Re: Weight a minute. What about actual productivity measured in ton-miles? The A380F range is almost as far as the 747-8F. How would the calculations look then? Total fuel + landing fees + pilot additional labour cost.
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Isn’t it true that the major commercial customers like the ILFC and Singapore Airlines want the A350 to be redesigned so that it can compete successfully with the 787 because they don’t want Boeing to have a monopoly on this segment of the market? I’ve heard that they’re afraid that Boeing could then charge whatever the market could bear for the 787.
John H., Renton, Washington
Much has been made of Airbus’ late arrival with the A350/70, but through the history of aviation victory hasn’t always gone to the first, but to the best, and time often gives the advantage of technological superiority and more detailed knowledge of the market. The Boeing 247 (1933) was trounced by the DC-3 (1935). The 737 arrived two years after the DC-9, and solidly beat that aircraft. The MD-11 (1990) was passed by the A330 (1992) which was then obsoleted by the 777 (1994).
Eric, Lombard, Illinois
Re: Global warming from airliners. Randy, fact-based perspective that greatly aids better objective understanding of this emotionally-laden challenge. Thank you - Barry
Barry S., Mukilteo, Washington
With the bad news of the A380 delay and seemingly limited interest, Airbus appears to be hurting in both the midsize and jumbo market segment. Do you think they would swallow their pride and drop out of both segments and strictly concentrate in the single isle market since Boeing won’t redo that plane until much later? This way they would have a head start on Boeing when airlines are looking for a better single aisle plane now?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
My family doesn’t fly a whole lot, and we are pretty much ‘get from point a to point b’. Hence: to do the flying we do, we are quite willing to make sacrifices in style and sexiness in cars, saving as much gas as we need to, in order to fly where we want to. Electric, hybrid, fuel cell, diesel, whatever - as long as we get there its OK, just keep those planes flying.
Rob L., Chehalis, Washington
Randy, I find your blogs to be very informative and I look forward to reading them every time a new one arrives. It’s good to see that Boeing is once again paving the way in the aviation industry. I do wish though that Airbus had something like this so I am able to see it from both sides.
Stanley, Houston, Texas
First Airbus announces production bottlenecks on their A380 white elephant, which is going to cost them dearly in penalties & lost orders… and then Singapore chooses Boeing over Airbus for a huge contract. I love it. Great job, Boeing!
Brent, California
I logged onto my computer only to find some extremely exciting news to read - Singapore Airlines is to order 20 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners! I am thrilled beyond belief. What a great piece of news!
Congratulations and well done to you guys at the marketing department that helped sell this phenomenal airplane to one of the world’s most prestigious companies. A great team effort - WORKING
TOGETHER!
Chris C., South Africa
I am writing this just after a call from friend who is standing on a huge paper loss on EADS shares, caused by news of the latest A380 delays. The markets believe they will lead to performance penalties and possible order cancellations. However, Boeing is also reported to be experiencing challenges with the 787 schedule. Could it be fair to say that in airplane manufacturing, both key parties are perhaps a little too optimistic with estimating when they can resolve the issues surrounding advanced new aircraft, both with their technologies and logistics processes? I am certain both the A380 and especially the 787 will emerge as superlative aircraft in service, but are the present timelines truly realistic?
Borys P., Sydney, Australia
Just learned about your blog at a conference. I don’t know anything about aviation, but I think the blog is illuminating. Thanks.
F.G., Stamford, Connecticut
I’d just quickly like to take this opportunity to congratulate Boeing (and you!) on the first of many sales of the 747-8 Intercontinental.
Saj, London, U.K.
Let’s examine this chart presenting Boeing’s widebody-long-range (“WBLR”) strategy. The left hand part of the chart is the situation of Boeing’s WBLR family in 2010. Today, you still have to keep the question mark on the right hand part of the chart because Airbus has not yet made public its WBLR strategy. Boeing’s will is quite clear: to cover the market from 210 to 450 seat with 5 aircraft having a range of around 8 000 nm and with a regular distribution of capacity between each of them (20% step). Still, you can improve this strategy because 777’s capacity is somewhat too close to 787. So, if you put the context in 2014, the conclusions are clear. Firstly, 777 will need improvement and its capacity will have to increase by around 30-40 seats. Secondly, 777-8 and 777-9 won’t have any competition in 2014 because Airbus will have just finished the development of its next-new-A350.
G.I.
