Why is it that avionics have not reached the reliability of consumer electronics? Seems like a great marketing strategy would be an airplane that you never needed to look under the hood, I mean carpet (EE Bay access hole). This seems like an emperor’s new clothes observation. I realize that operating environments are harsh - but it begs the question why we need to service some things in the first place… I can buy a Wal-Mart TV that will last 10 years for $200.
Richard M., Everett, Washington
You mention routes out of South Africa to illustrate that traffic spreads when smaller planes are involved. That is most likely true, but you don’t mention the political changes in South Africa since 1991 allowing the growth in air traffic between South Africa and the rest of the world.
Thomas W., London
I enjoyed your latest article regarding the state of affairs at Airbus. Thanks for taking the high road on your opinion of Airbus. It’s easy to criticize an opponent when they are down and you chose not to. Good form.
Bruce, SeaTac, Washington
In spite of the set backs that Airbus has had we need to make sure that “Launch Aide” is not in the equalization for their next Jetliner. Do you hear me Jim M?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I have to commend you on how well written your response was to the A380 program. I love it when an executive does not bash a rival. Peter
Peter S., Scottsdale, Arizona
A very classy statement on a difficult topic. From my perspective, you are quite correct with respect to the need for strong competition being for the betterment of all, be it Boeing or Airbus.
Erik H., Redlands, California
Kudos for not basking in the difficulties of others even if it is the competition, Boeing will be stronger because of it.
Ron B., Boston, Massachusetts
I have thought that Airbus was facing terrible loses over the A380 program. Now EADS is slowly facing the fact that all of their A380 mistakes are catching-up with them. Expect more EADS problems soon. Airlines can’t be expected to wait long for the delivery new planes. Expect many A380 orders to be cancelled or EADS will pay penalties for the damage caused by the delays. Airbus has three new planes being worked on now; the A380, A350 wide body, and the military transport M400. They don’t have enough engineers to do all of this work = mistakes.
John, Eugene, Oregon
It would appear that Airbus has finally hit the wall. Many observers had predicted that they would suffer a major catastrophe because of the lack of communication within the organization. It’s now evident that the proverbial “left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing” is true. The disclosure that the CAD systems in France are different to the ones in Germany, and can’t communicate in the same software language is incredible, and are the root cause of numerous problems in assembly. A valuable lesson, you should never let political appointee’s run multinational companies, way too much conflict and a demonstrated lack of communication.
Ken T., Vancouver, British Columbia
Randy, it’s come to my attention at a major airline finance conference, that the vast majority of the 200+ aircraft financiers present preferred to have total control of their window shades. Since these financiers are also frequent flyers, don’t you think there is some useful information here for the Boeing Company? In fact, 60% wanted total control of the shades and only 26% were willing to accept the flight attendants setting upper and lower bands of opaqueness (7% had no opinion and 7% wanted the flight attendants to control the shade). This is not a slight preference, but a HUGE preference. The silent majority has awakened and has spoken. What do you have say about this? There is still time to do the right thing before 787 EIS. Take that shade switch out of the galley and do the right thing - full control for paying customers!
Doug R., New York
I wonder when Boeing will announce the 787-10 , and what added benefits it would bring to the table as compared to the competition which exists in that sized market currently and in the future (with the XWB-10).
Gaurav, India
ATW reported http://atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=9%2F29%2F2006 that “A350 XWB entry-into-service date appears to be sliding 6-12 months owing to the ongoing A380 wiring difficulties.” If this news is true then the 787 won’t have any contender until 2013. In other words 787 will be alone in its market segment during the first five in-service years. It also means that the 777-300ER will dominate its market segment at least until 2015. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of it.
G
When comparing 1990 and 2006 please remember that South Africa was heavily sanctioned at that time, few countries could do business with them and as such, international air travel was not in such big demand - hence the low frequencies. Regarding today (2006), where only a third of the frequencies are served by the 747 - a third of 168 is still a lot more than the 28 in 1990.
Johnny N., Denmark
As a Boeing field service rep assigned to Anchorage, I want you to know that your Journal is just one more way for me to stay in touch with company news and progress. Although I am on the Military side of the Boeing house (F-15’s) I find your thoughts on new commercial aircraft development, processes, innovation, and strategies very informative.
Tom M.., Anchorage, Alaska
Just read about the 747 “XLB.” Here’s an idea, take the original short hump fuselage and put the 140” plug in it instead of plugging into the long hump. I never liked the hump so close to the wing in the 744 and the old 748i.
Ted. C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
I continue to read and enjoy this blog and have begun to see how much aviation has changed. The 787 program seems to signify a large part of this change. In particular, the idea of composite construction seems vital in taking the lead in the air so to speak. What occurred to me is whether Lockheed would consider getting back into commercial aviation since they are quite advanced and experienced in composites. (Any joint venture possibilities with anyone?) Secondly, it occurred to me that Airbus will need two new families of aircraft to compete against the range offered by the 787 and 777 programs. It should be interesting to see if they do this. As you are aware, they will remain competitive in many ways.
John D., Auburn, Alabama
Just a quick suggestion for the designation of the 737NG successor…something borrowed from McDonnell Douglas. How about BCA-10, BCA-20, etc. The old designation scheme will seem to have run its course if 797 is applied and although providing a link with Boeing’s rich heritage, IMO it won’t convey the revolutionary “new-ness” of the 737s successor, but is more evocative of an “evolutionary” development. Hope this makes sense. (Also a lot easier that “A350-800XWB”. think of the poor media!) Really love this blog and the opportunity to make gratuitous contributions!
Lumberton, Texas
Like Joe Sutter, I went through Narita many years back (about 1985). As we were taking off, I looked out and saw nothing but 747s. (Maybe 3 that were not out of 29). I thought, boy, that sure tells you where the market is. A great memory and glad to think about it again.
Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska
I, like everyone at Boeing have been scrambling to get definitive data on the new A350XWB family. My comments may be premature but I think the comparison between the 789 and the 358XWB is a valid one. They both have the same published MTOW of 245t, yet the 789 is a larger aircraft, flying more payload over a greater distance (8,800nm v 8,500nm). Yet they weigh the same. This would have to put the A358 at a serious disadvantage and I wonder what the real comparisons will be like between the 787-10 and the A359XWB? To me, it seems as if Boeing is the company pushing the technological boundaries here, particularly in reference to the composite fuselage. I wonder why Airbus hasn’t gone CFRP with their fuselages yet? I can only assume they can’t see the value in it or they don’t have the technical know-how to efficiently produce this type of fuselage. In fact, the only real advantage I can see of the XWB family over the 787 is the extra fuselage width. Even this seems to be very minimal (5-7cm in critical areas) that will make very little difference in a 9-abreast twin-aisle airliner. It is apparent that Airbus is not really challenging the 787 family with the new 350XWB, but the 777 family. However, in this case, it should be more appropriately called the XNB (extra narrow body), as the fuselage width difference between the 777 and the 350XWB is significant (the difference between 9 and 10- abreast).
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
Maybe Boeing should look at building the 767 Tanker (if it comes into fruition) in Long Beach as a replacement for the C-17 jobs. I also think they should look at putting the 787 next/gen engines on the ship as they way to cut fuel burn and amortize costs.
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I too am leery of the prospect of giving flight attendants control of the window shading range. While we may be able to see out the window during the daytime, what I am concerned about is seeing out at night. The flight attendants will probably assume on night flights that everyone will want to sleep and dim the windows a great deal. I personally greatly enjoy night viewing, especially for the tremendous view of the night sky you can get from an aircraft. But if you dim the windows even a little bit, that may become invisible. What a tragedy that would be for those who have never seen the milky way or a truly dark night sky except from an airplane.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. More and more customers have been ordering their 737s with winglets, for good reason as they can save quite a bit of fuel. Now it seems Airbus is realizing they are at a disadvantage. They are testing large winglets on the A320! See http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1085626/M/
Will W., Everett, Washington
It is interesting to note that the 747 was developed with ‘bet the company risk’ around management of both Boeing and airline executives that understood their business and that their vision as to what it would mean to the future. I would think the 787 program has some of the some importance as that technology will be shaping the future at Boeing commercial aircraft. Joe Sutter’s insight is an inspiration. Please add to your blog any additional comments you may glean from Joe.
Jim H., Wichita, Kansas
I was quite surprised by the comments you received by people who want to keep their window shades up no matter what. I’m one of those international road warriors who likes the cabin dark during long flights. Truth be told, on most intercontinental flights there’s nothing much to see anyway. I have observed that moreso on US carriers, there are always one or two individuals who leave their windows open and their lights on all the time. And as you wrote, only one open window in a darkened cabin ruins it for everyone. This new window dimming system of yours sounds like a great idea. It keeps the cabin dim, and still lets the window guy get his views.
Jim R., Chicago
I have just counted the total orders of the 777 family. The figure is quite impressive: in July 2006, 851 units have been ordered. At the same time, 576 have been delivered. If we assume that Boeing delivers on average 44 airplanes per year, the remaining 777s to be delivered represent 6 years of production (up to 2012). If Boeing decides to go to the one thousand mark, it has to keep the line open up to 2015, just about the right time to introduce the 777-8 and the 777-9. One can speculate about the size and the range for these airplanes. My guess is that both will have a range of up to 7,900 nmi, the -8 will seat about 335 pax and the -9 will be a 400 seater. This size fits well between the 787-9 and 747-8i. Although both will be bigger than the current 777, they will be much lighter.
G
I think Airbus engineers are quite capable - it’s Airbuses managers that screwed up. I think the A380 is the most serious mistake, that Airbus ever made - not only is it not selling well, it also prevented Airbus to offer a competitor to the Dreamliner. I’m from Europe (lived in the US for 4years), but I’m still cheering for Boeing. And Boeing really should offer the B787-10, so Airbus won’t be able to sell its A350.
Luke, Nova Gorica/Slovenia
Recently Rolls Royce changed the name of its Trent 1700. First: Trent New Generation, Current: Trent XWB. What shocked me is that if Boeing wants an engine from Rolls Royce for their Boeing 787-10 (because they examined their competitor incorporating the ideas from the Boeing 787 and made it better) they would persuade Rolls Royce make a new engine that doesn’t carry the title of “XWB”, because it represents Airbus’ A350. However, the engine will probably come later or after the Trent XWB, and ultimately delaying the Boeing 787-10 until 2013 or Late-2012? Boeing can ask GE to make a more efficient GEnx for their Boeing 787-10 (Which is about the only possibility) and also delaying the Boeing 787-10 or design their Boeing 787-10 with use of bleed air, which is not revolutionary. Airbus wants Boeing to suffer and that’s fact. If I were Boeing, I’d watch out and make a decision now! Seriously, Boeing is getting a beating! The Airbus A350XWB is more efficient, the engines has a high-thrust rating (I don’t know why it makes a difference), the windows will be larger than Boeing’s 787-8 and has a better humidity point and wider fuselage, the Airbus A350XWB is easier to check or review, the Airbus A350XWB has a better range, and the Airbus A350XWB is considering the LCD-windows. Talk about competition! But Boeing could retain its position: -Boeing 787-10 or Boeing 787-9 (Even larger windows), since they are still not frozen. -Boeing 787-10 and -9 with bigger fuselage, like the Boeing 777 (Since it’s going to be defeated anyways) -Boeing 787-10 should have more efficient engines than on the Airbus A350XWB I got to say, Airbus has trapped Boeing. Their new tactics are pretty smart. Is there any ideas to counter my opinion, because I can’t think of any.
James A., Seattle, Washington
I heard that CBB is closing down due to the insufficient amount of the customers. Many carriers seemed to be happy and I thought many people were happy with this service as well. Yet Boeing says it is not profitable hence ditching the service. I think this is sort of going against the time really. If people are satisfied why ditch it? I think this very un-Boeing thing to do. I also have a suggestion, is the one digit (According to Boeing) usage problem due to the lack of the device that customers can get access to inboard? Because as far as I know in the most airlines that has CBB, you need the laptop to connect to CBB service. So I was thinking, may be renting these internet capable devices on board might change the situation? I heard that there are about 1 tonne of water vapour in the normal aircraft cabin, and the reason why cabin humidity is kept low is to increase the payload by getting rid of some of these humids? Is this true? And I was wondering that if this means that it will affect the efficiency of 787 since it has more humidity than current airliners.
Joo-Mann, Sydney, Australia
I recently heard that the 747-8I will be stretch to the same length as the freighter version. It would be kind of odd if the passenger and the freighter version have different length. With the galleys being move to the crown level for additional seats, is a great idea, just as my prediction. That is great news, one would hope that the designer don’t forget to add more wash room since there are increase amount of passengers. Adding additional value by having the same wing box for both versions for future freighter conversion, great plan! Since I am a fan of the 747, it is nice to see this plane flying for many years to come, and let’s hope that the airline order enough of them so that it is not so difficult to catch a ride on one. While living in Vegas, I am still required to do a connection for many international flights, but I don’t mind if I could get on to a 747, especially the 747-8I. For Asian carriers, one could always guarantee for a 747, but not European carriers, its hit or missed. What I don’t understand is why traveling to Europe would require me to connect through the east coast, especially the airline I flew have network and connections in LAX and SFO and they had 747 stopped at those two airports, but on the east coast, I had to get on the others’ plane?
