a life of its own, complete with a personality! Just LOVE IT!
Darryl, South Africa
Boeing needs to continue executing its business plans as effectively as you have been doing in order to maintain your well deserved poll position. Upholding ethics, customer focus and continued product development and improvement will continue to put Boeing in a formidably strong position to face the ever changing challenges of the 21st Century markets. You, Boeing, have achieved this magnificent position purely as you listened to the market and your customers, and strived to improve upon everything - hence forever new frontiers. Boeing clearly is all about working together and building the world’s most advanced and finest commercial and military equipment. Every single BCA is an engineering marvel; breaking new technologies and innovations, and providing the most efficient, reliable, attractive, and capable airplanes to the market. You guys got the mathematics right!
Chris C., South Africa
Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793
The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.
A., London, U.K.
Regarding the 787/A350XWB comparisons: We all know that Airbus is comparing apples to oranges (like comparing their 270-seat A350-800 to a 242-seat 787-8, when they should be comparing it to a 280-seat 787-9). So, in response to Airbus’s “Boeing PR” claims, Boeing should use this new term when talking about Airbus’s lopsided apples-to-oranges comparisons: “Airbus Math.” After all, Airbus’s numbers just don’t add up right. For proof, look no further than all those A380 delays.
Zachary M., Fort Wayne, Indiana
Some say that the delay of the A380 is not a problem since it won’t have a competitor of its size for many years. However, two engines were developed for it, and their delay might be a problem. It seems like the Trent 900 and GP-7200 need to be in revenue service now to take advantage of their technological window. The more efficient GenX engine is poised to take to the skies in large numbers in the not to distant future.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Some say that the delay of the A380 is not a problem since it won’t have a competitor of its size for many years. However, two engines were developed for it, and their delay might be a problem. It seems like the Trent 900 and GP-7200 need to be in revenue service now to take advantage of their technological window. The more efficient GenX engine is poised to take to the skies in large numbers in the not to distant future.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793
The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.
A., London, U.K.
Regarding the 787/A350XWB comparisons: We all know that Airbus is comparing apples to oranges (like comparing their 270-seat A350-800 to a 242-seat 787-8, when they should be comparing it to a 280-seat 787-9). So, in response to Airbus’s “Boeing PR” claims, Boeing should use this new term when talking about Airbus’s lopsided apples-to-oranges comparisons: “Airbus Math.” After all, Airbus’s numbers just don’t add up right. For proof, look no further than all those A380 delays.
Zachary M., Fort Wayne, Indiana
Yawn! How predictable that Randy once again is here to bad mouth the competition! Come on, don’t be so childish! This is a blog, not a kindergarten! Boeing is a great company that makes great products. However, with attitudes like yours no wonder we Europeans tend to weel revulsion at you Yanks!
Ivor M., Berlin, Germany
I very much appreciate your comments, especially this week’s where you explain how AB is trying to slant the comparison. What I’m amazed at is how COMPLETELY AB has faltered…management, finances, design for manufacturability, manning and manufacturing efficiency, etc, etc. The challenges they face are much greater than BA faced with the factory issues in ‘98. What I don’t understand about BA’s behavior is why not go for the jugular? Especially if they decide this Friday to pursue the 350, why shouldn’t BA proactively try to launch the 737 successor in ‘08 or so…when they’re tied down engineering wise and financially? I’m sure there are might be issues around residual guarantees and others that I haven’t considered, but it seems to me that BA is on the cusp of dominance for a decade or so given recent events…why not extend the lead even further? P.S. why you’re at it why doesn’t BA try to use composite technology to offer a competitive product to the ERJ family? The only way BA is vulnerable long term is from the bottom, don’t let them get a foothold and don’t make it easy for them to have the R&D dollars to develop composites.
Dick G., New York
For the 747-8I, maybe Boeing could satisfy both Emirates and British Airways with the same size airframe by extending the range with extra tanks similar to the 747-400ER for Qantas? One would hope that Cathay Pacific would get a few for the LAX to HKG route, glad that they don’t use the 340-600 for that route anymore.
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I just read in Flight International that this program when launched has slipped at least a year to the 2013 timeframe for the -800,-900. The -1000 is now scheduled for EIS in late 2015. Give me a break. If this variant is to take on the 777-300ER, I am sure this development is not making Boeing shake with fear. In 9 years time, assuming Airbus has no more slips, Boeing will presumably have already made plans for a 777 replacement that will obsolete this plane. Airbus will be playing catch up for at least the next 10 years or more.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
To me this new website [Startup Boeing] that you launched is a noble move. Not many people would contemplate starting a business in airlines, but here you are helping them. :)
Meikah D., Makati, Philippines
I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator. The quote as I recall it goes: “You can make a small fortune running an airline, of course, you have to start out with a large fortune”. I am not sure, however, this sounds rather a Bethunesque like saying.
W.K.B., Newcastle, Washington
It seems to me that if you have to make a web site for a startup airline, then they have no business being in that business.
Gregory S., Anchorage, Alaska
Your answer on why the 747-8F has much shorter range that the passenger (higher gross weight) suggests that a freighter ought to have higher lift wing than a passenger plane. Are the wing designs different and are new freighters more efficient than converted passenger planes?
Doug H., Anaheim, California
Two comments: It sounds like Emirates is concerned mainly with only about 100-150 extra nautical miles of range over the baseline 8000 to fit its own guidelines for range/payload/winds. Would it really be that hard to increase the baseline range by such a small amount? Shortening the fuselage seems an awfully high price to pay for an axtra 250-300 nautical miles. I would think apart from efficiency gains, simply raising the take-off weight to 980,000lb and increasing the thrust of the GEnx engines to about 68,500 lb would do the job and then some (10,000 extra lbs of fuel) Second, I also notice that as the max T.O. weight has risen from 960K to 970K the specified engine thrust has remained the same, at 66,500lbs. It has been noted that even though the A380 has a lower thrust to weight ratio, its low-speed wing design allows it to avoid step-climbing to cruise altitude where the 747-8 still requires this, which is all the more reason to increase the thrust of the engines to possibly compensate for this wing efficiency disadvantage. I would think 68,500lbs (at 970K T.O. weight) MINIMUM with the same fuel consumption is reasonable, but would it be enough? It just seems that the 66,500 lbs x4 for a 970k plane is a very small increase (and an inferior thrust to weight ratio) versus 63,300 x4 for the 875k max T.O. 747-400. Here’s to some big 747-8I orders coming soon (hopefully)!
John G., Colorado Springs, Colorado
My understanding is that composite materials such as CF and kevlar variants are subject to degradation when exposed to UV light over long periods of time. I also have read that in the higher echelons of racing (namely Formula 1) the composite structures have a limited lifespan of a few races until the tubs are no longer able to meet flex tolerances. Are these factors relevant to the composite structures used on the 787, or are they so much ‘urban legend’?
Chris, Austin, Texas
Just curious if people in the marketing department have considered hiring Orange Country Choppers to design and build a tribute chopper to the 787. I think having the Discovery Channel film American Chopper working with Boeing on a bike would be a lot of fun to watch. It would be a great way to extend a “fresh” image of the ‘87. I enjoy the blog, keep up the good work!
Patrick K., Seattle, Washington
Congrats on conquering South America’s biggest challenge to Boeing: TAM. This could be the beginning of a long friendship. Civil Aviation market is growing steadily here, not exactly the best time to delay the delivery of new aircrafts by years.
Ronaldo, Sao Paulo/SP, Brazil
In the Red Herring Magazine, Nintendo quoted that it would be flying in as many as 18,000 Nintendo Wii in each Air Freight as it tries to move 4 million Wii units to the US. It would seem to me that it would be an interesting promotion to fill the 747 LCF with Nintendo Wii. I estimate it would hold about 1 % of the 50,000 Wii units ($12,500,000 worth). I understand that the 747 LCF is in flight test and is not normally going to be used for “commercial freight” but to upstage the Airbus 380 freight (again) and have a holiday flair with Boeing helping Santa Claus make certain there are enough Nintendo games for the Holiday Season. If not possible, I hope this has at least provided a smile.
Timothy S., Saint Louis, Missouri
In a nutshell, is the 787 bleedless engine design more focused on energy efficiency benefits or other benefits such as humidified cabin air?
Ivan, Houston, Texas
Why doesn’t Boeing improve its single aisle B737 to beat Airbus A320 family? I have seen a lot of times airlines prefer 320 over 737. Why don’t Boeing use entire composite structure or do something different that it could readily beat 320 like the Dreamliner?