On your Blog on June 6th, you note that the A340-600 seat 323 passengers compared with a Boeing 777-300ER seating 365. All the comparisons that I have seen outside of Boeing show the Airbus
340-600 at 380 passengers. Can you please explain the difference?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I am quite surprised by Boeing executive’s willingness to talk openly about the snags during 787 development. See this article. Mr. Bair also seems to be quite comfortable when he said that 787 was 2.5% above the weight target at this stage of development. You appreciate his comments because the message is clear, “We have got some problems but we are working hard to solve them.”
Many aviation fans prefer this public relation style to the black out around A380 after 4 months of flight testing.
G.I.
Your product strategy described in your blog entry of 6 June 06 is valid. However, I see a possible weakness in the wide body long-range family. It is the 777 family. In 2012, all Boeing wide body airplanes will be built based on 2005-knowledge except the 777 family. I can’t believe that you will leave the 777 as it is today. Not later than in 2010 one can expect to see the launch of 777-8 and -9 which will be lighter, bigger and better than the current 777. If I apply the well known 20% capacity step between Boeing products, then I expect to see a 777-8 with 335 seats and a 777-9 with 400 seats while keeping the same range as the current 772LR and 773ER. A simple bill of materials change, some aero-tweaks and a re-engining might do the job! That will be a “low” investment of less than 2 bil. USD.
G.I.
Recently many have read about the 787 barrel tests. Why not get the “Flight Test Journal” up and running, keep people filled in on the latest 787 testing. That would allow those interested to follow it from the VERY beginning to certification? Maybe have the same with the 747-8? I personally would be interested to learn about the tests things go through early in the process, not just once assembled.
Kaleb, Ndola, Zambia
While reading this AviationNow article an idea came into my head. It may sound silly. But who knows? It may be not so silly. There is much space in that unused crown space in 747-8i. If Boeing develops a windowless cockpit technology, you can use this area for a cockpit and crew rest compartment. You can get at least 6 extra revenue seats with forward view for the passengers.
G.I.
I continue to read this blog and I remain impressed. The competition between the 787 and A350 is quite interesting. I believe they will both do very well. The more I ponder which aircraft will be more successful the more I think of the following saying: the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. Keep up the excellent blog
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
While one must always respect its competition and take things seriously, the current disarray at Airbus is rather amusing, and at the same time frustrating. Airbus is no under-dog, but rather a powerful rival, but lately the company seems to be steaming off in the wrong direction and blaming everyone else. Airbus needs to address its issues fast, or it will risk becoming an under-dog’s pet. The current fiasco surrounding the A350 programme should have been predicted long ago. Whilst it seems that people are all saying doom and gloom for Airbus, the hard truth is that there really isn’t anything positive to say about them at the moment. The A350 was firstly an airplane they said they did not need, then they launched it with launch aid, then they re-designed it four times, and now they are ‘blaming’ customers for a lack of speedily design input and have flaunted a new A350 to take on both 787 and 777 from 2012. What is really irritating is that they have been rumoured to wanting launch aid to help with its ‘new’ A350. What I want to know is that should Airbus reveal a significantly improved A350 to take on 787 and 777, do they think that Boeing will not look at further improving the 777 and 787-10x that would become yet another A350 crusher? The 777 family will be ready for further improvements by the time the new A350 comes out - so Airbus will not be out of the woods at all, considering that the already phenomenal 777 family can only go one way with further improvements and that is even more advanced and efficient. As for the slow sales with the 747-8: If Boeing were sitting with 100 orders for the type would you be really happy? I for one would be slightly worried as the current orders for the -8 are in line with your market forecasts, and should you have a swelling order book already would mean Airbus and its A380 are correct - which they are not! The 747-8 is a phenomenal airplane, and with her efficiencies and economics and formidable characteristics, she will sell well over the course of 20 years or so. No doubt Boeing will receive an Intercontinental customer this year as well as further freighter customers. The 747 is simply a great airplane from every aspect. Keep it up Boeing, you are forever heading for new exciting frontiers!!
Chris C., South Africa
I’d like to second the concept of seat pitch. Too many planes have a seat pitch which makes me feel like I am in a baby seat. While I am not too tall (180 cm/5’11”), the leg room especially on long flights, is very cramped (31” seat pitch). Extending this from 30-31” to a more comfortable 34” will help a lot. Currently I scan all plane statistics looking for plane flights where the seat pitch is greater than or equal 32” or at a bare minimum where I can get an aisle seat where my legs can extend into the walk way.