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I really enjoyed your interview with Joe Sutter. I finished his book a month or so ago - really a terrific read. Please continue to interview Joe as much as possible in the future.
Erik H., Redlands, California
It is sad to know that Boeing will be closing down this service [Connexion] by end of this year. I wonder if Boeing have tried to market this service to China, as I believe that China may have big market for this service!
Yuen P., Singapore
Nice job on the Weight Watchers post, Randy. You guys maybe have better sources than me but using published figures and some informed opinion from my old boss (who broke me in as a weight engineer at Garrett many moons ago) I see much in the A380 to be apprehensive over. In fact, I blogged about it myself back in February of this year in my blog http:cornponepapers.blogspot.com. I’d probably buy you the lunch of your choice if I had the actual scale figures from the all up, passenger equipped A380 and some CG range information. I’ve been a little brusque with you guys in the past mostly because I’m a former Douglas worker, so I’m sure you’ll see the value in a back of a cocktail napkin weight analysis done by a guy who’s definitely not in the pay of either Airbus or Boeing-not that I wouldn’t like to be.
Robert L., Des Moines, Iowa
It is always amazing and amusing to read on how the Airbus A380’s head of marketing continues to slam the Boeing claims with regard to the 747-8 variants versus the A380 variants. Airbus is making it very clear that they are convinced Boeing is virtually lying about the promised efficiencies and economics that the new 747 offers and that Boeing is grossly over-exaggerating the A380’s weight problems. Airbus also continue to say that the 747-8 is an ‘old’, inefficient design which now has a minor tweak to the wing, and does not offer significant passenger growth over the current -400. Airbus simply have brushed off the latest 747, and have attempted to destroy Boeing’s fine reputation in the process. Firstly, there is nothing minor about having an aerodynamically all-new, aft loaded, relofted and re-twisted supercritical wing that is able to hold more fuel, be far more efficient and quieter and still allow the highest economical cruise speed of any current or future passenger and freighter airplane. The wing has inherent stiffness, it is lighter and employs the better high-speed planform than A380’s and Airbus are currently struggling with the A380’s wing limit problem. Go figure! For Boeing to give Airbus the benefit of the doubt with the A380 wing being all-new, is very lenient. Now, if Boeing were lying about the 747-8’s economics and efficiencies - in Airbus’s clouded eyes - wouldn’t that mean that Boeing is going to destroy their own credibility? Very amusing as it seems Airbus has not thought there comments and claims through very well. The 747-8 role in Airbus’s view is to compete directly against the A380. Well, if an airline requires an efficient airliner that seats above 500 seats comfortably then the A380 is the answer, but for the majority of the blue-chip carriers, the 747-8 is the answer for a significant increase of revenue and size from the 747-400, whilst offering drastically lower operating costs, trip costs and much greater efficiencies. It is in this role that the 747-8 competes against A380 - 747 is far lower risk, higher reward, greater flexibility and completes Point to Point travel. As for the 747-8F, I personally think Airbus have quietly admitted to themselves that Boeing no doubt has the right airplane. Quite simply put: 747-8 is the shape of the future!
Chris C., South Africa
I am not impressed by the electronic shading proposal for the 787 windows. I am one who likes to look out the windows of an airplane for the marvelous views. Having to shade the entire window would not provide the ability to block the sun while maintaining partial views. Also, nothing quite so frustrating as when the attendants force everyone to pull the shades during a day trip in order to show a movie. Will they have the ability to do this remotely for all windows whether you like it or not? I think the shading proposal is the answer to a question no one asked. Yes, I know it might save a little weight, but it is one more thing to make flying just a little more unpleasant.
Del, Seattle, Washington
Given that a 747 or 777 is built around an aluminum frame how difficult would it be and how much weight would be saved by “re-skinning” with the same material that is being used for the 787? It would seem to be relatively easier to make pre-molded sheets vs an entire fuselage? Just a thought. Would this be at all practical?
C.W.K., California
Is the 747-8 passenger going to have the same internal features as the 787 such as the electronic window shading? You have spoke so much about the 787, but, very little about some of the features on the 747-8.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
Airbus claims for the A350XWB-800 just don’t add up. The 8-abreast A350-800 had a (stated) MTOW of 245t and a (stated) range of 8,800 nmi. Now Airbus wants us to believe a jet with a wider fuselage, bigger wing, heavier wing and landing gear at the same MTOW will fly only 300 nmi less than the smaller jet? Nonsense. I’m thinking 1,000+ nmi is more like it. I think a blog entry refuting the Airbus claims for the XWB is in order.
Robert R., Everett, Washington
Because I have mostly flown on Boeings, the first thing I noticed when I finally flew on a wide body Airbus was the inward sloping interior, cutting off shoulder room and overhead baggage room. A bad first impression. I asked myself what Airliner Executive would board this plane and order it? But they do. The original A350, with that sane interior, logged a mind baffling 182 orders. Then there is the 747-8. It is a make sense alternative to the Airport unfriendly and engineering nightmare A380, and yet, instead of A380 losing orders, SIA just ordered 9 more while the 747-8 Intercontinental is yet to log a single order. Last years wide body sales advantage and this years overall sales advantage that Boeing enjoys is about the first trend that makes sense since this rivalry began. Never-the-less, Airlines buy Airbus even when they fall short. This is why I believe the Airbus camp is giddy over the XWB. The XWB might actually be a worthy of the sales. Airbus doesn’t see the 10 inch wider 777 as a threat to the XWB because they figure the 8 across seating will give more comfort than the 9 of the 777. As far a performance claims, they’ll make can make whatever claim they want until it actually flies. Perhaps the Boeing answer is a 777-8 with 8 across seating, larger windows, and that awesome 787 interior. Of course, this is easier said then recommended. But that would knock over the Airbus execs.
Greg B., Portland, Oregon
Your quote: “The 787 is the first commercial jetliner of the 2nd century of powered flight.” Enjoy your column but, I don’t understand this time claim in respect to the currently flying A380, unless qualified as the first “Boeing” jetliner of the 2nd aviation century.
Rene H., Seattle, Washington
I bought Boeing stock when it was fairly cheap a few years back. I had faith in Boeing’s ability to build new and efficient product. It appears that my faith was justified, based upon the current share price. Also, Airbus appears to be just one more example of failed European industrial policy. The A320 has sold well, although I prefer any 737 model or DC-9 development to travel on. The A300 is a really efficient medium size twin. After that, what else has Airbus done in its 35 or so years of existence? The A380 is a joke, nobody wants the A340 and the 330 is dying as well. The A350 remains no more than an artist’s conception. Go Boeing!
David G., Monroe, Ohio
Recently, Boeing sent me a e-mail regarding the new and revamped “newairplane.com”. I glanced on a product to long to be a Boeing 787-9, could this be a elusive preview of the Boeing 787-10? How do you plan to counter the Airbus A350-1000? Obviously, the lucrative 777 market is losing its share to Airbus already, do you plan to counter that? As said “It’s better to replace then allow your competitor to eat the market”, and since the -200/-200ER will soon get punched out by Airbus’ A350XWB-900, do you plan to revive the legacy of the Boeing 777? Such as, importing the ideas into the Boeing 787-10? Obviously, as we know it, the Airbus A350-900 might have a chance to crush Boeing’s 777-200ER, but it’s not wider. Again, will you import the great aspects of the Boeing 777 into the Boeing 787-10, such as a larger cross-section?
Andre, Seattle, Washington
Ok, Randy, the cat is out of the bag, according to the Boeing sales orders, “2” orders are showing up for 787 BBJ’s. So, some of us, are quite curious as to what these 787 BBJ’s are going to look like. Any chance of a sneak preview?
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I’m glad I stumbled across Randy’s blog. I saw some comments about the A350XWB vs. the 787, in particular regarding SQ’s intentions. Given Airbus’s track record in on-time delivery and R&D vs. that of Boeing, I’m actually shocked that Tony Lim would even consider another order. The signal to the market by Emirates even weighs clear! The lucrative new long-distance and Moscow routes that the Asian carriers all acknowledge is a growth-market will surely propel great sales of the 787. I’m glad you have this blog and marketing tool present, especially since I myself am even considering to become an employee of Boeing!
Eric G., Cebu City, Philippines
Enjoyed your August post-Farnborough post. But you did not mention that the A350XWB will likely provide full control of the window shades to those who pay for them — the passengers! This could be a key marketing advantage versus the 787 and the dictatorial control that Boeing is giving to the flight attendants to plunge the cabin into near-total darkness during daylight flights. Electronic window shades are great — giving control to FAs is not. My trip home from Farnborough was a window seat in BA Business Class — four windows, under my full control, fully open, all the time. Daytime flying the way it is supposed to be! Do I mind shutting my shade? Darn right I do. Have not been hearing much in the last year about engine swapping on the 787 — is this becoming the folding wingtip of the 787? A neat idea at program inception that ultimately gains no traction over the life of the program and quietly fades away? And thanks for the DreamSpace at Farnborough — not only was it by far the coolest space figuratively (with phenomenal displays and a fantastic 787 mock-up), it was the coolest space literally in that sweltering hell called the 2006 Farnborough Air Show.
Doug R., New York, New York
J/24 sailboat spinnaker poles could make a nice graphic demonstration showing how much stronger carbon fiber can be than Aluminum. The J/24 class specifies the weight of the spinnaker pole but not it’s material. Carbon fiber poles are virtually indestructible and can be abused with impunity. The loads on similar aluminum poles have to be carefully balanced. A nice video demo would show a straight tubular aluminum pole (with an “A350” sticker?) sailing in a heavy wind with bending and compression loads. It would fail spectacularly - at least folding up and possibly completely breaking in half with the ends flailing about. A carbon fiber pole (with a “787” sticker) of identical size, shape and weight would be shown under identical conditions and be obviously nowhere close to damage. The visual point to be made is that a properly built carbon fiber structure will be dramatically stronger than a similar aluminum structure of the same size and weight. The accurately implied point is that an aluminum A350 will have to sacrifice strength and durability to match the 787’s weight.
Doug H., Huntington Beach, California
It seems that Airbus has made several serious miscalculations. In the past several years they have developed three different planes at the same time. The jumbo A380 has taken most of their engineers. At the same time they developed the A350 [first version] and this effort took extra engineers they didn’t have. The A350 was pieced together from older and smaller airbus models. The Dreamliner was selling more planes than Airbus expected. They added a few new composite parts and borrowed the new engine from the 787 Dreamliner. At this time, more engineers were working on the new military transport; the M400. Ever hear of the M400? Between the three new planes, they didn’t have enough engineers to work on all the planes at the same time. The first version of the A350 has been thrown in the trash and redone with a copy of the 787. The A380 has problems and delays. Now parts of it are being re- designed and it is late. It seemed to be overly grandiose and close to being impractical. It was designed to be the largest passenger plane in the world and to show the superior engineering. It showed that a design needs to work well and sell enough planes to show a profit. I think they need to sell 250 A380’s to break even. They have orders for 159 and there are no new orders. I have the strong feeling that Airbus might be in serious economic trouble within a year. They can make ‘happy talk’ about their clever designs, but they have made too many mistakes. The mistakes are piling up now into an economic melt down.
John K., Eugene, Oregon
I am more and more convinced that 737 replacement will happen if and only if you can sell them at a very low price. It means that not only the next generation narrow body aircraft will be more efficient; its production cost must be significantly lower than that of 737.
The 737 replacement must also be simple to operate and robust. So, the four key words for 737 replacement are: Affordable, Robust, Simple and Efficient. In other words, it won’t be available before 2015.
G.
I just heard the announcement of the new Airbus A350XWB and rushed to the Airbus site to take a look. My question is how come the supposingly A350XWB, a derivative from the A380, with 787 engines would look identical to the 787 Dreamliner down to the winglet?
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I only recently found your Blog on the web, and I find it excellent. Anyone who reads your blog would be well aware it’s just another facet of Boeing marketing, but still your Journal is like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual bland corporate communications. The 787, with its high fuel efficiency, is just the right plane for the times I really wonder about the heavy use of advanced composites, though. I’m familiar with the basic technology, though I have no contact with aviation applications. As I know, it is still very difficult to routinely fabricate an item the size of a 787 fuselage section out of such materials. And Boeing is planning to build 20 to 30 787s a month - wow! Talk about audacity! I have no doubt Boeing’s experience and sheer engineering muscle will be able to overcome the problems EVENTUALLY, but you sure are taking a big risk with delivery schedules and your reputation. I suppose that’s why Airbus is taking a more conventional approach, even after the latest iteration of the A350-XWB. If you can pull it off, 787 will be clearly superior to the A350XWB, but if you fail, or take a long time to get it right, Boeing is going to get very badly hurt. Wish you all success.