Musfequs S., Warrensburg, Missouri
I didn’t get your post on Nov 1st. Even though you had mentioned before that Boeing will continue to improve upon the 777, now you seem to imply that further improvements on the 777 is impossible. “The cost of re-doing an aluminum fuselage design that is already complete, using another material set makes it pretty much prohibitive.” As you know, A350XWB will be built entirely with composite. The A350-1000 will essentially drive a knife into the heart of the 777-300ER. I hope Boeing will respond aggressively before Airbus overtakes Boeing again.
Victor T., Santa Clara, California
Recently on Bloomberg, Airbus officials claimed that their Airbus A350XWB will be composed of 50% composites, challenging your Boeing 787. With the 50% of composites they can better attack Boeing’s 787. Timing and amount of engineers might be their disadvantage, but technology and innovation is on their side, which out weighs timing, because they could see the Boeing 787 and improve their Airbus A350XWB. What is Boeing doing? I also remember that their Airbus A380 and A350XWB and A320E will be in the works together, while Boeing will be freed from juggling the Boeing 737RS and other planes. Also, what are you doing to tackle the supplier and weight issue?
Agustas A., Madrid, Spain
I can’t say I’m impressed with the look of the new 747 LCF developed to support the 787 program, but I do wonder if there is a commercial market for this less attractive queen of the skies. Has anyone asked you to build one of these for them? Would you?
William D., Barstow, Maryland
Is it possible to do a mini BWB for 737 replacement? Could give big boost to range and cargo capabilities. On Combi modes, airliners could have a good, flexible, and small aircraft for passenger/cargo modes.
Pangestu A., Surabaya, Indonesia
Like other readers you mentioned in your Nov. 1 blog, it is also obvious to me that Boeing’s 777’s will have to be weight-reduced by a lot to keep up with the new composite planes. For example, your 787-10 is projected to have a MTOW of under 550,000 lbs and carry as many passengers roughly as far as a 750,000 lb 777-300ER. Those are pretty jarring comparisons! When it (eventually) comes out, Airbus’s larger-model XWB A350 will be similar or larger than the 787-10, and unless the 777-300ER “slims down” by a huge amount, it will then no longer be attractive to buy and operate. The only way to get the 777’s weight down a lot is by using a fully-composite airframe (and then you can slim down those 19-ton engines it currently uses, and the fuel used, too). All a very virtuous cycle, but impossible to do well enough while clinging to a mainly-metal airframe. Also obviously, you won’t tell us what you are going to do about it, but I’m sure you will do what’s needed when it’s needed! Thanks for your blog, it is entertaining and it often delivers the news ahead of everyone else…
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
I wanted to comment on your blog about the 747-8I. You said that this airplane can fly the same amount of miles when it’s fully loaded. A Dutch website (www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl - it’s all in Dutch) posted some news about the same subject. They actually told people that this plane will fly ‘less’ miles then the original model. What is true?
Bas N., Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Would it be possible to offer the 747-8 Intercontinental with a 9-Abreat Economy Class? I think much of the hype that the competing A380 gets is based on the premise that it is more spacious - that it’s 10-abreast Eco Class will be so much wider, in seats and aisles, that the 747. I like the space I get on a 777 - that is something that no Airbus product can match. But can we see that kind of cross-section on the 747? How will one seat less affect the economics of operating the 747-8i?
Jun L., Manila, Philippines
I read the other day that Boeing was discouraging buyers from multiple color schemes on the engine nacelles for the 787 because of excessive fuel burn due to the drag generated by the point where the paint lines meet. Why not just clear coat the nacelles after painting? We used to do this with custom paint jobs in the 80’s. Could the additional paint weight that much more? Just wondering.
Rick D., Huntsville, Alabama
I understand you have no plans for a 1000 passenger BWB craft, but how about one to supplant the 737? I have read that you are considering a 2-aisle replacement. This sounds like a wider fuselage than the current “tube” so perhaps BWB in which the fuselage becomes a lift body? Doing a BWB 737 would be a good way to start; a small and simpler aircraft at the beginning of your learning curve. Also, is it true that if BWB works aerodynamically and otherwise then it will be much more efficient than the current “tube” designs because the airframe drag will be only about what is needed to maintain lift? If so, why isn’t Boeing pushing hard now in this high-fuel-cost market to make BWB work ASAP not only on commercial craft but also military ones, such as the new tanker?
Christopher D., Plainfield, New Hampshire
Can’t help feeling that the 747 is finally fulfilling its destiny of being a dedicated freighter (originally on the premise that SSTs would take over passenger duties). Given that the 787 killed off the original A350 as a derivative - is the 787-8 Intercontinental itself too much of a derivative to make a successful passenger plane? I acknowledge that the potential market is much smaller.
Gary G., Sydney, Australia
Giving aircraft sub-models designators like -8 and -9 rather than the more traditional -200 and -300 seems to have been embraced by the industry. Why the change?
Patrick J., Aberdeen, Scotland
We dentists have experimented with composite structures on our patients for decades. Dental people are also very interested in material sciences. If fascinates me that you are taking what we use for tooth colored filling materials and fabricating an airplane. Is the new 787 more of a self cure composite or is it heat or halogen light cured. We also had great problems with durability. How have you conquered that in terms of the temperature extremes in flight?
Jack R., Hudson, Ohio
It’s my understanding that the 777 would be in competition with the A350, 787-10 maybe. The question is on everybody’s mind. What will Boeing do with the 777? Especially do to the recent rumors of the A350 going the direction of an all composite fuselage. Leap Frog DeJaVu? BTW-IMO Don’t make the mistake of Airbus A350-airbusdoesnotknowwhatitis with the 747-8i and 787-10. Cancel the 747-8 pax version, cancel possible 787-10 and put the money into a 777 Dreamliner.
Roy D., Sarasota, Florida
I have read the section in your blog about the possibility (or not!) of imprinting an airline’s livery into the carbon fibre of the 787’s fuselage. You said that this was not possible, but what about anodized aluminum? This is a tough, hard wearing finish that would save weight. I understand that any new operators of the aircraft would have to paint over the old livery (as would the original airline if their livery changes) but this would be an incentive to buy new! Hope you get the 787 out on time, and I’m looking forward to seeing it fly!
Felix C., London, UK
Is anyone going to think outside the box on changing how people are packed onto long haul planes? There is a lot of density at seat level but nothing occupying above seat level. I would be overjoyed at having Japanese capsule hotel style tubes, and they could be packed all the way to the ceiling. I think you could even fit more people that way!
Roger B., Santa Cruz, California
Is anyone going to think outside the box on changing how people are packed onto long haul planes? There is a lot of density at seat level but nothing occupying above seat level. I would be overjoyed at having Japanese capsule hotel style tubes, and they could be packed all the way to the ceiling. I think you could even fit more people that way!
Roger B., Santa Cruz, California
I see the airlines using their old paint jobs on a plane or two. How about Boeing painting the brown and gold for on the 737er as on the first 737. How about the fat red stripe and black under the cockpit for the 748 rollout?
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
The 747-8I uses 241,590 litres (less allowances) to deliver 467 pax 14,800 km = 28.61 pax-km/litre. The A380-800 uses 310,000 litres (less allowances) to deliver 555 pax 15,000 km = 26.85 pax-km/litre. Your plane uses less. It now depends if the reduced freight capacity leaves yours attractive to the airlines.
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
It is no surprise to learn that potential 747-8I buyers wanted a few more seats so that the passenger version would be the same length as the cargo version. Speaking of the freighter, the clear advantage of lighter structure than A380F and having a nose loading door is manifested by the 40+ order it has already accumulated. And the orders for the passenger version will follow since it is the natural replacement for the current -400 operators. In the Pacific sector at least, 744’s fly near capacity almost all year round. Additional ~50 seats will fill up if 8I was available today. In short, “If you design it right, they will buy.”
Yungsun H., Los Angeles
The newly extended 747-8 Intercontinental, allowing for 467 passengers is closer to the A380 with 555 passengers. The 747-8 is within 84% of carrying the 555 passengers of the A380. I can’t imagine this news will make the newly replaced Airbus administration feel confident. Why would an airline pay so much more to buy an A380 that carries only 88 more passengers?
Adding to the problem of buying an A380 is the ever-delayed delivery date. The 747-8 will be a success and it is a clever addition to the Boeing line. It further paints Airbus into a corner.