Alexander, Kiev
The problem that Boeing had after the B-777 came up was a complete lack of vision and people at Boeing became very complacent. Today, the company seems to have a bright future with the B787. I fear that the company may once again become complacent and allow its rival Airbus to take the lead. It was very painful for us Boeing supporters to see the title “World Biggest Commercial Airplane Maker” switch sides. Now that the Dreamliner is trashing the A350, Boeing should not become complacent anymore. While Airbus is struggling to remake the A350 Boeing should indeed start thinking of the possibility that the new “New” 350 may actually be better than the B787 and B777-300ER combined. If I were a Boeing CEO, I would ask my people to start seriously working on the replacement of the B777 family (which is a very good plane, I reckon) but which may be seriously challenged by a possibly much more fuel efficient new “New” A350-1000. But if Boeing is certain that the A350 cannot beat the Dreamliner, then it is better to make the B787-10 even more awesome than the upcoming A350 in terms of technological advancements. That will ensure Boeing’s dominance in the field and allow our dear company to reclaim the title “world biggest commercial airplane maker”.
Andre T., Bloomington, Illinois
I did refer to Geoff Thomas’ article about the 748I. It is my belief the 748I cannot do DFW-SYD on a year round basis. I don’t know if you can comment on that. The striking thing I found about the article was the claim that QF had dismissed the 772LR. I find this very strange as the 772LR can do MEL/SYD-DFW both directions with ease all-year round. I personally don’t think QF has decided yet b/w the 748I and the 772LR (and maybe 773ER). Secondly, I would like clarification on the timing of the 787 program. I read many comments that Boeing will have delays in the program and it is very aggressive. I have even read that QF have been told of delivery delays already. To my knowledge that is not true. Would you care to comment? By the way, my understanding is that the program is running to schedule and no delays of EIS have been advised to the airlines.
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
With he new “8” technology Boeing should look at some of its older models and consider upgrading each one to conclude their dominance of the aerospace market. For starters the much loved 727 should be upgraded and redesigned using the “8” technology as well as aircraft like the MD-11 and the 717.
Kevin, Miami, Florida
I recently read that Boeing reduced the number of suppliers it works with by 79%. Can you explain how you’ve gone about doing that? Is it part and parcel of the shift to a global IT organization? How does the reduction fit with the new collaborative model that you’ve employed in the 787? Much appreciated - great blog, definitely one of the best corporate blogs out there.
D.H., Toronto, Canada
The 777 will be very vulnerable to 787 and A350 competition from 2009. One way of minimizing this before a follow on for this airplane size, is a 777-8. Even before a 797 replaces the 737. The 777 will need lightening, more engine efficiency, more aerodynamic efficiency, active controls, space optimization (maybe you can relocate pilots to a semi-virtual cockpit in the wingbox).
Rene A., Camiling, Philippines
Love the new 787, I can’t wait to ride one!! Boeing’s out of the box thinking in developing this plane, and the clear benefits to Airlines is showing up in the orders it. I had a question about what Boeing thinks about using a “Flying Wing” design for future passenger aircraft. If you can address this on your blog, I’d appreciate it.
Jason K., San Francisco, California
This Aviation Now article is very interesting. It says “Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said the European manufacturer “guessed wrong” in the initial design of the A350”. This article means that this Airbus executive admitted explicitly that the current design of A350 is not good enough compared to 787. Implicitly, he said that whatever comes out in July will be MUCH better than the current A350 design. But, there will be only 2 years of difference between 787 and the next new A350. So, what kind of technology leap will Airbus put into the new A350 to make it better than 787? We are all impatient to see what Airbus will offer.
G.I.
I’d like to second the concept of seat pitch. Too many planes have a seat pitch which makes me feel like I am in a baby seat. While I am not too tall (180 cm/5’11”), the leg room especially on long flights, is very cramped (31” seat pitch). Extending this from 30-31” to a more comfortable 34” will help a lot. Currently I scan all plan statistics looking for plane flights where the seat pitch is greater than or equal 32” or at a bare minimum where I can get an aisle seat where my legs can extend into the walk way.