Kit K., Penang, Malaysia
How about some recognition to Eclipse Aviation and the certification of its new Eclipse 500? The Eclipse 500 is every much a “game changer” in its marketplace as is the 787. Both are pioneering new methods of construction and will bring their operators new levels of efficiency and affordability. Additionally, I would be curious to get your take on the emerging air taxi business and what it means to companies like Boeing and Airbus.
Greg, San Diego, California
The 737. From ‘Fluffy’ to Next Generation, this airplane family continues to ink its self into the record books and continues to be one of the most impressive commercial airplane stories ever! A phenomenal airplane that will without a doubt continue to fly strong and mightily for many decades into the 21st Century! The 737 Next Generation is an airplane of superlatives and a true workhorse of the domestic and regional fleets. The 737 is a solid, sturdy machine that was and is built right. Boasting the highest dispatch reliability, a 3% -7% operating costs reduction, and a maximum maintenance reduction of 22%, over the A320 family, as well as boasting the most efficient design, and ground breaking technologies such as the blended Winglets, this airplane has got to be, without a doubt, the mainstay of any airline, company or private owner. The Boeing 737 Next Generation fleet is the only airplane family to cover the market fully, and offers unique models, such as the 737-700ER and -900ER. Flying faster and higher, yet far more fuel efficient with lower trip costs over the competition, is what makes this 737NG unstoppable, as well as all the other phenomenal Boeing Commercial Airplanes! Congratulations of the 2000th delivery of the 737NG, and may there a few thousand more deliveries of this unique airplane!
Chris C., South Africa
So, Farnborough Air show has finally come to an end. Overall, I’d say it was quite splendid. I was most excited to see a 777 in EVA Air’s gorgeous livery on display. (thanks for letting a Taiwanese airline participate by the way) As a matter of fact, 777 is my absolute favorite airliner. Though I’ve only flown on it once with Singapore Airline, it was my most memorable flying experience ever. As such, I’m glad that Boeing will be improving the 777 further. Although there are those who consider 777 to be dead with the looming threats of A350 and B787-10. I for one believe that if Boeing can keep on rejuvenating its decades-old 737 and 747 to bring new lives into them, I don’t see why they can’t do the same with their relatively young flag ship. On Airbus front, it seems they’ve finally decided to get serious with their mid-haul long-range wide-body family by announcing the A350XWB. However, I’m still not all that impressed with Airbus and their new jet. For much of its elements seemed to have borrowed from Boeing’s Dreamliner. (it’s truly just a “me-too 787”) Indeed, when I first saw the new A350, my first reaction was: “who painted the 787 in Airbus’s livery?” Also, bigger windows, higher cabin humidity…etc, why to those features sound awfully familiar? So no, there’s nothing about the A350XWB that makes it technologically “a leap ahead” of the 787. Nonetheless, though I have my doubts and criticisms regarding Airbus’s ambitious claims and performance targets, should they really deliver the A350XWB on-specs and on-time, it’ll most certainly provide a formidable opposition to 777 and 787. Therefore, better no take A350XWB lightly Boeing. As you’ve admitted before Randy, Airbus is a tough competitor. P.S: You’re definitely right Randy. Air shows are just short sprints in this VERY LONG marathon of commercial aviation contest. And I expect 2006 to be another excellent year for both Boeing & Airbus.
Yurey Y, Taipei, Taiwan
I’m watching enthusiasm build for Boeing products, and I’m hoping the wave of mandatory pilot retirements will carry me into a Boeing for Air Canada in the next few years. But I start to wonder: the same generation of baby boomers who are hogging all the pilot seats are also building the airplanes. Sure the lack of a mandatory retirement age will soften the blow, but given that a lot of experienced skilled tradespeople are set to retire in the next few years, and given the modern preference of university over trades for smart high school graduates these days, what is Boeing doing to ensure that you’ll still have the people to build all the airplanes the world wants?
Aviatrix, Canada
Boeing should not rest on its laurels and allow Airbus to pull a leapfrog on them. The 777, 737 and the 717 should have been designed using 8 technology to really level the competition. We all know Airbus will do what it does best and that is seek taxpayers in Europe to fund its projects. Airbus seems more concerned about sales rather than innovation and technology. If Airbus wants to compete, simply Randy, all Boeing needs to do is raise the bar just a little higher. Convince the manufacturers to make the engines even more efficient. I put my money on Boeing to dominate for the next 10-20 years.
Kevin, Miami, Florida
I currently reside in the beautiful port city of Bordeaux. A world-famous city if you ask me. Even our own Airbus A380 crossed the city. However, I’m very disappointed at the “new” Airbus A350XWB when it’s generally based upon your revolutionary Boeing 787. I would not call the Airbus A350 revolutionary. Anyways, does Boeing plan to produce the 787-10? As what Airbus done to you, will you “leapfrog” them? They’re fuselage is wider than your 787, but you may make it wider. Airbus also stated that the windows will be the largest in the industry, do you plan to counter that with the 787-10? Hopefully, the Boeing 787-10 range will exceed the Airbus A350XWB. Hopefully, you’ll do very well with the upcoming Emirates order.
Thomas K., Bordeaux, France
I will love to see Boeing retake the lead from Airbus. Please try hard to please customers and work hard to get new orders from United, Delta, American Airlines and British Airways, US Air and many others .. Ten row across 3-4-3 will be wonderful.
Desmond C., Indianapolis Indiana
As Airbus has just launched their 5th (6th/7th??) iteration of the A350, I wonder how they are going to pay for the $10B development costs. We know the US will fight tooth and nail against anymore launch aid. Airbus is assuming they will have it ready for service in 2012. But they have many issues to resolve in the near term before they even think about starting production. In addition, 2012 is just about the timeframe Boeing will introduce their replacement for the single aisle family. Airbus will be playing catch-up for at least another 10 years. Also, they can kiss the tanker contract goodbye if they get more EU handouts.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
I am glad you guys have continued to take the high road in the pitched battle with Airbus for the 200-350 seat market. Comments about the 787 being a cheap Chinese copy of the A330 have come back to bite Airbus in the back end. Provide a superior product to the market and the airlines will beat a path to your door. Kudos to the Boeing team for doing just that! I am looking forward to watching Airbus struggle with Boeings future launches of the 737RS and 777”NG” while they are still trying to hit breakeven on the A380 and hit an impossible 2012 EIS for the A350XWB.
Rainer, San Clemente, California
I have over the past couple of months been reading the rhetoric coming from Airbus on the 350, but now with the 350XWB and all the superlative claims “best in class” etc. I have to say something. Much of the efficiency is weight related and if the new 350XWB has a higher internal cabin pressure and larger windows and the fuselage is still aluminum then it makes the statement “more efficient than the 787”, even more suspect. With the higher internal pressures and larger windows the skin thickness, skin stresses will be higher and will need to be increased and fuselage weight will go up. Weight increase is very sensitive in the fuselage due to the large surface areas being dealt with. The density between aluminum and composites has the composite being about 43% lighter from a one on one material comparison. The newer light weight aluminums are approximately 7% lighter than standard aluminum materials. If you take a fuselage of approximately 125 feet long and 234 inches in diameter, a thickness increase in the fuselage skin of .010 inches will increase the weight approximately 1,100 lbs, using standard aluminum (that’s the thickness of a little over three pieces of paper). A last note, even if the skins were the same thickness the composite skin is a lot lighter than the aluminum skin in the area of thousands of pounds. You need to compensate in many areas to make up for the inefficiencies in the fuselage. Airbus claims don’t hold water.
Rich K, Bear, Delaware
I have been annoyed at the loose use of the terms, game changer, leap and even “me too” I saw a FedEx publication that called the A380 freighter a “game changer”. While I think it’s an impressive capacity increase for FedEx, it’s not a game changer in that its just larger size for the existing game. If the can structure worked, they might be better off with two 777s (supposedly the can structure for a 747 does not work for them). It’s certainly costing a lot to gear up for the A380. The Leap from thing by Airbus is also eyewash. Its not even “me too” technology, it’s the old stuff wrapped in a phony package. Me too would at least be using an all composite airframe, and they are not coming close to doing that. And by the time they do, Boeing will have an experience advantage in its use, application and improvement (or refinement). So, keep beating up on them. For those of us that follow the industry, I am wondering if it would be possible to come up with a passenger count template that would be applied to pax count comparisons? Something that used a 2 or 3 class seating arrangement, how wide the seats are (and how many) as well as pitch or spacing. Along those lines, I think some kind of revenue generating figure that would take into account maintenance (reduced hopefully in the case of the 787), cargo capacity and its overall fuel burn. It seems to me that you add those all up, you have something that’s 30-40% better than existing, not just 20% of the fuel efficiency. I think you could then squash any slewed comparisons. I also looked at the latest A350, and it left me wondering about how wide it was and what it gets. You can’t get any more seats in it, 5 inches across at 9 seats is literally nothing, and its not as wide as a 777 (which I keep thinking is its only real market). It makes me wonder if it actually gets launched (which I have wondered all along).
Greg Schmitz, Anchorage Alaska
You said that the Airbus A350 didn’t make sense? Surely it made sense to Singapore Airlines since they ordered 20 of it?
Noel, Moscow
Has there been any talk of a Corporate 787?
Mike C., Long Beach, California
It is a common census that you don’t need be the best to win. And never doubt about the power of your opponent. Reading the Randy’s articles in his blog (excellent in my opinion), I’ve got the impression that Boeing forgets that sometimes things just don’t go as we wish. You can just take a look about the recent Airbus selling and you’ll understand why. This text has been taken in Flight Magazine website: “Airbus closed its order gap on rival Boeing during the Farnborough air show after declaring firm agreements for 90 aircraft, plus commitments for another 92.” This is not a question about when or where you and your rival will “leap” each other. It’s a question to ensure the customers won’t “leap” you and by from another company. Take it in mind!
Harilton Rodrigues, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Singapore Airlines earlier in the year had an Intention to buy 20 Boeing 787. At the Farnborough Air show SQ also has an Intention to buy 20 Airbus A350XWB. I really don’t understand this connection of buy two different types of planes. I have seen the A350XWB and it personally looks like a 787 which doesn’t look nice. Does this design of the A350XWB show that Airbus has really no way of competing with the 787? I think Airbus is desperate to compete with the very successful 777/787, but Airbus has killed the A330 and A340 family simultaneously with the range and passenger capacity. Very ironic family kills family. I want your opinion: Which Aircraft is gonna work better.
Yashveen, Cape Town, South Africa
Has Boeing ever thought about running two separate lists for counting aircraft orders? 1 is the way that Boeing currently keeps track of aircraft orders, the other, is the way that Airbus keeps track of aircraft orders.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I noticed that you mentioned that Airbus has chosen to put up the new A350 against two of Boeing’s products the 787 and the 777. I think that you are wrong about that. It is just that the strategy of Airbus is to build a new plane ranging from 250 - 350 seats. Boeing’s strategy is to address the 220-310 seats with one product (the 787) and 290-365 with another product (the 777). In the end it is a question about which product best suits the airlines needs. For an A300 or A310 replacement, the A350 would not be relevant. The A330 would be though it is a generation behind the 787. Similarly if an ultra long-range plane is the requirement, the A350-900L would be a good choice. Boeing would have to decide whether to improve the 777-LR or launch the 787-10. So it’s a question about positioning. Looks like Airbus has abandoned the 200-250 seat market just as Boeing has no competitor to the A380. The 747-8 has some 1000 seats less. The only plane which I can see as in direct competition to each other is the A320 vs the 737 family.
George, Guangzhou, China
As a native in the city of aerospace in France, I think Airbus over exaggerated their plane. First, the plane is a carbon-copy of Boeing’s 787. They claim their windows are larger, and copied the phrase said by Boeing’s Mike Bair: “The windows will be the industry’s largest”. Their plane is NOT more fuel efficient than the Boeing 787 n several reasons. And the range of the Boeing 787 exceeds the A350XWB’s range, their plane is not even close and they stress that their plane has more range than the competition, when the Boeing 787-9 has a staggering range of 8,900 nm, compared to their 8,500 nm. A 400 nm difference. Sorry Airbus, but Au revoir!