John K., Eugene, Oregon
In this article, Flight International reports that “Boeing opts for larger passenger variant but Dubai airline would rather see it build original longer-range proposal.” I think the currently proposed 747-8I’s range is about perfect, the dash-eight stands for EIGHT thousand nautical miles. You have to keep the 8-conomics right.
G
I had read that Emirates actually preferred longer range in the new 747-8I over more seats, whereas British Airways wanted more seats and less range. What will Boeing’s response to this be? Would you offer two different 747s? Perhaps a high capacity 747-8 and a long range 747-9?
Eugene, Los Angeles, California
I work at GKN Aerospace - Monitor Inc. on Long Island. Just a quick note to say keep up the good work on your blog. I can’t tell you how many times we check back to see if you’ve updated the site. We look forward to your ‘take’ on subjects. Thanks and GOOD JOB!
Steve B., Long Island, New York
Randy, you can’t leave Boeing! I wish more of the Boeing types were as vocal and knowledgeable as you are. I read where Airbus doesn’t know what to do about your blog. Just keep it up! I still think Boeing has played a huge part in convincing Airbus to build the 380. “Ahhh, the old sucker play!” The recent news concerning the versions of Catia is almost too ridiculous to believe… After all, it IS their software. Wasn’t the 777 built without a mockup using Catia? I look forward to the blog every week, perhaps you should write twice a week for us news-starved Boeing fans.
Wes C. Arab, Alabama
I regularly fly both airplanes [737, A320], both in the cockpit and in the cabin. While many never discuss comfort of the pilots, it is a fact that the A320 series cockpit is ‘bigger’ and therefore more comfortable, with more room to work. As for the passenger cabin, people can quote statistics all day. But the fact that the sidewalls are more upright in the Airbus makes the window seat definitely more comfortable. Otherwise, you really can’t tell any difference between the two interiors, in my opinion. As emphasized here by Randy, management of airline operations like on-time performance, flight attendant courtesy, passenger amenities are the things that really matter the most. And like any other business, the delivery of those things to the customer clearly varies in importance between different airlines. Certain airlines are more successful than others simply because they tend to focus on the most appropriate things like placing customer satisfaction and safety before everything else. Customers notice this difference and when offered adequate choice, they will spend their money where they perceive the best value, which is not always the lowest fare.
Ken W., Renton, Washington
I’m on my 16th year flying the wonderful 747. If it’s possible to have a warm relationship with a machine, then I guess I’m guilty. The admiration I have for the airplane is enhanced further by the new 747 models on your “drawing boards” and I congratulate Boeing for its adaptive and innovating, pilot pleasing engineering over the years. Simply marvelous.
Manny P., Wellington, Nevada
I’m a long time Boeing stockholder. Regarding the 737 replacement, I have a suggestion that is outside the box, if you will. Design the new 737 with 1 larger engine but keep 2 small engines inside the main frame of the aircraft, that would be deployed in event of main engine trouble, that could fly the plane in a slow flight condition for say 500 miles. I don’t know if this feasible or not but I like to think outside the box.
Tim C., Southampton, New York
First, I love your blog, and as a stockholder it really helps me to see Boeing’s future. I also enjoy the bits about you, such as your picture down in South Africa and how it was funny to be from the northwestern most point of the continental United States. You are an engaging and interesting executive. Keep it up. I know Boeing doesn’t actually manufacture and install seating. Nonetheless, I wanted to know if Boeing is taking into account that people are getting bigger and heavier.
It seems that with the number of seats that you can squeeze into a plane being airlines priorities, has any consideration been made to make sure real people can fit in these seats? And if a person needs two seats, how to make the two seats comfortable? And if people weigh more, then I assume the airline cannot take on as much freight. Does that space then go unused? Thanks for your input, and keep up the blog!
Carol C., Sacramento, California
Congratulations to the Boeing team for listening to the customer and giving them “what they want” not “what we think they want.” Making both versions of the 747-8 the same size will undoubtedly reduce complexity in the manufacturing process thereby reducing cost and risk as the program ramps up. I, like many of Boeing’s fans out there, are looking forward to the day when Boeing announces that first big 747-8I order.
Hardy M., Orange County, California
I’ve perused comments of my fellow bloggers about the proposed darkening capability of the passenger windows in the 787 - and want to express my “two cents” on this issue. When I fly I ALWAYS book a window seat; booking my flights months in advance, to have a good window seat! Obviously, I enjoy the views through my window; even watching for passing air traffic!
(Perhaps my fellow bloggers have seen the “air to air photos” posted on web sites including airliners.net) .I shoot photos of major topography / land features, as well, including Mt. Rainier. It’s a contradiction for Boeing to offer the largest window ever available in a commercial jet but then allowing cabin crew to control when / if the passenger ( aka me !!! ) can enjoy the view outside the window!? When I fly I don’t sleep! My rationale is simple: I don’t pay good money to sleep - I can sleep when I reach my destination! I WANT TO ENJOY THE VIEW - THE EXPERIENCE - WHEN FLYING! I can sleep anytime - flying always has and always will be special to me! One of your bloggers reports that he is an “international road warrior” who prefers a dark cabin. All he need do is don an eye mask, close his eyes and he’ll see nothing! United Airlines - and others,
I’m sure - has eye masks available in their amenity kits. I’ve seen some passengers who use their blanket to cover their heads, when they want to sleep. During my career in the US Air Force I caught numerous “hops” (free of charge flights) on C-141 and C-5 cargo haulers. These aircraft had NO WINDOWS - except tiny portholes in doors and emergency exits - that their “hitchhikers” could look through! I can assure you, my flights on these airplanes were loooooong and boooooring! I’ll have to avoid flying on the 787 if you make it possible for cabin crew to control and dictate when I can look out my window! I just won’ pay good money for a bad ride!
Joe B., Warner Robins, Georgia
Been a fan of this blog for about a year now and admire your straight forward style. Much of what you have written in the past seems to be proving out. Here’s my question. Is the weak dollar really that much of a problem for Airbus, or just an easy scapegoat for the political leaders?
Ron, Boston, Massachusetts
My students are interested in your site very much. I always aspired to understanding of each student and should visit your site. Now I understand what so pulls them to you.
Alberto A., USA
I work for one of the largest 747-400 Combi operators. (If you look at my location, you’ll be able to guess which one ;-)).
In our 744 fleet we only have 5 full pax aircraft. The other 744’s are all Combi’s. Is Boeing also considering a Combi version of the 747-8? That would really make my day!
Frank V., Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
If anything is to be said about the stretched 467-seat Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, it is that there could be no better way to indicate the huge amount of flexibility and design potential this phenomenal airplane is capable of! And as you correctly said in the Blog entry, Added Revenue, what is even more outstanding is that despite this fairly substantial jump in seating as well as revenue cargo capacity and airframe size over both the -400 and the initial 747-8I, the costs are significantly lower than the -400, and the range is still at the 8,000nm mark! That in itself is truly remarkable.
The 747-8 airframe is clearly a very efficient, and optimized design. No doubt that, as Boeing has clearly been listening to its customers and continuing to advance the Queen of the Skies, orders for the -8I will definitely begin to flood in soon!
As for the 747-8F - Most definitely the freighter of the future! Simply, the 747-8 is an ultra-efficient leviathan that is set to rule the 400 plus seat market for decades to come.
Previously archived comments (page 1 of 5)
Older »
With the latest FAA ETOPS announcement, why would any airline purchase the Airbus A340-500 or A340-600 now? Unless Airbus will be giving them away, which may be a possibility, the Boeing 777 family just became more valuable to any airline who is operating it now and in the future. With the Airbus response to a long range twin many years away in the A350 family, Boeing should enjoy a virtual monopoly with their own 777/787 family. Way to go Boeing for having the correct insight years ago.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
It will be great if Boeing could build a new 747 with the exact dimensions of the A380 or better. Boeing has the knowledge, finances and technological know how. Come on Boeing, what are you waiting for?
Roger J., England
I was wondering if the design engineers for the 747-8I ever thought about or discussed about making the center wing box area on the 747-8I out of light weight carbon composites? Can it be done? Is it possible to do it on the 747-8I and if it can be done, is it too late in the design and development process to do it? How about the area just under the center fuselage were the ram air ducts, landing gear, wing to body flaring is? Can those panels be made out of composites because it looks like it’s just a shroud were the ram air ducts are? Then again, I am sure the design engineers have thought out side of the box and were open to any input from those at Boeing to make the 747-8I lighter. You know it will be great to finally see the 747-8I in flight testing and see the actual performance numbers and be surprised that this new 747-8I performs better than expected. Are the shrouds around the engines made out of light weight composites? Is it possible? Just trying to think of ways to make the plane lighter. I guess the 747 hump can’t be made out of composites because of the expansion and contraction differences between composites and aluminum.