Don, San Jose, California
I read your article on the A320 “cabin width” and that got me thinking, how about showing a comparison of aircraft type and seat width & shoulder width. As you probably know Americans and people in general are getting bigger, not smaller. I’m 5’10 and 225 lbs (stocky but mostly in an athletic way), so although I don’t need lots of leg room seat width & shoulder room are important factors for my comfort. Why do people hate sitting in middle seats? Mostly because you have two people spilling over their shoulders and elbows into your personal space. If it is hot outside and the air conditioning can’t control the temperature it is even worse. I flew one flight on a 757 where I was in the middle and it was almost unbearable. The point of this is that people need enough space that they aren’t being bent into pretzels and sweated on. In my opinion the 757 was the all time (now defunked) was the worst in terms of comfort and the 737 is not much better. I much prefer DC-9 type airplanes (better seats and fewer middle seats), Embraer RJs with no middle seats, etc. I think I’ve read that 787 tries to address this issue. So how about it, what are the seat & shoulder widths for the aircraft out there and what is Boeing’s view of the right balance? Lastly I’d like to offer you a challenge. This summer on a hot day fly a 4-hour flight sitting in the middle seat with two big guys (like 6’2” & 240 lbs.) in the other two seats on a 737. Then describe how you felt comfort-wise about the flight on your blog and address whether or not another pencil width or two of seat and shoulder room would have been welcome.
Erik S., St. Louis, Missouri
My question - How does Airbus keep their credibility? Back in December 2004, and even more recently, John Leahy portrayed the A350 as a “brand new” jet with 90% new part numbers which will become a 787 killer. Now 18 months after “product launch”, Airbus is still trying to figure out what the A350 is going to be. From the beginning, when Boeing announced the development of the then 7E7, Airbus dismissed it continually - as a “me too” A330, a “Chinese Copy” of a A330, a “Boeing Paper Airplane” and on and on. I have to believe that in airline boardrooms around the world, there must be pictures of Airbus executives Noel Forgeard, John Leahy and Co. with egg on their faces.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
WARNING this all new A350 (the very latest idea emerging from Toulouse: an A350 with a wider cabin and more efficiency) seems to be holding potential 787 customers back… be ready for whatever Airbus can bring out… don’t do a typical Airbus mistake and pretend that they can’t beat you…or else those 350 787s could be the first and last ever sold.
Sam
I would like to suggest that Airbus might be on the edge of bankruptcy. They have too many planes in early or final design with serous design problems. The monster, A380 is still being tinkered with to reduce weight and keep on production schedule. The A350 is now completely back to the drawing boards. How can any airline expect scheduled delivery when the entire A350 design is being redone? They don’t have enough good engineers to complete all of this work. Orders for the A350 have been meager to nil, now they will all be pushed back. On top of the A380 and A350 problems, the often forgotten Airbus military transport, the M400 has poor orders and is priced above the Boeing C-17. The C-17 is a proven design. The M400 is a larger copy of the Boeing C-130, a plane used in Vietnam. As an accountant, all of these design problems spell an economic disaster for Airbus. They have too many problems to survive without a major bailout from the French government. They have scurried around Europe arm twisting suppliers to give them more money. If they get government loans, their position in the World Trade Organization lawsuit against Boeing will be damaged. From the French view, the A380 was a design that was the largest passenger plane made and very ‘grandiose’ and elegant; all show and so much pretense. It was to be an example of “superior French thinking.” Now their grand plans are crashing to earth and my guess is Airbus is badly damaged. If you like to play the stock market, think of buying an option on Airbus stock going down. Your broker knows the routine.
John, Eugene, Oregon
Keep up the contributions you make to aviation. They make enjoyable reading and give me an insight into Boeing’s aircraft.
Mike M., Marion, South Australia
I’ll announce my interest up front. I’m a production engineer at Airbus Hamburg, Germany. I’d be interested to get your thoughts on the recently mooted ideas about redesigning the A350. The question is posed out of personal curiosity and I do not in any way represent Airbus in any official capacity here.
David M., Hamburg, Germany
One thing that always comes up in these discussions is “Well. The A380’s larger cube will let it haul all those expensive high value shipments-expensive electronics, cut flowers, and the like from Asia to Europe and the US, while your product, my friend, will be hauling hogs and scrap iron to the Orient. “Last I heard, hogs and scrap iron pay the same in the airfreight business as cut flowers and electronics. The only important thing is if the cargo arrives, on time and intact, and alive if it’s livestock. And if your floor can take hogs and scrap iron, you don’t have to deadhead-which you will, if your vehicle can’t carry hogs and scrap iron. A lot of folks don’t seem to know much about the trucking business, which in many fundamental respects is similar to the air freight business. You want to haul as much freight as you can and minimize unpaid mileage, i.e., deadheading and turn time. All that matters is if the customer can pay. Nobody in the airfreight business cares whether the vehicle is refined. It’s a truck with wings, for heaven’s sake, not a health spa or an art gallery. The rules are different.