Phillppe D., Toulouse, France
I LOVE the large windows for the passengers and the new shades. I’m curious, Randy, if you can tell me if they’ve come up with a shade solution for the cockpit in the 787. It’s frustrating to have to put up newspapers in the cockpit of the Boeings I’ve been flying so far (727,737,757,767,777). Please tell me that the pointy end of the airplane also has a bit of ‘high tech’ when it comes to shading as well. Thanks! Kent
Kent W., Exeter, New Hampshire
All the talk about the 787 Dreamliner is making those of us in business and in the private sector very excited. It’s interesting how our countries officials and the private sector will utilize significant resources on machines that satisfy our “right now” appetite. We are always wanting something to go faster so we may get more done, be more comfortable and rest able so that we may live in luxury and more importantly we are willing to waste no cost. If there is a major catastrophe or terrorist/nuclear attack would Boeing be willing to fly the Dreamliner to devastated areas to evacuate people?? It is important for companies like Boeing to be truly socially responsible and they will see a true incline in their stock and growth. I am no analyst I am not even an educated businessman I am only a young man who believes in the American spirit of togetherness to achieve great things and saving lives is the most rewarding thing someone can do.. How will Boeing play an active role if the west coast was hit by an earthquake or hurricanes threaten the livelihood of the gulf coast? The truth is these things WILL happen we just have no idea when. I hope the Boeing executives commit themselves to social and corporate philanthropy.
M.
As threatening (or not threatening) this new A350X is wouldn’t it be in Boeing’s best interests to look into further improving the 787? …just to keep on top of things.
Sam
I expect that Airbus will shortly announce a two model program like Boeing did with the 757/767. Yes they very well know their offering of the A350XWB does not and will not compete with the 787. It’s very much targeted at the 777 and with “Bleed Air” and Composites it will give this wonderful airplane a tough battle in the 300-400 segment. What these guys do know how to do is get an airplane launched by whatever means (call it launch aid or what ever they will do it) I bet you will see Airbus launching two models within the next year. Yes their Engineering/Production organization is stretched thin with the A380 but they will find a way to give Boeing a run for the money by launching two new planes. Yes, Boeing’s assessment is correct that they cannot beat Boeing with one new mouse trap. So how do we as a free market fix airbus? How about big tariffs on their planes?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
At the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus proudly displayed their new product, the A350XWB. This was not the airplane that the industry was waiting for. All they did was take the original A350 & added some pretty lighting to it. The industry is looking for the A350XE (extra efficient) or how about the A350FS (fuel saver). This is what the 787 is all about, an aircraft that will save the industry money in efficiency & fuel savings & will also provide passenger comfort. Airbus, I think it may be time to go back to the drawing board, again.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I lived my entire life about 3 miles from Kennedy Airport. I watched every airplane in production today fly over my house over the past 20 something years…the loudest was the Super Sonic Transporter. Woke me up every morning at 7am. This new Model (787) will be another amazing site to see when it flies over my house.
Richard D., New York, New York
90 years of innovations in aviation…WOW! Surely that would be a monumental day for Boeing. I send my regards and congratulations. Happy birthday Boeing and best wishes for continuing successes for many years to come.
Yurey W., Taipei, Taiwan
Hey Randy: I hope you knock ‘em dead at Farnborough!! Isn’t it nice to know you were right all along about the bright future of point-to-point air travel?
Cheryl A., Seattle, Washington
Thanks for posting your tremendous CMO presentation. Not only is Boeing availing itself of the latest aviation technology in its airline products, it is exploiting the latest communications technology (the power of the blog) to give industry outsiders unprecedented visibility into the commercial airplane market and a greater appreciation for the art of deciphering such a complex market. I’m certain that I speak for many in voicing appreciation for your journal.
Bernie S., Centreville, Virginia
As an employee and shareholder, I have the successful delivery of the first 787 in my daily prayers.
Charles C., Southern California
Randy, I just read the market outlook and it is truly remarkable. I was wondering if your analysis took into account projections for the various military derivatives such as C-40, P-8A MMA, 767
Tanker etc. Is BCA committed to building and supporting these aircraft as well?
Tom H., Renton, Washington
Seems to me that airline policies are significantly slowing the boarding process by allowing passengers carry too much luggage onboard. I’m surprised that the airlines haven’t collaborated on a restriction for only one small carry-on.
Glenn B., Bothell, Washington
You laid down an excellent wide-body-long-range (“WBLR”) product strategy several years ago. The result of your WBLR strategy is now apparent.
The only thing you need to do now is to keep on executing this strategy with strict discipline. Although you haven’t made public your intention concerning the 777, your blog entry of 7 July 2006 gives a hint of what you may do to the 777.
Bravo for your clear WBLR product strategy!
G.I., France
Your Journal is always a delight to read. Can you give us a preview of what Boeing has in store for the Farnborough Air Show? Thanks!
Ken W., Chicago, Illinois
I know that the answer to this is quite simple, but why does the passenger version of the 747 have nearly twice the range as the freight? Is it because the TOW is that much heavier; does it fly at a lower altitude? Assuming both jets land with an “empty tank” and a full load of passengers vs. a full load of cargo, the passenger jet would be a continent ahead of its freight twin. Why?
Edward L., New York
I suspect you’ve already considered this, but Boeing has a week of its own next year - in July. From July 2 through July 8, you’ll have: 7-2-7, 7-3-7, 7-4-7, 7-5-7, 7-6-7, and 7-8-7. I’m sure your PR folks could come up with something clever to take advantage of this.
Brad V., Richfield, Minnesota
The Leapfrog article is well taken and interesting, perhaps a bit too much of a jab at the to-be-configured A350/70 (not that I am an Airbus defender). But the other point that Airbus has made publicly is that because 787 is essentially sold out until 2012, or some distant date like that, having a product that won’t arrive until 2012 is not that big a problem. That is, if I were to order a 787 today, I wouldn’t be able to get my hands on the plane until 2012 anyway. So Airbus doesn’t nearly have as much to lose in redesigning the plane, if it means a better product. It sounds reasonable to me, what do others think about this argument?
Edward, San Diego, California
I have been following the 787 closely and your remarks about leapfrog are spot on. While Airbus may have an incremental improvement with their design, it won’t be a game changing improvement over the 787. But apparently they aren’t even targeting the 787 but the 777. Perhaps a redesign of the 737 first and then the 777 with composite fuselages using the techniques and lessons learned from the 787. Don’t stop innovating and trying out new techniques. While the press made a big deal out of the bubbles in one of your test sections a thinking person realizes that not pushing the technology envelope only leaves you behind, i.e. McDonnell Douglas and Airbus today. Building for pride leads to downfall, Lockheed (L1011) and others. The airlines need to get a handle on reducing the time from the Departure curb to boarding at major airports like LAX. No wonder more people are using private jets and leased time. Boeing shouldn’t ignore this as it is better for all of us not to have unnecessary increases in smaller planes just because it is such a pain to get on a commercial plane.
D.S., Anaheim, California
There is a historical chance to beat Airbus once and for all. I hope that you can use it!
Peter G., Boulder, Colorado
I can’t believe my eyes when I read this discussion thread at airliners.net “Donnelly told Aviation Daily that an engine for the proposed A350 would need to be about 10 percent larger than the GEnx”. Gee! This engine is NOT for the A350. This engine will have the right size for 777-8 and 777-9. One can think that Boeing has already started to consider improving the 777 family. Lighter, bigger and better!
G
Class act this one. Always good to see one taking the high road. I hope Mr. Leahy is reading this one! :-)
Lumberton
Randy, You are a class act and a credit to your profession. In my business I too always talk of my competitors with the respect they deserve. I am a Boeing advocate my self but you bring us all a dose of reality on the developments at your competitor. With progress will comes problems and it can, and will, happen to both of you. Jerry Steele
Jerry S., Tucson, Arizona
First of all, WOW! Very well done Randy! I thoroughly enjoy reading your journals as they are both very informative and persuasive, in addition to not being very…should we say “offensive”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither pro-Airbus nor pro-Boeing, (I’m a fan of Lockheed actually because they build most of my favorite jets. E.g. F-16, F-22, SR-71…etc) both companies build fantastic aircrafts and I had fond memories of flying on all of Airbus and Boeing’s airliners I have the fortune to come across thus far. In any case, I think I’ll leave comments more regularly in the future, that is…if you don’t mind of course. For now, I’d like to ask you just one more question. Given how Airbus tout their quietest cabin in the sky onboard the A340 on their homepage it makes me wonder… Then, how can the 777s possess smaller noise footprints than the A340 as shown on Boeing’s website? I have not flown on an A340 yet, so I can’t really do any comparison. But aren’t those two facts contradicting to each other? Lastly, regarding Boeing’s prediction of point-to-point flights for the future… Personally, I think there’s a twist to it. For instance, on a 10 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Seattle) then yeah, I don’t want to make a stopover at somewhere like Tokyo. On an 18 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Miami) however, I’d rather take a shore leave at somewhere like L.A so I can go stretch and walk around. Thank you for taking time to read through my comment. Best regards!
Yurey W. Taipei, Taiwan
I’m a fan of your blog. Just wanted to comment on your post regarding the challenges of building very large aircraft. Do you think Airbus underestimated their ability to develop the huge A380, or do you see their recent issues as inherent problems that could not have been foreseen?
Mbwana, Stanford, California
I have to admit it is very nice to see a straight and level Boeing response to the problems that Airbus is having. Instead of taunting them and gloating over their problems, the response was respectful and forward looking. While I am a Boeing fan, this makes Boeing seem even more professional compared with what could have been written. Keep up the good work.
Peter B., St. Charles, Illinois
Syntroleum (SYNM) just signed a contract with DoD to provide 100,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel. This is an ongoing effort being conducted by the USAF using a B-52. SYNM has other activities ongoing such as in South Africa where for more than a year they have been conducting tests and evaluations using synthetic fuels. SYNM has processes to convert Coal to Liquid Fuels, Natural Gas to Liquid Fuels, and BioMass to Liquid Fuels. They are also developing in joint partnerships large scale production facilities. Does Boeing have research or test and evaluation programs in synthetic jet fuels for all military and commercial aircraft Boeing manufactures? The technology is here. The only question is when will it be deployed to consumers, and for what price. The belief is that it could be a lot cheaper than hydrocarbon based fuel products. The SYNM web-site has presentation materials that explain it further. Fuels developed from the Syntroleum processes are Ultra Clean. But the strongest advantage is the synthetic technology could eliminate the dependence on hydrocarbon based products.
Bill F., Garden Grove, California
Boeing’s response to Airbus’ problems is pure class. Makes the Company look mature, and well controlled and disciplined. Well done. Cheers
Dr. John S., Brisbane, Australia
I worked in the Seattle area for about nine years. I like hearing about the ins and outs of Boeing with your blog it is almost like being there again.
Andrew P., Baltimore, Maryland
I appreciate how you comment and treat news about Airbus. Your comments are never spiteful, you never gloat, and that shows class. When they do well you acknowledge it, when they have a major accomplishment you wish them well and you don’t add to the vitriol spewed when they are struggling. That shows considerable class and adds to your credibility enormously.
Camille, Washington
Is there a means to infuse an airlines’ color scheme directly into the composite without weakening the carbon fiber structure? Wouldn’t this save a lot of additional weight of not having to paint the plane?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
I have been following your blog from Oct. last year; and it is quite an interesting read. I was wondering if you ever looked at the flight training institutes; which aircraft they use to train jet pilots and if any of Boeing’s characteristics has any upper hand over competitors. Would like to read your insights on the same.
Sivaram, Bangalore, India
I have noticed that the Airbus A380 sales have stalled around 159 planes for its first year of sales. What is the break even point for Airbus on there investment on this plane? And how many planes to they have to sell to start making a profit? In comparison, what amount 747’s were sold in its first year and how many have been bought in total to this year?
Robert H., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
This interesting article says that Boeing considers lengthening 747-8I. This can be a good idea especially if Boeing considers building bigger, better and lighter 777-8 and 777-9. Boeing wide-body-long-range (WBLR) aircraft family will have a uniform capacity separation of 20% from 230 seats to 475 seats. It will be very difficult to position an aircraft between two Boeing WBLRs.
G
It is funny watching AIRBUS squirm! No one doubts that it is a very competitive company and will remain a major force in the aviation world. However being humble has never been one of its strong points. For many years it has thrived on planning decisions that left Boeing a little behind in the sales race but that sure has turned and left Airbus on the back foot. Now all it seems to be able to do is rave on about paper planes that will always fly higher, faster and have more seats than the Boeing product. Let’s see when these paper planes fly or will they remain on the Airbus site instead of in the air. Good luck Boeing your forward thinking is really starting to work.
Chris G., Australia
A plane stays in the air just like a helicopter, at any given time it must throw down a mass of air equal to it’s own weight. This creates turbulence, the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the turbulence. Airbus can try to manipulate the aircraft separation rules, but neither Airbus nor Boeing can defy physics.