Tim, Baltimore, Maryland
What is my dream of the future 737 series? My 737RS (replacement study) planes have 6 different models. The smallest one carries about 100-110 in 1 class and the second smallest one is similar to 737-600 nowadays. They share the smallest and similar wings, which is smaller than the 737NGs nowadays. Then, the two models are close to the class of 737-700 and 737-800 nowadays. And the largest two are close to 737-900ER and 757-200. The largest two can have 4x2 main landing gears. This is my little idea about 737RS (replacement study). These sizes optimize the market needs and extend the 737 market. Hope that all of you share more about the new 737!
Glen L, Beverly Hills, California
In regards to Boeing vs. Airbus, I like and prefer Boeing probably because I am a citizen of the USA. I’ve flown other airliners like the L1011 to Hawaii but other than that I’ve flown basically Boeing products. As far as creature comfort, the elbow to elbow seating arrangement on a 737 can be annoying especially on flights longer than 2 hrs. The 757’s are a lot more comfy because of the wider seats. I was curious on why can’t Boeing just put a little tweak on the width of the fuselage to make the 737’s a little more comfortable for passengers as well as I think more appealing to more airlines.
Andrew, Wasilla, Alaska
With the FAA abolishing ETOPS and allowing qualified Twin jets to fly over 5 hours away from a diversion airport, I feel Boeing’s long standing vision of point to point travel with fuel efficient twin jets just got the biggest seal of approval Boeing could have hoped for, as if the market hadn’t already spoken loudly enough with the 777s absolute trouncing of Airbus A340 product. I feel vindication is in the air, literally, for many people who have long argued that the steady but sure trend toward twinjets over 4-engined aircraft is here to stay.
Alexander R., Edinburgh, Scotland
I suggest Boeing has a party on July 7 to celebrate the fantastic 777 on the date 7/7/’07!
Richard M., Sydney
Many people ask, “What’s next from Boeing?” I would say, “give them a break!” Boeing launched 737-900ER, 787, 747-8 and 777-LRF recently. Boeing is in no hurry to launch another product. The 737NG is still selling like hot cakes and 777-300ER does not have any credible contender until 2015. In any case, narrow-body is such a big market that you do not have any time constraint to launch a new one. You can offer a 737 replacement three to five years after a new competitor without any strategic drawback. The situation is slightly different for the 777-300ER, but Boeing has more than six years to think about its replacement. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of both.
G.
It seems as though Singapore airlines has decided to purchase both the A350 and the 787. Given the costs of operating two different fleet types it doesn’t seem to make any sense to purchase two different aircraft of such similar capabilities. More astoundingly it seems that they plan to use the 787 for short haul service and the 350 for long haul service. Can you perhaps make any sense of their decision?
Brian, Virgina
This blog is a near-perfect example of what companies should be doing, but rarely do, to engage and inform the public that takes an interest in a particular line of business and a set of products. For every sort of industry there are thousands of well-informed observers and consumers whose intelligence and loyalty can be a decisive help in seeing that the work is done right, and that the news from both sides moves fast. Of course, there has to be a blogger who really wants an exchange among equals. That’s where this blog works and so many others don’t. Keep it going - you’re becoming an example far outside aerospace.
Steve M., Redwood City, California
I cannot understand how anyone could accuse Randy or Boeing of bashing Airbus. Boeing (and Randy) have always kept a professional touch to their press releases and statements. Boeing even publicly congratulated Airbus on the maiden flight of the A380. Airbus has, to my knowledge, never once congratulated Boeing on any of its achievements. Instead, Airbus focuses on casting shadow on anything not Airbus. They publicly called the 787 a Chinese copy of the A330, when now in fact the A350 looks to be a copy of the 787. Both manufacturers make great aircraft, but when it comes down to it, Boeing is far more mature when commenting on their rivals.
Hans M., Hannover, Germany
The new Intercontinental fills a wide niche between the 350 seat (777/340) and the 555 seat (380) planes. It surprises me that more airlines have not signed up for the 747-8i since the gap is so wide.
Dennis, Virginia
What I like about the blog (all corporate loyalty aside) is that you put out the company explanation in a straight forward manner. It’s good to see that, because I have come to expect nothing but a high speed spin cycle from the other side. I always thought that what Boeing lacked, as a non apologetic defense and explanation of the company and its position. I know its gotten morphed into political correctness, but there is more a washing out of companies and what they stand for. There is none of that in your blog. Airbus simply has no answer (but then they are just following you guys these days and maybe a look alike blog is more than they can even take!) If Harry Stonecipher had one thing right, it was you guys would go right after the competition, full tilt, no apologies and let the best company win. I think he put the spirit back into the company (or let Boeing know they could be proud of who you are and what you make and express that pride). So, keep up the good work, I look forward to checking in on a regular basis and even more so when the completion starts to rev up the PR machine.
Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska
Love reading your blog. I find it informative and entertaining. I am an aviation enthusiast and have been all my life. Have always been especially fascinated by the “big boys” (747’s, DC10’s, 777’s etc. First thing I did when I moved to Seattle was drive to Everett to gawk at all the widebodies sitting out there! Don’t take offense, but I can’t wait to see the A380 in person. That being said, I am going to do everything in my power to be somewhere in the vicinity of Paine Field the day the 787 makes her maiden flight!! Please keep us “airplane junkies” enlightened as to the progress of this exciting new aircraft. We appreciate the info you provide on your blog - keep it up. If you happen to cross paths with your Airbus counterpart, ask him if he can start one too - LOL
Bob S., Kent, Washington
Bon jour to Boeing - I’m fully aware of the purpose of your website. To detract the honesty of innovation which America has predominated since the 1950’s? Yes I am in support of innovation not standardization of your technical team, who continues to promote an old replica 747. Europeans have a vast knowledge of aerospace and aviation. Mr. Randy, we Europeans invented the airplane. By your nature of your culture everything is based on mass production. Not quality - as France, United Kingdom and Western Europe. Please do us a favor. You have to admit to defeat - yes, it happens to the best of companies including American cartels such as Boeing whom spot the MD-12 which Air France and KLM were interested in. Learn to say AIRBUS. I shall repeat learn to say AIRBUS - the leader of customized aircraft. Yes I find your website full of untruth regarding industry markets. AIRBUS has surpassed you on larger Jumbo aircraft. Boeing, the honest truth is the international market no longer belongs to Boeing, the lagger of 20th century technology.
Somanville, Lyon, France
I think it would be great if Boeing could install webcams for visitors to view planes outside your factories at Boeing and Paine fields. The information is already displayed on the internet in various places so it’s not like proprietary information you are disclosing on your company/customers.
John, Los Angeles, California
It really has been a great year! Boeing’s vision of the Future of Flight - it’s starting to “lift” my Commercial Aviation enthusiasm to a new level. I visited the Boeing factory in Everett and flew on a B777-300ER for the first time, and I know won’t be the last! B787 and B747-8I “Here I am” -Boeing keep UP these great airplanes.
Jorge T., Honduras
Congratulations for such a great order, hope to fly this Aircraft as a Pilot in some years. Lufthansa will have a great fleet with 346,380,748 and 787/350 all great Airplanes. Just a pity LH hasn’t ordered some 777 - would look so great! Randy: I love to read your Blog it’s always interesting.
Konstantin, FRA/Germany
I appreciate you and your colleagues at Boeing and congratulate you all on the fine job you’ve done putting Boeing in such a strong position in very challenging times. Thanks for your blog and very effective communications efforts throughout the year—I check it almost daily. While admittedly a Boeing cheerleader, your Company makes me proud as an American, a stockholder, and a 747 pilot.
Mark H., Anthem, Arizona
I appreciate you and your colleagues at Boeing and congratulate you all on the fine job you’ve done putting Boeing in such a strong position in very challenging times. Thanks for your blog and very effective communications efforts throughout the year—I check it almost daily. While admittedly a Boeing cheerleader, your Company makes me proud as an American, a stockholder, and a 747 pilot.
Geoff D., Thanet, UK
Thanks for you insights on the terrific year that Boeing has had. All your fans from all over the world can’t wait for the first flight of the Dreamliner and to see the magic 747 continue to grace the skies.