Previously archived comments (page 2 of 5)
« Newer | Older »
Why is it that avionics have not reached the reliability of consumer electronics? Seems like a great marketing strategy would be an airplane that you never needed to look under the hood, I mean carpet (EE Bay access hole). This seems like an emperor’s new clothes observation. I realize that operating environments are harsh - but it begs the question why we need to service some things in the first place… I can buy a Wal-Mart TV that will last 10 years for $200.
Richard M., Everett, Washington
You mention routes out of South Africa to illustrate that traffic spreads when smaller planes are involved. That is most likely true, but you don’t mention the political changes in South Africa since 1991 allowing the growth in air traffic between South Africa and the rest of the world.
Thomas W., London
I enjoyed your latest article regarding the state of affairs at Airbus. Thanks for taking the high road on your opinion of Airbus. It’s easy to criticize an opponent when they are down and you chose not to. Good form.
Bruce, SeaTac, Washington
In spite of the set backs that Airbus has had we need to make sure that “Launch Aide” is not in the equalization for their next Jetliner. Do you hear me Jim M?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I have to commend you on how well written your response was to the A380 program. I love it when an executive does not bash a rival. Peter
Peter S., Scottsdale, Arizona
A very classy statement on a difficult topic. From my perspective, you are quite correct with respect to the need for strong competition being for the betterment of all, be it Boeing or Airbus.
Erik H., Redlands, California
Kudos for not basking in the difficulties of others even if it is the competition, Boeing will be stronger because of it.
Ron B., Boston, Massachusetts
I have thought that Airbus was facing terrible loses over the A380 program. Now EADS is slowly facing the fact that all of their A380 mistakes are catching-up with them. Expect more EADS problems soon. Airlines can’t be expected to wait long for the delivery new planes. Expect many A380 orders to be cancelled or EADS will pay penalties for the damage caused by the delays. Airbus has three new planes being worked on now; the A380, A350 wide body, and the military transport M400. They don’t have enough engineers to do all of this work = mistakes.
John, Eugene, Oregon
It would appear that Airbus has finally hit the wall. Many observers had predicted that they would suffer a major catastrophe because of the lack of communication within the organization. It’s now evident that the proverbial “left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing” is true. The disclosure that the CAD systems in France are different to the ones in Germany, and can’t communicate in the same software language is incredible, and are the root cause of numerous problems in assembly. A valuable lesson, you should never let political appointee’s run multinational companies, way too much conflict and a demonstrated lack of communication.
Ken T., Vancouver, British Columbia
Randy, it’s come to my attention at a major airline finance conference, that the vast majority of the 200+ aircraft financiers present preferred to have total control of their window shades. Since these financiers are also frequent flyers, don’t you think there is some useful information here for the Boeing Company? In fact, 60% wanted total control of the shades and only 26% were willing to accept the flight attendants setting upper and lower bands of opaqueness (7% had no opinion and 7% wanted the flight attendants to control the shade). This is not a slight preference, but a HUGE preference. The silent majority has awakened and has spoken. What do you have say about this? There is still time to do the right thing before 787 EIS. Take that shade switch out of the galley and do the right thing - full control for paying customers!
Doug R., New York
I wonder when Boeing will announce the 787-10 , and what added benefits it would bring to the table as compared to the competition which exists in that sized market currently and in the future (with the XWB-10).
Gaurav, India
ATW reported http://atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=9%2F29%2F2006 that “A350 XWB entry-into-service date appears to be sliding 6-12 months owing to the ongoing A380 wiring difficulties.” If this news is true then the 787 won’t have any contender until 2013. In other words 787 will be alone in its market segment during the first five in-service years. It also means that the 777-300ER will dominate its market segment at least until 2015. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of it.
G
When comparing 1990 and 2006 please remember that South Africa was heavily sanctioned at that time, few countries could do business with them and as such, international air travel was not in such big demand - hence the low frequencies. Regarding today (2006), where only a third of the frequencies are served by the 747 - a third of 168 is still a lot more than the 28 in 1990.
Johnny N., Denmark
As a Boeing field service rep assigned to Anchorage, I want you to know that your Journal is just one more way for me to stay in touch with company news and progress. Although I am on the Military side of the Boeing house (F-15’s) I find your thoughts on new commercial aircraft development, processes, innovation, and strategies very informative.
Tom M.., Anchorage, Alaska
Just read about the 747 “XLB.” Here’s an idea, take the original short hump fuselage and put the 140” plug in it instead of plugging into the long hump. I never liked the hump so close to the wing in the 744 and the old 748i.
Ted. C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia
I continue to read and enjoy this blog and have begun to see how much aviation has changed. The 787 program seems to signify a large part of this change. In particular, the idea of composite construction seems vital in taking the lead in the air so to speak. What occurred to me is whether Lockheed would consider getting back into commercial aviation since they are quite advanced and experienced in composites. (Any joint venture possibilities with anyone?) Secondly, it occurred to me that Airbus will need two new families of aircraft to compete against the range offered by the 787 and 777 programs. It should be interesting to see if they do this. As you are aware, they will remain competitive in many ways.
John D., Auburn, Alabama
Just a quick suggestion for the designation of the 737NG successor…something borrowed from McDonnell Douglas. How about BCA-10, BCA-20, etc. The old designation scheme will seem to have run its course if 797 is applied and although providing a link with Boeing’s rich heritage, IMO it won’t convey the revolutionary “new-ness” of the 737s successor, but is more evocative of an “evolutionary” development. Hope this makes sense. (Also a lot easier that “A350-800XWB”. think of the poor media!) Really love this blog and the opportunity to make gratuitous contributions!
Lumberton, Texas
Like Joe Sutter, I went through Narita many years back (about 1985). As we were taking off, I looked out and saw nothing but 747s. (Maybe 3 that were not out of 29). I thought, boy, that sure tells you where the market is. A great memory and glad to think about it again.
Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska
I, like everyone at Boeing have been scrambling to get definitive data on the new A350XWB family. My comments may be premature but I think the comparison between the 789 and the 358XWB is a valid one. They both have the same published MTOW of 245t, yet the 789 is a larger aircraft, flying more payload over a greater distance (8,800nm v 8,500nm). Yet they weigh the same. This would have to put the A358 at a serious disadvantage and I wonder what the real comparisons will be like between the 787-10 and the A359XWB? To me, it seems as if Boeing is the company pushing the technological boundaries here, particularly in reference to the composite fuselage. I wonder why Airbus hasn’t gone CFRP with their fuselages yet? I can only assume they can’t see the value in it or they don’t have the technical know-how to efficiently produce this type of fuselage. In fact, the only real advantage I can see of the XWB family over the 787 is the extra fuselage width. Even this seems to be very minimal (5-7cm in critical areas) that will make very little difference in a 9-abreast twin-aisle airliner. It is apparent that Airbus is not really challenging the 787 family with the new 350XWB, but the 777 family. However, in this case, it should be more appropriately called the XNB (extra narrow body), as the fuselage width difference between the 777 and the 350XWB is significant (the difference between 9 and 10- abreast).
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
Maybe Boeing should look at building the 767 Tanker (if it comes into fruition) in Long Beach as a replacement for the C-17 jobs. I also think they should look at putting the 787 next/gen engines on the ship as they way to cut fuel burn and amortize costs.
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I too am leery of the prospect of giving flight attendants control of the window shading range. While we may be able to see out the window during the daytime, what I am concerned about is seeing out at night. The flight attendants will probably assume on night flights that everyone will want to sleep and dim the windows a great deal. I personally greatly enjoy night viewing, especially for the tremendous view of the night sky you can get from an aircraft. But if you dim the windows even a little bit, that may become invisible. What a tragedy that would be for those who have never seen the milky way or a truly dark night sky except from an airplane.
Daniel, New Jersey
In this discussion thread http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2966986/ somebody asks, “Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?” The question should have been, “Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The previous A350?”
G
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. More and more customers have been ordering their 737s with winglets, for good reason as they can save quite a bit of fuel. Now it seems Airbus is realizing they are at a disadvantage. They are testing large winglets on the A320! See http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1085626/M/
Will W., Everett, Washington
It is interesting to note that the 747 was developed with ‘bet the company risk’ around management of both Boeing and airline executives that understood their business and that their vision as to what it would mean to the future. I would think the 787 program has some of the some importance as that technology will be shaping the future at Boeing commercial aircraft. Joe Sutter’s insight is an inspiration. Please add to your blog any additional comments you may glean from Joe.
Jim H., Wichita, Kansas
I was quite surprised by the comments you received by people who want to keep their window shades up no matter what. I’m one of those international road warriors who likes the cabin dark during long flights. Truth be told, on most intercontinental flights there’s nothing much to see anyway. I have observed that moreso on US carriers, there are always one or two individuals who leave their windows open and their lights on all the time. And as you wrote, only one open window in a darkened cabin ruins it for everyone. This new window dimming system of yours sounds like a great idea. It keeps the cabin dim, and still lets the window guy get his views.
Jim R., Chicago
I have just counted the total orders of the 777 family. The figure is quite impressive: in July 2006, 851 units have been ordered. At the same time, 576 have been delivered. If we assume that Boeing delivers on average 44 airplanes per year, the remaining 777s to be delivered represent 6 years of production (up to 2012). If Boeing decides to go to the one thousand mark, it has to keep the line open up to 2015, just about the right time to introduce the 777-8 and the 777-9. One can speculate about the size and the range for these airplanes. My guess is that both will have a range of up to 7,900 nmi, the -8 will seat about 335 pax and the -9 will be a 400 seater. This size fits well between the 787-9 and 747-8i. Although both will be bigger than the current 777, they will be much lighter.
G
I think Airbus engineers are quite capable - it’s Airbuses managers that screwed up. I think the A380 is the most serious mistake, that Airbus ever made - not only is it not selling well, it also prevented Airbus to offer a competitor to the Dreamliner. I’m from Europe (lived in the US for 4years), but I’m still cheering for Boeing. And Boeing really should offer the B787-10, so Airbus won’t be able to sell its A350.
Luke, Nova Gorica/Slovenia
Recently Rolls Royce changed the name of its Trent 1700. First: Trent New Generation, Current: Trent XWB. What shocked me is that if Boeing wants an engine from Rolls Royce for their Boeing 787-10 (because they examined their competitor incorporating the ideas from the Boeing 787 and made it better) they would persuade Rolls Royce make a new engine that doesn’t carry the title of “XWB”, because it represents Airbus’ A350. However, the engine will probably come later or after the Trent XWB, and ultimately delaying the Boeing 787-10 until 2013 or Late-2012? Boeing can ask GE to make a more efficient GEnx for their Boeing 787-10 (Which is about the only possibility) and also delaying the Boeing 787-10 or design their Boeing 787-10 with use of bleed air, which is not revolutionary. Airbus wants Boeing to suffer and that’s fact. If I were Boeing, I’d watch out and make a decision now! Seriously, Boeing is getting a beating! The Airbus A350XWB is more efficient, the engines has a high-thrust rating (I don’t know why it makes a difference), the windows will be larger than Boeing’s 787-8 and has a better humidity point and wider fuselage, the Airbus A350XWB is easier to check or review, the Airbus A350XWB has a better range, and the Airbus A350XWB is considering the LCD-windows. Talk about competition! But Boeing could retain its position: -Boeing 787-10 or Boeing 787-9 (Even larger windows), since they are still not frozen. -Boeing 787-10 and -9 with bigger fuselage, like the Boeing 777 (Since it’s going to be defeated anyways) -Boeing 787-10 should have more efficient engines than on the Airbus A350XWB I got to say, Airbus has trapped Boeing. Their new tactics are pretty smart. Is there any ideas to counter my opinion, because I can’t think of any.
James A., Seattle, Washington
I heard that CBB is closing down due to the insufficient amount of the customers. Many carriers seemed to be happy and I thought many people were happy with this service as well. Yet Boeing says it is not profitable hence ditching the service. I think this is sort of going against the time really. If people are satisfied why ditch it? I think this very un-Boeing thing to do. I also have a suggestion, is the one digit (According to Boeing) usage problem due to the lack of the device that customers can get access to inboard? Because as far as I know in the most airlines that has CBB, you need the laptop to connect to CBB service. So I was thinking, may be renting these internet capable devices on board might change the situation? I heard that there are about 1 tonne of water vapour in the normal aircraft cabin, and the reason why cabin humidity is kept low is to increase the payload by getting rid of some of these humids? Is this true? And I was wondering that if this means that it will affect the efficiency of 787 since it has more humidity than current airliners.
Joo-Mann, Sydney, Australia
I recently heard that the 747-8I will be stretch to the same length as the freighter version. It would be kind of odd if the passenger and the freighter version have different length. With the galleys being move to the crown level for additional seats, is a great idea, just as my prediction. That is great news, one would hope that the designer don’t forget to add more wash room since there are increase amount of passengers. Adding additional value by having the same wing box for both versions for future freighter conversion, great plan! Since I am a fan of the 747, it is nice to see this plane flying for many years to come, and let’s hope that the airline order enough of them so that it is not so difficult to catch a ride on one. While living in Vegas, I am still required to do a connection for many international flights, but I don’t mind if I could get on to a 747, especially the 747-8I. For Asian carriers, one could always guarantee for a 747, but not European carriers, its hit or missed. What I don’t understand is why traveling to Europe would require me to connect through the east coast, especially the airline I flew have network and connections in LAX and SFO and they had 747 stopped at those two airports, but on the east coast, I had to get on the others’ plane?
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I really enjoyed your interview with Joe Sutter. I finished his book a month or so ago - really a terrific read. Please continue to interview Joe as much as possible in the future.
Erik H., Redlands, California
It is sad to know that Boeing will be closing down this service [Connexion] by end of this year. I wonder if Boeing have tried to market this service to China, as I believe that China may have big market for this service!
Yuen P., Singapore
Nice job on the Weight Watchers post, Randy. You guys maybe have better sources than me but using published figures and some informed opinion from my old boss (who broke me in as a weight engineer at Garrett many moons ago) I see much in the A380 to be apprehensive over. In fact, I blogged about it myself back in February of this year in my blog http:cornponepapers.blogspot.com. I’d probably buy you the lunch of your choice if I had the actual scale figures from the all up, passenger equipped A380 and some CG range information. I’ve been a little brusque with you guys in the past mostly because I’m a former Douglas worker, so I’m sure you’ll see the value in a back of a cocktail napkin weight analysis done by a guy who’s definitely not in the pay of either Airbus or Boeing-not that I wouldn’t like to be.
Robert L., Des Moines, Iowa
It is always amazing and amusing to read on how the Airbus A380’s head of marketing continues to slam the Boeing claims with regard to the 747-8 variants versus the A380 variants. Airbus is making it very clear that they are convinced Boeing is virtually lying about the promised efficiencies and economics that the new 747 offers and that Boeing is grossly over-exaggerating the A380’s weight problems. Airbus also continue to say that the 747-8 is an ‘old’, inefficient design which now has a minor tweak to the wing, and does not offer significant passenger growth over the current -400. Airbus simply have brushed off the latest 747, and have attempted to destroy Boeing’s fine reputation in the process. Firstly, there is nothing minor about having an aerodynamically all-new, aft loaded, relofted and re-twisted supercritical wing that is able to hold more fuel, be far more efficient and quieter and still allow the highest economical cruise speed of any current or future passenger and freighter airplane. The wing has inherent stiffness, it is lighter and employs the better high-speed planform than A380’s and Airbus are currently struggling with the A380’s wing limit problem. Go figure! For Boeing to give Airbus the benefit of the doubt with the A380 wing being all-new, is very lenient. Now, if Boeing were lying about the 747-8’s economics and efficiencies - in Airbus’s clouded eyes - wouldn’t that mean that Boeing is going to destroy their own credibility? Very amusing as it seems Airbus has not thought there comments and claims through very well. The 747-8 role in Airbus’s view is to compete directly against the A380. Well, if an airline requires an efficient airliner that seats above 500 seats comfortably then the A380 is the answer, but for the majority of the blue-chip carriers, the 747-8 is the answer for a significant increase of revenue and size from the 747-400, whilst offering drastically lower operating costs, trip costs and much greater efficiencies. It is in this role that the 747-8 competes against A380 - 747 is far lower risk, higher reward, greater flexibility and completes Point to Point travel. As for the 747-8F, I personally think Airbus have quietly admitted to themselves that Boeing no doubt has the right airplane. Quite simply put: 747-8 is the shape of the future!
Chris C., South Africa
I am not impressed by the electronic shading proposal for the 787 windows. I am one who likes to look out the windows of an airplane for the marvelous views. Having to shade the entire window would not provide the ability to block the sun while maintaining partial views. Also, nothing quite so frustrating as when the attendants force everyone to pull the shades during a day trip in order to show a movie. Will they have the ability to do this remotely for all windows whether you like it or not? I think the shading proposal is the answer to a question no one asked. Yes, I know it might save a little weight, but it is one more thing to make flying just a little more unpleasant.
Del, Seattle, Washington
Given that a 747 or 777 is built around an aluminum frame how difficult would it be and how much weight would be saved by “re-skinning” with the same material that is being used for the 787? It would seem to be relatively easier to make pre-molded sheets vs an entire fuselage? Just a thought. Would this be at all practical?
C.W.K., California
Is the 747-8 passenger going to have the same internal features as the 787 such as the electronic window shading? You have spoke so much about the 787, but, very little about some of the features on the 747-8.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
Airbus claims for the A350XWB-800 just don’t add up. The 8-abreast A350-800 had a (stated) MTOW of 245t and a (stated) range of 8,800 nmi. Now Airbus wants us to believe a jet with a wider fuselage, bigger wing, heavier wing and landing gear at the same MTOW will fly only 300 nmi less than the smaller jet? Nonsense. I’m thinking 1,000+ nmi is more like it. I think a blog entry refuting the Airbus claims for the XWB is in order.
Robert R., Everett, Washington
Because I have mostly flown on Boeings, the first thing I noticed when I finally flew on a wide body Airbus was the inward sloping interior, cutting off shoulder room and overhead baggage room. A bad first impression. I asked myself what Airliner Executive would board this plane and order it? But they do. The original A350, with that sane interior, logged a mind baffling 182 orders. Then there is the 747-8. It is a make sense alternative to the Airport unfriendly and engineering nightmare A380, and yet, instead of A380 losing orders, SIA just ordered 9 more while the 747-8 Intercontinental is yet to log a single order. Last years wide body sales advantage and this years overall sales advantage that Boeing enjoys is about the first trend that makes sense since this rivalry began. Never-the-less, Airlines buy Airbus even when they fall short. This is why I believe the Airbus camp is giddy over the XWB. The XWB might actually be a worthy of the sales. Airbus doesn’t see the 10 inch wider 777 as a threat to the XWB because they figure the 8 across seating will give more comfort than the 9 of the 777. As far a performance claims, they’ll make can make whatever claim they want until it actually flies. Perhaps the Boeing answer is a 777-8 with 8 across seating, larger windows, and that awesome 787 interior. Of course, this is easier said then recommended. But that would knock over the Airbus execs.
Greg B., Portland, Oregon
Your quote: “The 787 is the first commercial jetliner of the 2nd century of powered flight.” Enjoy your column but, I don’t understand this time claim in respect to the currently flying A380, unless qualified as the first “Boeing” jetliner of the 2nd aviation century.
Rene H., Seattle, Washington
I bought Boeing stock when it was fairly cheap a few years back. I had faith in Boeing’s ability to build new and efficient product. It appears that my faith was justified, based upon the current share price. Also, Airbus appears to be just one more example of failed European industrial policy. The A320 has sold well, although I prefer any 737 model or DC-9 development to travel on. The A300 is a really efficient medium size twin. After that, what else has Airbus done in its 35 or so years of existence? The A380 is a joke, nobody wants the A340 and the 330 is dying as well. The A350 remains no more than an artist’s conception. Go Boeing!
David G., Monroe, Ohio
Recently, Boeing sent me a e-mail regarding the new and revamped “newairplane.com”. I glanced on a product to long to be a Boeing 787-9, could this be a elusive preview of the Boeing 787-10? How do you plan to counter the Airbus A350-1000? Obviously, the lucrative 777 market is losing its share to Airbus already, do you plan to counter that? As said “It’s better to replace then allow your competitor to eat the market”, and since the -200/-200ER will soon get punched out by Airbus’ A350XWB-900, do you plan to revive the legacy of the Boeing 777? Such as, importing the ideas into the Boeing 787-10? Obviously, as we know it, the Airbus A350-900 might have a chance to crush Boeing’s 777-200ER, but it’s not wider. Again, will you import the great aspects of the Boeing 777 into the Boeing 787-10, such as a larger cross-section?
Andre, Seattle, Washington
Ok, Randy, the cat is out of the bag, according to the Boeing sales orders, “2” orders are showing up for 787 BBJ’s. So, some of us, are quite curious as to what these 787 BBJ’s are going to look like. Any chance of a sneak preview?
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I’m glad I stumbled across Randy’s blog. I saw some comments about the A350XWB vs. the 787, in particular regarding SQ’s intentions. Given Airbus’s track record in on-time delivery and R&D vs. that of Boeing, I’m actually shocked that Tony Lim would even consider another order. The signal to the market by Emirates even weighs clear! The lucrative new long-distance and Moscow routes that the Asian carriers all acknowledge is a growth-market will surely propel great sales of the 787. I’m glad you have this blog and marketing tool present, especially since I myself am even considering to become an employee of Boeing!
Eric G., Cebu City, Philippines
Enjoyed your August post-Farnborough post. But you did not mention that the A350XWB will likely provide full control of the window shades to those who pay for them — the passengers! This could be a key marketing advantage versus the 787 and the dictatorial control that Boeing is giving to the flight attendants to plunge the cabin into near-total darkness during daylight flights. Electronic window shades are great — giving control to FAs is not. My trip home from Farnborough was a window seat in BA Business Class — four windows, under my full control, fully open, all the time. Daytime flying the way it is supposed to be! Do I mind shutting my shade? Darn right I do. Have not been hearing much in the last year about engine swapping on the 787 — is this becoming the folding wingtip of the 787? A neat idea at program inception that ultimately gains no traction over the life of the program and quietly fades away? And thanks for the DreamSpace at Farnborough — not only was it by far the coolest space figuratively (with phenomenal displays and a fantastic 787 mock-up), it was the coolest space literally in that sweltering hell called the 2006 Farnborough Air Show.
Doug R., New York, New York
J/24 sailboat spinnaker poles could make a nice graphic demonstration showing how much stronger carbon fiber can be than Aluminum. The J/24 class specifies the weight of the spinnaker pole but not it’s material. Carbon fiber poles are virtually indestructible and can be abused with impunity. The loads on similar aluminum poles have to be carefully balanced. A nice video demo would show a straight tubular aluminum pole (with an “A350” sticker?) sailing in a heavy wind with bending and compression loads. It would fail spectacularly - at least folding up and possibly completely breaking in half with the ends flailing about. A carbon fiber pole (with a “787” sticker) of identical size, shape and weight would be shown under identical conditions and be obviously nowhere close to damage. The visual point to be made is that a properly built carbon fiber structure will be dramatically stronger than a similar aluminum structure of the same size and weight. The accurately implied point is that an aluminum A350 will have to sacrifice strength and durability to match the 787’s weight.
Doug H., Huntington Beach, California
It seems that Airbus has made several serious miscalculations. In the past several years they have developed three different planes at the same time. The jumbo A380 has taken most of their engineers. At the same time they developed the A350 [first version] and this effort took extra engineers they didn’t have. The A350 was pieced together from older and smaller airbus models. The Dreamliner was selling more planes than Airbus expected. They added a few new composite parts and borrowed the new engine from the 787 Dreamliner. At this time, more engineers were working on the new military transport; the M400. Ever hear of the M400? Between the three new planes, they didn’t have enough engineers to work on all the planes at the same time. The first version of the A350 has been thrown in the trash and redone with a copy of the 787. The A380 has problems and delays. Now parts of it are being re- designed and it is late. It seemed to be overly grandiose and close to being impractical. It was designed to be the largest passenger plane in the world and to show the superior engineering. It showed that a design needs to work well and sell enough planes to show a profit. I think they need to sell 250 A380’s to break even. They have orders for 159 and there are no new orders. I have the strong feeling that Airbus might be in serious economic trouble within a year. They can make ‘happy talk’ about their clever designs, but they have made too many mistakes. The mistakes are piling up now into an economic melt down.
John K., Eugene, Oregon
I am more and more convinced that 737 replacement will happen if and only if you can sell them at a very low price. It means that not only the next generation narrow body aircraft will be more efficient; its production cost must be significantly lower than that of 737.
The 737 replacement must also be simple to operate and robust. So, the four key words for 737 replacement are: Affordable, Robust, Simple and Efficient. In other words, it won’t be available before 2015.
G.
I just heard the announcement of the new Airbus A350XWB and rushed to the Airbus site to take a look. My question is how come the supposingly A350XWB, a derivative from the A380, with 787 engines would look identical to the 787 Dreamliner down to the winglet?
Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada
I only recently found your Blog on the web, and I find it excellent. Anyone who reads your blog would be well aware it’s just another facet of Boeing marketing, but still your Journal is like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual bland corporate communications. The 787, with its high fuel efficiency, is just the right plane for the times I really wonder about the heavy use of advanced composites, though. I’m familiar with the basic technology, though I have no contact with aviation applications. As I know, it is still very difficult to routinely fabricate an item the size of a 787 fuselage section out of such materials. And Boeing is planning to build 20 to 30 787s a month - wow! Talk about audacity! I have no doubt Boeing’s experience and sheer engineering muscle will be able to overcome the problems EVENTUALLY, but you sure are taking a big risk with delivery schedules and your reputation. I suppose that’s why Airbus is taking a more conventional approach, even after the latest iteration of the A350-XWB. If you can pull it off, 787 will be clearly superior to the A350XWB, but if you fail, or take a long time to get it right, Boeing is going to get very badly hurt. Wish you all success.