Chris G., Australia
I am curious to know why Boeing didn’t come up a with low gross weight version of the 787-9 (a la the 787-3 derivative of the 787-8)? Such an aircraft would work extremely on trans-Atlantic routes for many airlines and save costs on landing fees. I would also like to know why the range was limited to 3500nm for the 787-3? I would think that around 4500nm would be optimum, allowing for Caribbean/upper South American routes from North America and bringing into range most of Europe, Africa and Central and South Asia.
Keith L., Ottawa, Canada
The 777 and the upcoming 787 Dreamliner incorporate fly-by-wire instead of the usual hydraulic controls. Will the new 747-8 also have fly-by-wire as well?
Han, Newport News, Virginia
Looks like the 737 replacement better seat over 200 at the top end.
Gary G., Sydney, Australia
I have noticed the 747-8i virtual mockup and noticed that the 747 which is so clamed as old fashioned airplane by flying barrel maker Airbus executives, has sharper and sleeker design. It is impossible the A380 to have better aerodynamics mainly in the front section. The 747 nose shape is similar to an arrow what is logic on a machine that is supposed to fly. Airbus folks seem to forget about air resistance when they projected the A380. Some of the older drawings show better aerodynamics. As Airbus tried to improve the rest of the design, they moved the shape of the front section to a stage prior to DC-3s conception. If the DC-3 was about the same size as the A380, the DC-3 would have better aerodynamics in the front section.
Cristiano A., Campo Grande/MS, Brazil
Wish you the best with 787 development in the New Year and hope you don’t encounter last-minute teething pains like the A380.
Bankelele, Nairobi, Kenya
Now that Airbus has released all its claims and specs for the various A350 models, it’s up to you (and Boeing engineers) to one-up them with your 787-1000 and future 777 models (hint: add more composite component as you are doing on the 747-8I…)
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
I must say I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog! Congratulations to the company on the Lufthansa order! Many of us on the Internet applaud your reasoned commentary, and your ability to be above attacking the competition. Keep up the good work! Something that aggrieves me (not about the blog!) is the move away from the traditional Boeing numbering sequence in the sub-versions. 787-8/9 and 747-8 seem quite illogical to me. I know all about the number 8 and the Chinese, but was that the only reason behind all of this?
Trent, Dublin, Ireland
The week running from 4th to 8th December 2006 quite rightly had the slogan of ‘The Future is Now’. Congratulations on the stupendous order for the phenomenal Boeing 747-8Intercontinental! No doubt, this ultra-modern, efficient, economical and formidably capable 747 family will be around for many more decades to come. It is an airplane of superlatives, and I would expect the orders for both variants to continue to flood in! Playing off the pun of the 747-8, ‘The Shape of the Future’, I think Boeing can go even further when considering your industry leading Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and say, ‘Boeing IS the Future of Air Travel!’ Wishing you all the best for 2007!
Chris C., South Africa
Why is the forward “plug” on the 747-8 so much longer than the aft plug? Do the new engines or modified wing alter the center of gravity or center of lift?
Mark W., Houston, Texas
Remember the QTD2 on All Nippon Airways’ modified Boeing 777-300ER? Boeing tested chevrons on the rear engine cowling. Is that patented? Airbus could take your ideas and simply put it on their Airbus A350XWB, which clearly already look like the Boeing 787. It’s like using your ideas and stealing it and put it on their idea.
Andre D., Tacoma, Washington
The 747 is amazing… nothing to say! However, why is it that even though it’s no direct competitor to the A380, it still beats it on paper with superior operating economics?! Boeing beat Airbus in this section once again… to be confirmed as time goes by. If indeed after the 1st flight the 748 is still more economical than the Whalejet, then I expect the 747 to become as successful and iconic as in the 70s.
Maj M., Lausanne, VD, Switzerland
I saw your neat Website for the launch of the 747-8I and the cool video of it morphing from the current 747-400 to the 747-8I. My question is how much more does the new 747 wing is swept back than the 747-400? From the video morphing, it looks like Boeing not only swept back the wings more, but, there is more wing flex, but, I read that Boeing is making the inner wing thicker at the wing root. Also in the video, the vertical and horizontal tail is more curved. I was wondering if you ( if possible ) can go deeper into the technical aspects of the new changes on the 747-8I from the 400? And go deeper into the wing twist, aerodynamics that Boeing is doing on the wing? I know the new 747-8I will get many interior features from the 787, but, will it get the same good looking window panels that the 787 has? To be honest, the window panels from the 747-400 looks too 70ish.
Tim, Baltimore, Maryland
An order for 20 747-8’s in a direct competition with the A380/A340 by Lufthansa says a lot about the product strategy of Boeing. Well done - keep it up. BTW -I don’t find the attitude of the blog at all offensive. I don’t think your willingness to cultivate and project a vision for your present and future is at all a problem. Perhaps difficult to accept by supporters of organizations prone to grand gestures in lieu of recognizing market needs. Having worked in the manufacture of parts for Boeing, GEAE, Airbus, N-G, Bombardier and Rolls-Royce I enjoy the insight into the current and long-term vision of a major aircraft maker like Boeing. Your blog does an excellent job keeping interested people informed. It would be refreshing to see someone within Airbus willing to present their market direction but it looks like they would be just as well served re-printing Boeing’s ideas 5 years later and calling them “new”.
Seth, Ogden, Utah
Congratulation, the long awaited 747-8I order came in. Maybe Cathay Pacific or Air France/KLM is next.
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
At no point does Randy “bash” Airbus. He simply details all the information in a very factual manner. The facts tell the truth and it accurately depicts Airbus as the underdog in this market. The truth hurts. Airbus is the company infamous for its rival bashing, not Boeing. Boeing has always publicly regarded Airbus as a viable competitor and has always referred to Airbus with respect. The same cannot be said for Airbus - Just this week a top Airbus executive compared to the 748i to a failed 1960’s Ford. Such comments are unfounded, immature and inaccurate. As usual, I found Randy’s article to be extremely informative and eye-opening.
Jan E., Heidelberg, Germany
On 6 Dec 2006, Lufthansa announced its 747-8i order and became the first airline to buy the airplane. This order proves at least two things. Firstly, a “serious” airline like Lufthansa does order 747-8i. Secondly, an A380 customer can decide to buy 747-8i. Boeing’s strategy to put 747-8i’s capacity exactly at 20% above 777-300ER/A340-600 and at 20% below the A380 is paying.
G.
As a frequent flyer who logs many international miles, primarily long-haul, business class, I have seen the window shade situation getting worse and worse. On some daylight flights, the shades are drawn within a minute or two of climb out, and on almost all of the daylight flights (i.e. Bangkok-Tokyo-Los Angeles, the shades go down from a few minutes to an hour or so after takeoff, and remain down for the entire grueling time (on one of two of my trips to the far east within the last 3 weeks, the shades were down the entire time (19+ hours)including a beautiful morning arrival down the California coast into San Francisco. It is frustrating to pay 8 to 10,000 dollars and not see such beauty.
Steve A., Washington, D.C.
I have enjoyed your journal, and I think that Boeing has done their homework on this plane [747-8] and the customers seem to agree. I think that you should install air refueling on all the domestic units sold. Both a removable off-loading boom and a receptacle.
Mike H., Boise, Idaho
I just saw the rendering of the Lufthansa 747-8. She is indescribably beautiful. A fitting tribute to Joe Sutter and a brilliant design. Are these the latest winglets? Sweet.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Airbus exec McArtor said that the only reason Lufthansa ordered the 747-8 was because Airbus stumbled on the A380. Not true. Lufthansa has said the 747-8 will complement their fleet - fitting in between the A380 and A340-600. The 747-8 will be ordered by more airlines whether it be the passenger or freight versions, so the world must get used to seeing more brand new copies of this wonderful airplane for decades to come.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
Thanks for the insight you provide into Boeing’s thoughts every week! I really like both companies, but it is Airbus’ fault to be in such major trouble right now, and I believe that the XWB is just not the right plane to pull them out of the mess they are in. I fully agree with your comment on the extremely long delivery time - considering how many resources Airbus has invested in the A350 already, it seems ridiculous that it will take another 7 years until first delivery. This means 7 rather comfortable years for Boeing: you can watch the 787 sell well, update the 777 (which will bring it very close the the ‘superior’ A350) and work on an all-composite 737 successor, which will secure Boeing’s lead position for another 20 years.