Kit K., Penang, Malaysia
How about some recognition to Eclipse Aviation and the certification of its new Eclipse 500? The Eclipse 500 is every much a “game changer” in its marketplace as is the 787. Both are pioneering new methods of construction and will bring their operators new levels of efficiency and affordability. Additionally, I would be curious to get your take on the emerging air taxi business and what it means to companies like Boeing and Airbus.
Greg, San Diego, California
The 737. From ‘Fluffy’ to Next Generation, this airplane family continues to ink its self into the record books and continues to be one of the most impressive commercial airplane stories ever! A phenomenal airplane that will without a doubt continue to fly strong and mightily for many decades into the 21st Century! The 737 Next Generation is an airplane of superlatives and a true workhorse of the domestic and regional fleets. The 737 is a solid, sturdy machine that was and is built right. Boasting the highest dispatch reliability, a 3% -7% operating costs reduction, and a maximum maintenance reduction of 22%, over the A320 family, as well as boasting the most efficient design, and ground breaking technologies such as the blended Winglets, this airplane has got to be, without a doubt, the mainstay of any airline, company or private owner. The Boeing 737 Next Generation fleet is the only airplane family to cover the market fully, and offers unique models, such as the 737-700ER and -900ER. Flying faster and higher, yet far more fuel efficient with lower trip costs over the competition, is what makes this 737NG unstoppable, as well as all the other phenomenal Boeing Commercial Airplanes! Congratulations of the 2000th delivery of the 737NG, and may there a few thousand more deliveries of this unique airplane!
Chris C., South Africa
So, Farnborough Air show has finally come to an end. Overall, I’d say it was quite splendid. I was most excited to see a 777 in EVA Air’s gorgeous livery on display. (thanks for letting a Taiwanese airline participate by the way) As a matter of fact, 777 is my absolute favorite airliner. Though I’ve only flown on it once with Singapore Airline, it was my most memorable flying experience ever. As such, I’m glad that Boeing will be improving the 777 further. Although there are those who consider 777 to be dead with the looming threats of A350 and B787-10. I for one believe that if Boeing can keep on rejuvenating its decades-old 737 and 747 to bring new lives into them, I don’t see why they can’t do the same with their relatively young flag ship. On Airbus front, it seems they’ve finally decided to get serious with their mid-haul long-range wide-body family by announcing the A350XWB. However, I’m still not all that impressed with Airbus and their new jet. For much of its elements seemed to have borrowed from Boeing’s Dreamliner. (it’s truly just a “me-too 787”) Indeed, when I first saw the new A350, my first reaction was: “who painted the 787 in Airbus’s livery?” Also, bigger windows, higher cabin humidity…etc, why to those features sound awfully familiar? So no, there’s nothing about the A350XWB that makes it technologically “a leap ahead” of the 787. Nonetheless, though I have my doubts and criticisms regarding Airbus’s ambitious claims and performance targets, should they really deliver the A350XWB on-specs and on-time, it’ll most certainly provide a formidable opposition to 777 and 787. Therefore, better no take A350XWB lightly Boeing. As you’ve admitted before Randy, Airbus is a tough competitor. P.S: You’re definitely right Randy. Air shows are just short sprints in this VERY LONG marathon of commercial aviation contest. And I expect 2006 to be another excellent year for both Boeing & Airbus.
Yurey Y, Taipei, Taiwan
I’m watching enthusiasm build for Boeing products, and I’m hoping the wave of mandatory pilot retirements will carry me into a Boeing for Air Canada in the next few years. But I start to wonder: the same generation of baby boomers who are hogging all the pilot seats are also building the airplanes. Sure the lack of a mandatory retirement age will soften the blow, but given that a lot of experienced skilled tradespeople are set to retire in the next few years, and given the modern preference of university over trades for smart high school graduates these days, what is Boeing doing to ensure that you’ll still have the people to build all the airplanes the world wants?
Aviatrix, Canada
Boeing should not rest on its laurels and allow Airbus to pull a leapfrog on them. The 777, 737 and the 717 should have been designed using 8 technology to really level the competition. We all know Airbus will do what it does best and that is seek taxpayers in Europe to fund its projects. Airbus seems more concerned about sales rather than innovation and technology. If Airbus wants to compete, simply Randy, all Boeing needs to do is raise the bar just a little higher. Convince the manufacturers to make the engines even more efficient. I put my money on Boeing to dominate for the next 10-20 years.
Kevin, Miami, Florida
I currently reside in the beautiful port city of Bordeaux. A world-famous city if you ask me. Even our own Airbus A380 crossed the city. However, I’m very disappointed at the “new” Airbus A350XWB when it’s generally based upon your revolutionary Boeing 787. I would not call the Airbus A350 revolutionary. Anyways, does Boeing plan to produce the 787-10? As what Airbus done to you, will you “leapfrog” them? They’re fuselage is wider than your 787, but you may make it wider. Airbus also stated that the windows will be the largest in the industry, do you plan to counter that with the 787-10? Hopefully, the Boeing 787-10 range will exceed the Airbus A350XWB. Hopefully, you’ll do very well with the upcoming Emirates order.
Thomas K., Bordeaux, France
I will love to see Boeing retake the lead from Airbus. Please try hard to please customers and work hard to get new orders from United, Delta, American Airlines and British Airways, US Air and many others .. Ten row across 3-4-3 will be wonderful.
Desmond C., Indianapolis Indiana
As Airbus has just launched their 5th (6th/7th??) iteration of the A350, I wonder how they are going to pay for the $10B development costs. We know the US will fight tooth and nail against anymore launch aid. Airbus is assuming they will have it ready for service in 2012. But they have many issues to resolve in the near term before they even think about starting production. In addition, 2012 is just about the timeframe Boeing will introduce their replacement for the single aisle family. Airbus will be playing catch-up for at least another 10 years. Also, they can kiss the tanker contract goodbye if they get more EU handouts.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
I am glad you guys have continued to take the high road in the pitched battle with Airbus for the 200-350 seat market. Comments about the 787 being a cheap Chinese copy of the A330 have come back to bite Airbus in the back end. Provide a superior product to the market and the airlines will beat a path to your door. Kudos to the Boeing team for doing just that! I am looking forward to watching Airbus struggle with Boeings future launches of the 737RS and 777”NG” while they are still trying to hit breakeven on the A380 and hit an impossible 2012 EIS for the A350XWB.
Rainer, San Clemente, California
I have over the past couple of months been reading the rhetoric coming from Airbus on the 350, but now with the 350XWB and all the superlative claims “best in class” etc. I have to say something. Much of the efficiency is weight related and if the new 350XWB has a higher internal cabin pressure and larger windows and the fuselage is still aluminum then it makes the statement “more efficient than the 787”, even more suspect. With the higher internal pressures and larger windows the skin thickness, skin stresses will be higher and will need to be increased and fuselage weight will go up. Weight increase is very sensitive in the fuselage due to the large surface areas being dealt with. The density between aluminum and composites has the composite being about 43% lighter from a one on one material comparison. The newer light weight aluminums are approximately 7% lighter than standard aluminum materials. If you take a fuselage of approximately 125 feet long and 234 inches in diameter, a thickness increase in the fuselage skin of .010 inches will increase the weight approximately 1,100 lbs, using standard aluminum (that’s the thickness of a little over three pieces of paper). A last note, even if the skins were the same thickness the composite skin is a lot lighter than the aluminum skin in the area of thousands of pounds. You need to compensate in many areas to make up for the inefficiencies in the fuselage. Airbus claims don’t hold water.
Rich K, Bear, Delaware
I have been annoyed at the loose use of the terms, game changer, leap and even “me too” I saw a FedEx publication that called the A380 freighter a “game changer”. While I think it’s an impressive capacity increase for FedEx, it’s not a game changer in that its just larger size for the existing game. If the can structure worked, they might be better off with two 777s (supposedly the can structure for a 747 does not work for them). It’s certainly costing a lot to gear up for the A380. The Leap from thing by Airbus is also eyewash. Its not even “me too” technology, it’s the old stuff wrapped in a phony package. Me too would at least be using an all composite airframe, and they are not coming close to doing that. And by the time they do, Boeing will have an experience advantage in its use, application and improvement (or refinement). So, keep beating up on them. For those of us that follow the industry, I am wondering if it would be possible to come up with a passenger count template that would be applied to pax count comparisons? Something that used a 2 or 3 class seating arrangement, how wide the seats are (and how many) as well as pitch or spacing. Along those lines, I think some kind of revenue generating figure that would take into account maintenance (reduced hopefully in the case of the 787), cargo capacity and its overall fuel burn. It seems to me that you add those all up, you have something that’s 30-40% better than existing, not just 20% of the fuel efficiency. I think you could then squash any slewed comparisons. I also looked at the latest A350, and it left me wondering about how wide it was and what it gets. You can’t get any more seats in it, 5 inches across at 9 seats is literally nothing, and its not as wide as a 777 (which I keep thinking is its only real market). It makes me wonder if it actually gets launched (which I have wondered all along).
Greg Schmitz, Anchorage Alaska
You said that the Airbus A350 didn’t make sense? Surely it made sense to Singapore Airlines since they ordered 20 of it?
Noel, Moscow
Has there been any talk of a Corporate 787?
Mike C., Long Beach, California
It is a common census that you don’t need be the best to win. And never doubt about the power of your opponent. Reading the Randy’s articles in his blog (excellent in my opinion), I’ve got the impression that Boeing forgets that sometimes things just don’t go as we wish. You can just take a look about the recent Airbus selling and you’ll understand why. This text has been taken in Flight Magazine website: “Airbus closed its order gap on rival Boeing during the Farnborough air show after declaring firm agreements for 90 aircraft, plus commitments for another 92.” This is not a question about when or where you and your rival will “leap” each other. It’s a question to ensure the customers won’t “leap” you and by from another company. Take it in mind!
Harilton Rodrigues, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Singapore Airlines earlier in the year had an Intention to buy 20 Boeing 787. At the Farnborough Air show SQ also has an Intention to buy 20 Airbus A350XWB. I really don’t understand this connection of buy two different types of planes. I have seen the A350XWB and it personally looks like a 787 which doesn’t look nice. Does this design of the A350XWB show that Airbus has really no way of competing with the 787? I think Airbus is desperate to compete with the very successful 777/787, but Airbus has killed the A330 and A340 family simultaneously with the range and passenger capacity. Very ironic family kills family. I want your opinion: Which Aircraft is gonna work better.
Yashveen, Cape Town, South Africa
Has Boeing ever thought about running two separate lists for counting aircraft orders? 1 is the way that Boeing currently keeps track of aircraft orders, the other, is the way that Airbus keeps track of aircraft orders.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I noticed that you mentioned that Airbus has chosen to put up the new A350 against two of Boeing’s products the 787 and the 777. I think that you are wrong about that. It is just that the strategy of Airbus is to build a new plane ranging from 250 - 350 seats. Boeing’s strategy is to address the 220-310 seats with one product (the 787) and 290-365 with another product (the 777). In the end it is a question about which product best suits the airlines needs. For an A300 or A310 replacement, the A350 would not be relevant. The A330 would be though it is a generation behind the 787. Similarly if an ultra long-range plane is the requirement, the A350-900L would be a good choice. Boeing would have to decide whether to improve the 777-LR or launch the 787-10. So it’s a question about positioning. Looks like Airbus has abandoned the 200-250 seat market just as Boeing has no competitor to the A380. The 747-8 has some 1000 seats less. The only plane which I can see as in direct competition to each other is the A320 vs the 737 family.
George, Guangzhou, China
As a native in the city of aerospace in France, I think Airbus over exaggerated their plane. First, the plane is a carbon-copy of Boeing’s 787. They claim their windows are larger, and copied the phrase said by Boeing’s Mike Bair: “The windows will be the industry’s largest”. Their plane is NOT more fuel efficient than the Boeing 787 n several reasons. And the range of the Boeing 787 exceeds the A350XWB’s range, their plane is not even close and they stress that their plane has more range than the competition, when the Boeing 787-9 has a staggering range of 8,900 nm, compared to their 8,500 nm. A 400 nm difference. Sorry Airbus, but Au revoir!
Phillppe D., Toulouse, France
I LOVE the large windows for the passengers and the new shades. I’m curious, Randy, if you can tell me if they’ve come up with a shade solution for the cockpit in the 787. It’s frustrating to have to put up newspapers in the cockpit of the Boeings I’ve been flying so far (727,737,757,767,777). Please tell me that the pointy end of the airplane also has a bit of ‘high tech’ when it comes to shading as well. Thanks! Kent
Kent W., Exeter, New Hampshire
All the talk about the 787 Dreamliner is making those of us in business and in the private sector very excited. It’s interesting how our countries officials and the private sector will utilize significant resources on machines that satisfy our “right now” appetite. We are always wanting something to go faster so we may get more done, be more comfortable and rest able so that we may live in luxury and more importantly we are willing to waste no cost. If there is a major catastrophe or terrorist/nuclear attack would Boeing be willing to fly the Dreamliner to devastated areas to evacuate people?? It is important for companies like Boeing to be truly socially responsible and they will see a true incline in their stock and growth. I am no analyst I am not even an educated businessman I am only a young man who believes in the American spirit of togetherness to achieve great things and saving lives is the most rewarding thing someone can do.. How will Boeing play an active role if the west coast was hit by an earthquake or hurricanes threaten the livelihood of the gulf coast? The truth is these things WILL happen we just have no idea when. I hope the Boeing executives commit themselves to social and corporate philanthropy.
M.
As threatening (or not threatening) this new A350X is wouldn’t it be in Boeing’s best interests to look into further improving the 787? …just to keep on top of things.
Sam
I expect that Airbus will shortly announce a two model program like Boeing did with the 757/767. Yes they very well know their offering of the A350XWB does not and will not compete with the 787. It’s very much targeted at the 777 and with “Bleed Air” and Composites it will give this wonderful airplane a tough battle in the 300-400 segment. What these guys do know how to do is get an airplane launched by whatever means (call it launch aid or what ever they will do it) I bet you will see Airbus launching two models within the next year. Yes their Engineering/Production organization is stretched thin with the A380 but they will find a way to give Boeing a run for the money by launching two new planes. Yes, Boeing’s assessment is correct that they cannot beat Boeing with one new mouse trap. So how do we as a free market fix airbus? How about big tariffs on their planes?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
At the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus proudly displayed their new product, the A350XWB. This was not the airplane that the industry was waiting for. All they did was take the original A350 & added some pretty lighting to it. The industry is looking for the A350XE (extra efficient) or how about the A350FS (fuel saver). This is what the 787 is all about, an aircraft that will save the industry money in efficiency & fuel savings & will also provide passenger comfort. Airbus, I think it may be time to go back to the drawing board, again.
Mike C., Long Beach, California
I lived my entire life about 3 miles from Kennedy Airport. I watched every airplane in production today fly over my house over the past 20 something years…the loudest was the Super Sonic Transporter. Woke me up every morning at 7am. This new Model (787) will be another amazing site to see when it flies over my house.
Richard D., New York, New York
90 years of innovations in aviation…WOW! Surely that would be a monumental day for Boeing. I send my regards and congratulations. Happy birthday Boeing and best wishes for continuing successes for many years to come.
Yurey W., Taipei, Taiwan
Hey Randy: I hope you knock ‘em dead at Farnborough!! Isn’t it nice to know you were right all along about the bright future of point-to-point air travel?
Cheryl A., Seattle, Washington
Thanks for posting your tremendous CMO presentation. Not only is Boeing availing itself of the latest aviation technology in its airline products, it is exploiting the latest communications technology (the power of the blog) to give industry outsiders unprecedented visibility into the commercial airplane market and a greater appreciation for the art of deciphering such a complex market. I’m certain that I speak for many in voicing appreciation for your journal.
Bernie S., Centreville, Virginia
As an employee and shareholder, I have the successful delivery of the first 787 in my daily prayers.
Charles C., Southern California
Randy, I just read the market outlook and it is truly remarkable. I was wondering if your analysis took into account projections for the various military derivatives such as C-40, P-8A MMA, 767
Tanker etc. Is BCA committed to building and supporting these aircraft as well?
Tom H., Renton, Washington
Seems to me that airline policies are significantly slowing the boarding process by allowing passengers carry too much luggage onboard. I’m surprised that the airlines haven’t collaborated on a restriction for only one small carry-on.
Glenn B., Bothell, Washington
You laid down an excellent wide-body-long-range (“WBLR”) product strategy several years ago. The result of your WBLR strategy is now apparent.
The only thing you need to do now is to keep on executing this strategy with strict discipline. Although you haven’t made public your intention concerning the 777, your blog entry of 7 July 2006 gives a hint of what you may do to the 777.
Bravo for your clear WBLR product strategy!
G.I., France
Your Journal is always a delight to read. Can you give us a preview of what Boeing has in store for the Farnborough Air Show? Thanks!
Ken W., Chicago, Illinois
I know that the answer to this is quite simple, but why does the passenger version of the 747 have nearly twice the range as the freight? Is it because the TOW is that much heavier; does it fly at a lower altitude? Assuming both jets land with an “empty tank” and a full load of passengers vs. a full load of cargo, the passenger jet would be a continent ahead of its freight twin. Why?
Edward L., New York
I suspect you’ve already considered this, but Boeing has a week of its own next year - in July. From July 2 through July 8, you’ll have: 7-2-7, 7-3-7, 7-4-7, 7-5-7, 7-6-7, and 7-8-7. I’m sure your PR folks could come up with something clever to take advantage of this.
Brad V., Richfield, Minnesota
The Leapfrog article is well taken and interesting, perhaps a bit too much of a jab at the to-be-configured A350/70 (not that I am an Airbus defender). But the other point that Airbus has made publicly is that because 787 is essentially sold out until 2012, or some distant date like that, having a product that won’t arrive until 2012 is not that big a problem. That is, if I were to order a 787 today, I wouldn’t be able to get my hands on the plane until 2012 anyway. So Airbus doesn’t nearly have as much to lose in redesigning the plane, if it means a better product. It sounds reasonable to me, what do others think about this argument?
Edward, San Diego, California
I have been following the 787 closely and your remarks about leapfrog are spot on. While Airbus may have an incremental improvement with their design, it won’t be a game changing improvement over the 787. But apparently they aren’t even targeting the 787 but the 777. Perhaps a redesign of the 737 first and then the 777 with composite fuselages using the techniques and lessons learned from the 787. Don’t stop innovating and trying out new techniques. While the press made a big deal out of the bubbles in one of your test sections a thinking person realizes that not pushing the technology envelope only leaves you behind, i.e. McDonnell Douglas and Airbus today. Building for pride leads to downfall, Lockheed (L1011) and others. The airlines need to get a handle on reducing the time from the Departure curb to boarding at major airports like LAX. No wonder more people are using private jets and leased time. Boeing shouldn’t ignore this as it is better for all of us not to have unnecessary increases in smaller planes just because it is such a pain to get on a commercial plane.
D.S., Anaheim, California
There is a historical chance to beat Airbus once and for all. I hope that you can use it!
Peter G., Boulder, Colorado
I can’t believe my eyes when I read this discussion thread at airliners.net “Donnelly told Aviation Daily that an engine for the proposed A350 would need to be about 10 percent larger than the GEnx”. Gee! This engine is NOT for the A350. This engine will have the right size for 777-8 and 777-9. One can think that Boeing has already started to consider improving the 777 family. Lighter, bigger and better!
G
Class act this one. Always good to see one taking the high road. I hope Mr. Leahy is reading this one! :-)
Lumberton
Randy, You are a class act and a credit to your profession. In my business I too always talk of my competitors with the respect they deserve. I am a Boeing advocate my self but you bring us all a dose of reality on the developments at your competitor. With progress will comes problems and it can, and will, happen to both of you. Jerry Steele
Jerry S., Tucson, Arizona
First of all, WOW! Very well done Randy! I thoroughly enjoy reading your journals as they are both very informative and persuasive, in addition to not being very…should we say “offensive”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m neither pro-Airbus nor pro-Boeing, (I’m a fan of Lockheed actually because they build most of my favorite jets. E.g. F-16, F-22, SR-71…etc) both companies build fantastic aircrafts and I had fond memories of flying on all of Airbus and Boeing’s airliners I have the fortune to come across thus far. In any case, I think I’ll leave comments more regularly in the future, that is…if you don’t mind of course. For now, I’d like to ask you just one more question. Given how Airbus tout their quietest cabin in the sky onboard the A340 on their homepage it makes me wonder… Then, how can the 777s possess smaller noise footprints than the A340 as shown on Boeing’s website? I have not flown on an A340 yet, so I can’t really do any comparison. But aren’t those two facts contradicting to each other? Lastly, regarding Boeing’s prediction of point-to-point flights for the future… Personally, I think there’s a twist to it. For instance, on a 10 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Seattle) then yeah, I don’t want to make a stopover at somewhere like Tokyo. On an 18 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Miami) however, I’d rather take a shore leave at somewhere like L.A so I can go stretch and walk around. Thank you for taking time to read through my comment. Best regards!
Yurey W. Taipei, Taiwan
I’m a fan of your blog. Just wanted to comment on your post regarding the challenges of building very large aircraft. Do you think Airbus underestimated their ability to develop the huge A380, or do you see their recent issues as inherent problems that could not have been foreseen?
Mbwana, Stanford, California
I have to admit it is very nice to see a straight and level Boeing response to the problems that Airbus is having. Instead of taunting them and gloating over their problems, the response was respectful and forward looking. While I am a Boeing fan, this makes Boeing seem even more professional compared with what could have been written. Keep up the good work.
Peter B., St. Charles, Illinois
Syntroleum (SYNM) just signed a contract with DoD to provide 100,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel. This is an ongoing effort being conducted by the USAF using a B-52. SYNM has other activities ongoing such as in South Africa where for more than a year they have been conducting tests and evaluations using synthetic fuels. SYNM has processes to convert Coal to Liquid Fuels, Natural Gas to Liquid Fuels, and BioMass to Liquid Fuels. They are also developing in joint partnerships large scale production facilities. Does Boeing have research or test and evaluation programs in synthetic jet fuels for all military and commercial aircraft Boeing manufactures? The technology is here. The only question is when will it be deployed to consumers, and for what price. The belief is that it could be a lot cheaper than hydrocarbon based fuel products. The SYNM web-site has presentation materials that explain it further. Fuels developed from the Syntroleum processes are Ultra Clean. But the strongest advantage is the synthetic technology could eliminate the dependence on hydrocarbon based products.
Bill F., Garden Grove, California
Boeing’s response to Airbus’ problems is pure class. Makes the Company look mature, and well controlled and disciplined. Well done. Cheers
Dr. John S., Brisbane, Australia
I worked in the Seattle area for about nine years. I like hearing about the ins and outs of Boeing with your blog it is almost like being there again.
Andrew P., Baltimore, Maryland
I appreciate how you comment and treat news about Airbus. Your comments are never spiteful, you never gloat, and that shows class. When they do well you acknowledge it, when they have a major accomplishment you wish them well and you don’t add to the vitriol spewed when they are struggling. That shows considerable class and adds to your credibility enormously.
Camille, Washington
Is there a means to infuse an airlines’ color scheme directly into the composite without weakening the carbon fiber structure? Wouldn’t this save a lot of additional weight of not having to paint the plane?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
I have been following your blog from Oct. last year; and it is quite an interesting read. I was wondering if you ever looked at the flight training institutes; which aircraft they use to train jet pilots and if any of Boeing’s characteristics has any upper hand over competitors. Would like to read your insights on the same.
Sivaram, Bangalore, India
I have noticed that the Airbus A380 sales have stalled around 159 planes for its first year of sales. What is the break even point for Airbus on there investment on this plane? And how many planes to they have to sell to start making a profit? In comparison, what amount 747’s were sold in its first year and how many have been bought in total to this year?
Robert H., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
This interesting article says that Boeing considers lengthening 747-8I. This can be a good idea especially if Boeing considers building bigger, better and lighter 777-8 and 777-9. Boeing wide-body-long-range (WBLR) aircraft family will have a uniform capacity separation of 20% from 230 seats to 475 seats. It will be very difficult to position an aircraft between two Boeing WBLRs.
G
It is funny watching AIRBUS squirm! No one doubts that it is a very competitive company and will remain a major force in the aviation world. However being humble has never been one of its strong points. For many years it has thrived on planning decisions that left Boeing a little behind in the sales race but that sure has turned and left Airbus on the back foot. Now all it seems to be able to do is rave on about paper planes that will always fly higher, faster and have more seats than the Boeing product. Let’s see when these paper planes fly or will they remain on the Airbus site instead of in the air. Good luck Boeing your forward thinking is really starting to work.
Chris G., Australia
A plane stays in the air just like a helicopter, at any given time it must throw down a mass of air equal to it’s own weight. This creates turbulence, the bigger the aircraft, the bigger the turbulence. Airbus can try to manipulate the aircraft separation rules, but neither Airbus nor Boeing can defy physics.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Washington
« Newer | Older »