Christopher M., Vienna, Austria
The launch of the A350 is healthy to the extent that it promotes competition between the two major suppliers of twin aisle aircraft. Imagine what would happen if one supplier dominated this market. At the other end of the scale - how long before the regional jets grow big enough to challenge the 737/A320 replacements? When will China get in on this gig?
Gary G., Sydney Australia
There is no way this is true! I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator.
Michael, Omaha, Nebraska
Actually Michael, Sir Richard has indeed used this quote many times - that the best way to become a millionaire is to start off as a billionaire and launch an airplane - although others may have said it as well!
Randy Baseler
Enjoy your blog and have a question. When you talk about overweight with respect to Boeing or Airbus, are you referring to an aircraft delivered without interior?? In the case of the A380 is it is 5 tonnes +/- with 550 passengers. What would it be with the seats required for 800+?
Len E., Indonesia
LOL, I have placed a 747 next to a picture of an A380 … guess the subject says it all! Don’t change the shape of the 747 PLLEEAASSE, it is just such an eye keeper!! What an awesome aircraft… as if it’s got a life of its own, complete with a personality! Just LOVE IT!
Darryl, South Africa
Boeing needs to continue executing its business plans as effectively as you have been doing in order to maintain your well deserved poll position. Upholding ethics, customer focus and continued product development and improvement will continue to put Boeing in a formidably strong position to face the ever changing challenges of the 21st Century markets. You, Boeing, have achieved this magnificent position purely as you listened to the market and your customers, and strived to improve upon everything - hence forever new frontiers. Boeing clearly is all about working together and building the world’s most advanced and finest commercial and military equipment. Every single BCA is an engineering marvel; breaking new technologies and innovations, and providing the most efficient, reliable, attractive, and capable airplanes to the market. You guys got the mathematics right!
Chris C., South Africa
Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793
The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.
A., London, U.K.
Regarding the 787/A350XWB comparisons: We all know that Airbus is comparing apples to oranges (like comparing their 270-seat A350-800 to a 242-seat 787-8, when they should be comparing it to a 280-seat 787-9). So, in response to Airbus’s “Boeing PR” claims, Boeing should use this new term when talking about Airbus’s lopsided apples-to-oranges comparisons: “Airbus Math.” After all, Airbus’s numbers just don’t add up right. For proof, look no further than all those A380 delays.
Zachary M., Fort Wayne, Indiana
Some say that the delay of the A380 is not a problem since it won’t have a competitor of its size for many years. However, two engines were developed for it, and their delay might be a problem. It seems like the Trent 900 and GP-7200 need to be in revenue service now to take advantage of their technological window. The more efficient GenX engine is poised to take to the skies in large numbers in the not to distant future.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Some say that the delay of the A380 is not a problem since it won’t have a competitor of its size for many years. However, two engines were developed for it, and their delay might be a problem. It seems like the Trent 900 and GP-7200 need to be in revenue service now to take advantage of their technological window. The more efficient GenX engine is poised to take to the skies in large numbers in the not to distant future.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793
The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.
A., London, U.K.
Regarding the 787/A350XWB comparisons: We all know that Airbus is comparing apples to oranges (like comparing their 270-seat A350-800 to a 242-seat 787-8, when they should be comparing it to a 280-seat 787-9). So, in response to Airbus’s “Boeing PR” claims, Boeing should use this new term when talking about Airbus’s lopsided apples-to-oranges comparisons: “Airbus Math.” After all, Airbus’s numbers just don’t add up right. For proof, look no further than all those A380 delays.
Zachary M., Fort Wayne, Indiana
Yawn! How predictable that Randy once again is here to bad mouth the competition! Come on, don’t be so childish! This is a blog, not a kindergarten! Boeing is a great company that makes great products. However, with attitudes like yours no wonder we Europeans tend to weel revulsion at you Yanks!
Ivor M., Berlin, Germany
I very much appreciate your comments, especially this week’s where you explain how AB is trying to slant the comparison. What I’m amazed at is how COMPLETELY AB has faltered…management, finances, design for manufacturability, manning and manufacturing efficiency, etc, etc. The challenges they face are much greater than BA faced with the factory issues in ‘98. What I don’t understand about BA’s behavior is why not go for the jugular? Especially if they decide this Friday to pursue the 350, why shouldn’t BA proactively try to launch the 737 successor in ‘08 or so…when they’re tied down engineering wise and financially? I’m sure there are might be issues around residual guarantees and others that I haven’t considered, but it seems to me that BA is on the cusp of dominance for a decade or so given recent events…why not extend the lead even further? P.S. why you’re at it why doesn’t BA try to use composite technology to offer a competitive product to the ERJ family? The only way BA is vulnerable long term is from the bottom, don’t let them get a foothold and don’t make it easy for them to have the R&D dollars to develop composites.
Dick G., New York
For the 747-8I, maybe Boeing could satisfy both Emirates and British Airways with the same size airframe by extending the range with extra tanks similar to the 747-400ER for Qantas? One would hope that Cathay Pacific would get a few for the LAX to HKG route, glad that they don’t use the 340-600 for that route anymore.
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I just read in Flight International that this program when launched has slipped at least a year to the 2013 timeframe for the -800,-900. The -1000 is now scheduled for EIS in late 2015. Give me a break. If this variant is to take on the 777-300ER, I am sure this development is not making Boeing shake with fear. In 9 years time, assuming Airbus has no more slips, Boeing will presumably have already made plans for a 777 replacement that will obsolete this plane. Airbus will be playing catch up for at least the next 10 years or more.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
To me this new website [Startup Boeing] that you launched is a noble move. Not many people would contemplate starting a business in airlines, but here you are helping them. :)
Meikah D., Makati, Philippines
I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator. The quote as I recall it goes: “You can make a small fortune running an airline, of course, you have to start out with a large fortune”. I am not sure, however, this sounds rather a Bethunesque like saying.
W.K.B., Newcastle, Washington
It seems to me that if you have to make a web site for a startup airline, then they have no business being in that business.
Gregory S., Anchorage, Alaska
Your answer on why the 747-8F has much shorter range that the passenger (higher gross weight) suggests that a freighter ought to have higher lift wing than a passenger plane. Are the wing designs different and are new freighters more efficient than converted passenger planes?
Doug H., Anaheim, California
Two comments: It sounds like Emirates is concerned mainly with only about 100-150 extra nautical miles of range over the baseline 8000 to fit its own guidelines for range/payload/winds. Would it really be that hard to increase the baseline range by such a small amount? Shortening the fuselage seems an awfully high price to pay for an axtra 250-300 nautical miles. I would think apart from efficiency gains, simply raising the take-off weight to 980,000lb and increasing the thrust of the GEnx engines to about 68,500 lb would do the job and then some (10,000 extra lbs of fuel) Second, I also notice that as the max T.O. weight has risen from 960K to 970K the specified engine thrust has remained the same, at 66,500lbs. It has been noted that even though the A380 has a lower thrust to weight ratio, its low-speed wing design allows it to avoid step-climbing to cruise altitude where the 747-8 still requires this, which is all the more reason to increase the thrust of the engines to possibly compensate for this wing efficiency disadvantage. I would think 68,500lbs (at 970K T.O. weight) MINIMUM with the same fuel consumption is reasonable, but would it be enough? It just seems that the 66,500 lbs x4 for a 970k plane is a very small increase (and an inferior thrust to weight ratio) versus 63,300 x4 for the 875k max T.O. 747-400. Here’s to some big 747-8I orders coming soon (hopefully)!
John G., Colorado Springs, Colorado
My understanding is that composite materials such as CF and kevlar variants are subject to degradation when exposed to UV light over long periods of time. I also have read that in the higher echelons of racing (namely Formula 1) the composite structures have a limited lifespan of a few races until the tubs are no longer able to meet flex tolerances. Are these factors relevant to the composite structures used on the 787, or are they so much ‘urban legend’?
Chris, Austin, Texas
Just curious if people in the marketing department have considered hiring Orange Country Choppers to design and build a tribute chopper to the 787. I think having the Discovery Channel film American Chopper working with Boeing on a bike would be a lot of fun to watch. It would be a great way to extend a “fresh” image of the ‘87. I enjoy the blog, keep up the good work!
Patrick K., Seattle, Washington
Congrats on conquering South America’s biggest challenge to Boeing: TAM. This could be the beginning of a long friendship. Civil Aviation market is growing steadily here, not exactly the best time to delay the delivery of new aircrafts by years.
Ronaldo, Sao Paulo/SP, Brazil
In the Red Herring Magazine, Nintendo quoted that it would be flying in as many as 18,000 Nintendo Wii in each Air Freight as it tries to move 4 million Wii units to the US. It would seem to me that it would be an interesting promotion to fill the 747 LCF with Nintendo Wii. I estimate it would hold about 1 % of the 50,000 Wii units ($12,500,000 worth). I understand that the 747 LCF is in flight test and is not normally going to be used for “commercial freight” but to upstage the Airbus 380 freight (again) and have a holiday flair with Boeing helping Santa Claus make certain there are enough Nintendo games for the Holiday Season. If not possible, I hope this has at least provided a smile.
Timothy S., Saint Louis, Missouri
In a nutshell, is the 787 bleedless engine design more focused on energy efficiency benefits or other benefits such as humidified cabin air?
Ivan, Houston, Texas
Why doesn’t Boeing improve its single aisle B737 to beat Airbus A320 family? I have seen a lot of times airlines prefer 320 over 737. Why don’t Boeing use entire composite structure or do something different that it could readily beat 320 like the Dreamliner?
Musfequs S., Warrensburg, Missouri
I didn’t get your post on Nov 1st. Even though you had mentioned before that Boeing will continue to improve upon the 777, now you seem to imply that further improvements on the 777 is impossible. “The cost of re-doing an aluminum fuselage design that is already complete, using another material set makes it pretty much prohibitive.” As you know, A350XWB will be built entirely with composite. The A350-1000 will essentially drive a knife into the heart of the 777-300ER. I hope Boeing will respond aggressively before Airbus overtakes Boeing again.
Victor T., Santa Clara, California
Recently on Bloomberg, Airbus officials claimed that their Airbus A350XWB will be composed of 50% composites, challenging your Boeing 787. With the 50% of composites they can better attack Boeing’s 787. Timing and amount of engineers might be their disadvantage, but technology and innovation is on their side, which out weighs timing, because they could see the Boeing 787 and improve their Airbus A350XWB. What is Boeing doing? I also remember that their Airbus A380 and A350XWB and A320E will be in the works together, while Boeing will be freed from juggling the Boeing 737RS and other planes. Also, what are you doing to tackle the supplier and weight issue?
Agustas A., Madrid, Spain
I can’t say I’m impressed with the look of the new 747 LCF developed to support the 787 program, but I do wonder if there is a commercial market for this less attractive queen of the skies. Has anyone asked you to build one of these for them? Would you?
William D., Barstow, Maryland
Is it possible to do a mini BWB for 737 replacement? Could give big boost to range and cargo capabilities. On Combi modes, airliners could have a good, flexible, and small aircraft for passenger/cargo modes.
Pangestu A., Surabaya, Indonesia
Like other readers you mentioned in your Nov. 1 blog, it is also obvious to me that Boeing’s 777’s will have to be weight-reduced by a lot to keep up with the new composite planes. For example, your 787-10 is projected to have a MTOW of under 550,000 lbs and carry as many passengers roughly as far as a 750,000 lb 777-300ER. Those are pretty jarring comparisons! When it (eventually) comes out, Airbus’s larger-model XWB A350 will be similar or larger than the 787-10, and unless the 777-300ER “slims down” by a huge amount, it will then no longer be attractive to buy and operate. The only way to get the 777’s weight down a lot is by using a fully-composite airframe (and then you can slim down those 19-ton engines it currently uses, and the fuel used, too). All a very virtuous cycle, but impossible to do well enough while clinging to a mainly-metal airframe. Also obviously, you won’t tell us what you are going to do about it, but I’m sure you will do what’s needed when it’s needed! Thanks for your blog, it is entertaining and it often delivers the news ahead of everyone else…
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
I wanted to comment on your blog about the 747-8I. You said that this airplane can fly the same amount of miles when it’s fully loaded. A Dutch website (www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl - it’s all in Dutch) posted some news about the same subject. They actually told people that this plane will fly ‘less’ miles then the original model. What is true?
Bas N., Amersfoort, the Netherlands
Would it be possible to offer the 747-8 Intercontinental with a 9-Abreat Economy Class? I think much of the hype that the competing A380 gets is based on the premise that it is more spacious - that it’s 10-abreast Eco Class will be so much wider, in seats and aisles, that the 747. I like the space I get on a 777 - that is something that no Airbus product can match. But can we see that kind of cross-section on the 747? How will one seat less affect the economics of operating the 747-8i?
Jun L., Manila, Philippines
I read the other day that Boeing was discouraging buyers from multiple color schemes on the engine nacelles for the 787 because of excessive fuel burn due to the drag generated by the point where the paint lines meet. Why not just clear coat the nacelles after painting? We used to do this with custom paint jobs in the 80’s. Could the additional paint weight that much more? Just wondering.
Rick D., Huntsville, Alabama
I understand you have no plans for a 1000 passenger BWB craft, but how about one to supplant the 737? I have read that you are considering a 2-aisle replacement. This sounds like a wider fuselage than the current “tube” so perhaps BWB in which the fuselage becomes a lift body? Doing a BWB 737 would be a good way to start; a small and simpler aircraft at the beginning of your learning curve. Also, is it true that if BWB works aerodynamically and otherwise then it will be much more efficient than the current “tube” designs because the airframe drag will be only about what is needed to maintain lift? If so, why isn’t Boeing pushing hard now in this high-fuel-cost market to make BWB work ASAP not only on commercial craft but also military ones, such as the new tanker?
Christopher D., Plainfield, New Hampshire
Can’t help feeling that the 747 is finally fulfilling its destiny of being a dedicated freighter (originally on the premise that SSTs would take over passenger duties). Given that the 787 killed off the original A350 as a derivative - is the 787-8 Intercontinental itself too much of a derivative to make a successful passenger plane? I acknowledge that the potential market is much smaller.
Gary G., Sydney, Australia
Giving aircraft sub-models designators like -8 and -9 rather than the more traditional -200 and -300 seems to have been embraced by the industry. Why the change?
Patrick J., Aberdeen, Scotland
We dentists have experimented with composite structures on our patients for decades. Dental people are also very interested in material sciences. If fascinates me that you are taking what we use for tooth colored filling materials and fabricating an airplane. Is the new 787 more of a self cure composite or is it heat or halogen light cured. We also had great problems with durability. How have you conquered that in terms of the temperature extremes in flight?
Jack R., Hudson, Ohio
It’s my understanding that the 777 would be in competition with the A350, 787-10 maybe. The question is on everybody’s mind. What will Boeing do with the 777? Especially do to the recent rumors of the A350 going the direction of an all composite fuselage. Leap Frog DeJaVu? BTW-IMO Don’t make the mistake of Airbus A350-airbusdoesnotknowwhatitis with the 747-8i and 787-10. Cancel the 747-8 pax version, cancel possible 787-10 and put the money into a 777 Dreamliner.
Roy D., Sarasota, Florida
I have read the section in your blog about the possibility (or not!) of imprinting an airline’s livery into the carbon fibre of the 787’s fuselage. You said that this was not possible, but what about anodized aluminum? This is a tough, hard wearing finish that would save weight. I understand that any new operators of the aircraft would have to paint over the old livery (as would the original airline if their livery changes) but this would be an incentive to buy new! Hope you get the 787 out on time, and I’m looking forward to seeing it fly!
Felix C., London, UK
Is anyone going to think outside the box on changing how people are packed onto long haul planes? There is a lot of density at seat level but nothing occupying above seat level. I would be overjoyed at having Japanese capsule hotel style tubes, and they could be packed all the way to the ceiling. I think you could even fit more people that way!
Roger B., Santa Cruz, California
Is anyone going to think outside the box on changing how people are packed onto long haul planes? There is a lot of density at seat level but nothing occupying above seat level. I would be overjoyed at having Japanese capsule hotel style tubes, and they could be packed all the way to the ceiling. I think you could even fit more people that way!
Roger B., Santa Cruz, California
I see the airlines using their old paint jobs on a plane or two. How about Boeing painting the brown and gold for on the 737er as on the first 737. How about the fat red stripe and black under the cockpit for the 748 rollout?
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
The 747-8I uses 241,590 litres (less allowances) to deliver 467 pax 14,800 km = 28.61 pax-km/litre. The A380-800 uses 310,000 litres (less allowances) to deliver 555 pax 15,000 km = 26.85 pax-km/litre. Your plane uses less. It now depends if the reduced freight capacity leaves yours attractive to the airlines.
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
It is no surprise to learn that potential 747-8I buyers wanted a few more seats so that the passenger version would be the same length as the cargo version. Speaking of the freighter, the clear advantage of lighter structure than A380F and having a nose loading door is manifested by the 40+ order it has already accumulated. And the orders for the passenger version will follow since it is the natural replacement for the current -400 operators. In the Pacific sector at least, 744’s fly near capacity almost all year round. Additional ~50 seats will fill up if 8I was available today. In short, “If you design it right, they will buy.”
Yungsun H., Los Angeles
The newly extended 747-8 Intercontinental, allowing for 467 passengers is closer to the A380 with 555 passengers. The 747-8 is within 84% of carrying the 555 passengers of the A380. I can’t imagine this news will make the newly replaced Airbus administration feel confident. Why would an airline pay so much more to buy an A380 that carries only 88 more passengers?
Adding to the problem of buying an A380 is the ever-delayed delivery date. The 747-8 will be a success and it is a clever addition to the Boeing line. It further paints Airbus into a corner.
John K., Eugene, Oregon
In this article, Flight International reports that “Boeing opts for larger passenger variant but Dubai airline would rather see it build original longer-range proposal.” I think the currently proposed 747-8I’s range is about perfect, the dash-eight stands for EIGHT thousand nautical miles. You have to keep the 8-conomics right.
G
I had read that Emirates actually preferred longer range in the new 747-8I over more seats, whereas British Airways wanted more seats and less range. What will Boeing’s response to this be? Would you offer two different 747s? Perhaps a high capacity 747-8 and a long range 747-9?
Eugene, Los Angeles, California
I work at GKN Aerospace - Monitor Inc. on Long Island. Just a quick note to say keep up the good work on your blog. I can’t tell you how many times we check back to see if you’ve updated the site. We look forward to your ‘take’ on subjects. Thanks and GOOD JOB!
Steve B., Long Island, New York
Randy, you can’t leave Boeing! I wish more of the Boeing types were as vocal and knowledgeable as you are. I read where Airbus doesn’t know what to do about your blog. Just keep it up! I still think Boeing has played a huge part in convincing Airbus to build the 380. “Ahhh, the old sucker play!” The recent news concerning the versions of Catia is almost too ridiculous to believe… After all, it IS their software. Wasn’t the 777 built without a mockup using Catia? I look forward to the blog every week, perhaps you should write twice a week for us news-starved Boeing fans.
Wes C. Arab, Alabama
I regularly fly both airplanes [737, A320], both in the cockpit and in the cabin. While many never discuss comfort of the pilots, it is a fact that the A320 series cockpit is ‘bigger’ and therefore more comfortable, with more room to work. As for the passenger cabin, people can quote statistics all day. But the fact that the sidewalls are more upright in the Airbus makes the window seat definitely more comfortable. Otherwise, you really can’t tell any difference between the two interiors, in my opinion. As emphasized here by Randy, management of airline operations like on-time performance, flight attendant courtesy, passenger amenities are the things that really matter the most. And like any other business, the delivery of those things to the customer clearly varies in importance between different airlines. Certain airlines are more successful than others simply because they tend to focus on the most appropriate things like placing customer satisfaction and safety before everything else. Customers notice this difference and when offered adequate choice, they will spend their money where they perceive the best value, which is not always the lowest fare.
Ken W., Renton, Washington
I’m on my 16th year flying the wonderful 747. If it’s possible to have a warm relationship with a machine, then I guess I’m guilty. The admiration I have for the airplane is enhanced further by the new 747 models on your “drawing boards” and I congratulate Boeing for its adaptive and innovating, pilot pleasing engineering over the years. Simply marvelous.
Manny P., Wellington, Nevada
I’m a long time Boeing stockholder. Regarding the 737 replacement, I have a suggestion that is outside the box, if you will. Design the new 737 with 1 larger engine but keep 2 small engines inside the main frame of the aircraft, that would be deployed in event of main engine trouble, that could fly the plane in a slow flight condition for say 500 miles. I don’t know if this feasible or not but I like to think outside the box.
Tim C., Southampton, New York
First, I love your blog, and as a stockholder it really helps me to see Boeing’s future. I also enjoy the bits about you, such as your picture down in South Africa and how it was funny to be from the northwestern most point of the continental United States. You are an engaging and interesting executive. Keep it up. I know Boeing doesn’t actually manufacture and install seating. Nonetheless, I wanted to know if Boeing is taking into account that people are getting bigger and heavier.
It seems that with the number of seats that you can squeeze into a plane being airlines priorities, has any consideration been made to make sure real people can fit in these seats? And if a person needs two seats, how to make the two seats comfortable? And if people weigh more, then I assume the airline cannot take on as much freight. Does that space then go unused? Thanks for your input, and keep up the blog!
Carol C., Sacramento, California
Congratulations to the Boeing team for listening to the customer and giving them “what they want” not “what we think they want.” Making both versions of the 747-8 the same size will undoubtedly reduce complexity in the manufacturing process thereby reducing cost and risk as the program ramps up. I, like many of Boeing’s fans out there, are looking forward to the day when Boeing announces that first big 747-8I order.
Hardy M., Orange County, California
I’ve perused comments of my fellow bloggers about the proposed darkening capability of the passenger windows in the 787 - and want to express my “two cents” on this issue. When I fly I ALWAYS book a window seat; booking my flights months in advance, to have a good window seat! Obviously, I enjoy the views through my window; even watching for passing air traffic!
(Perhaps my fellow bloggers have seen the “air to air photos” posted on web sites including airliners.net) .I shoot photos of major topography / land features, as well, including Mt. Rainier. It’s a contradiction for Boeing to offer the largest window ever available in a commercial jet but then allowing cabin crew to control when / if the passenger ( aka me !!! ) can enjoy the view outside the window!? When I fly I don’t sleep! My rationale is simple: I don’t pay good money to sleep - I can sleep when I reach my destination! I WANT TO ENJOY THE VIEW - THE EXPERIENCE - WHEN FLYING! I can sleep anytime - flying always has and always will be special to me! One of your bloggers reports that he is an “international road warrior” who prefers a dark cabin. All he need do is don an eye mask, close his eyes and he’ll see nothing! United Airlines - and others,
I’m sure - has eye masks available in their amenity kits. I’ve seen some passengers who use their blanket to cover their heads, when they want to sleep. During my career in the US Air Force I caught numerous “hops” (free of charge flights) on C-141 and C-5 cargo haulers. These aircraft had NO WINDOWS - except tiny portholes in doors and emergency exits - that their “hitchhikers” could look through! I can assure you, my flights on these airplanes were loooooong and boooooring! I’ll have to avoid flying on the 787 if you make it possible for cabin crew to control and dictate when I can look out my window! I just won’ pay good money for a bad ride!
Joe B., Warner Robins, Georgia
Been a fan of this blog for about a year now and admire your straight forward style. Much of what you have written in the past seems to be proving out. Here’s my question. Is the weak dollar really that much of a problem for Airbus, or just an easy scapegoat for the political leaders?
Ron, Boston, Massachusetts
My students are interested in your site very much. I always aspired to understanding of each student and should visit your site. Now I understand what so pulls them to you.
Alberto A., USA
I work for one of the largest 747-400 Combi operators. (If you look at my location, you’ll be able to guess which one ;-)).
In our 744 fleet we only have 5 full pax aircraft. The other 744’s are all Combi’s. Is Boeing also considering a Combi version of the 747-8? That would really make my day!
Frank V., Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
If anything is to be said about the stretched 467-seat Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, it is that there could be no better way to indicate the huge amount of flexibility and design potential this phenomenal airplane is capable of! And as you correctly said in the Blog entry, Added Revenue, what is even more outstanding is that despite this fairly substantial jump in seating as well as revenue cargo capacity and airframe size over both the -400 and the initial 747-8I, the costs are significantly lower than the -400, and the range is still at the 8,000nm mark! That in itself is truly remarkable.
The 747-8 airframe is clearly a very efficient, and optimized design. No doubt that, as Boeing has clearly been listening to its customers and continuing to advance the Queen of the Skies, orders for the -8I will definitely begin to flood in soon!
As for the 747-8F - Most definitely the freighter of the future! Simply, the 747-8 is an ultra-efficient leviathan that is set to rule the 400 plus seat market for decades to come.
Chris C., South Africa
Older »