Robert L., Des Moines, Iowa
Assuming that Airbus will introduce a whole new design for the A350, Boeing will still have them in a box. If reports are correct, the new A350 will not be available until 2012 at the earliest, with bigger versions available around the 2013-14 timeframe. These dates are right where Boeing plans the single aisle replacement for the 737. Boeing may even be thinking on a replacement for the 777 too. Nevertheless, Airbus will be years behind in the A320 replacement. It looks like Airbus will be playing catch up for their messed up product line for at least the next 10 years.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
If all the production slots are filled for the 787 for the next 3 years would it be feasible to open another like in Long Beach now that the 717 is completed? Instead of losing orders to Airbus due to lack of production capability they would open a new line. Subcontractors and suppliers would need to also ramp up or other subs may be needed. All that space in Long beach needs to be utilized for production.
Doug L., Beaumont, Texas
I didn’t know Boeing had a blog! I found this one from a link off the SWA blog site. I’m very glad to see that two great companies are in on the action. I have a vested interest in both companies 1) I used to work for Boeing and 2) I now work for SWA. Boeing and SWA have been the high points in my career and really enjoy what both companies are and have been doing. Keep up the good work!
Roberto A., Allen, Texas
I was quite impressed by the weight issue blog entry, but, even as an uninformed outsider, I was aware of an omission. And it in fact was the one mentioned in the forum link you gave us. The 380 is obviously a much larger plane, and hence much larger volume. It may fill a niche for those sorts of freight where volume and not weight are the issue. I suspect that in the gamesmanship (I am not complaining) it is difficult to concede points now and again. Here I think you should have given a tip of the hat to this issue. Though I enjoyed reading about the controversy. Rob
R.L.L., Seattle
Carrying weight is a consideration but carrying cubic volume is equally important. One item is missing from Randy’s analysis of these two aircraft is a comparison of volume for these aircraft.
Some cargo containers cube out way before they reach their max container weight. Especially true when you are hauling say flowers for Valentine’s Day. Would like to see an aircraft comparison with the standard FedEx cube density in the containers. What is the 2006 FedEx weight per cube?
Tom L, Memphis, Tennessee
I personally believe that due to the 787 Dreamliner embracing the latest technologies of today and tomorrow, the 787 will be so phenomenally advanced that nothing will compete against it for decades to come! The current models, the -3/-8/-9, are perfectly suited and fully optimized for the market they are going to serve. No doubt they will rule the 200 - 300 seat market, (330 seat market in case of high density -3). These airplanes are a very refreshing design, and will become the icon of the 21st Century, as the 747 was of the 20th. It is great, and believable, to read that the proposed -10x will have “economics that are virtually unbelievable” due to its ultra efficiencies, but since this -10x has yet to be launched, why doesn’t Boeing totally rethink the Dreamliner from the -10x and upwards? As I said, the current models are perfect for the segment they are going to slot into, but 300 to 400 seats needs a 777 style airplane. Therefore I propose:
The 787-10x should be offered as a 777-200/-200ER replacement, whilst a 787-11x should be offered as a 777-300/-300ER replacement from 2015 at the earliest onwards. But, instead of stretching the -9 to ludicrous lengths, rather widen it. Give the -10x/-11x a 777 fuselage diameter and cabin size, bleedless engines of the GE90’s, the same style flightdeck , and an all-composite fuselage, new wings and a Mach 0.86 cruise speed. The reason for the wider fuselage is three-fold. Firstly, the 777 diameter is able to seat 10 abreast in economy, secondly, the -10x/-11x fuselage can be assembled in the same 777 jig avoiding high costs (as it is essentially a composite version of the 777 fuselage), and lastly, the fuselage diameter offers the best flexibility for freight flying when a freighter version emerges. You now have a ‘777-sized airplane’ that looks like a bigger brother of the current 787 models. And on the 747-8 side, (my favourite topic),
I think that once the airplane nears design freeze, or from about the beginning of the third-quarter, it will receive orders as more performance data and prices can be given to airlines. The -8 Intercontinental also has a good potential to be converted into a -8BCF in 2025, so I am pretty sure that this phenomenal airplane will sell well.
Chris C, South Africa
I’d like to express myself about this “journal”. Even if it looks nice, and seems to be the journal of a high Boeing employee, it really looks disgusting (sorry for the term - couldn’t find any other) how you use this nice blog appearance to finally just keep on the basic and boring Airbus vs. Boeing, using - as everyone who tries to participate in this “battle” of arguments (pro Airbus or pro Boeing) - just biased arguments, selecting figures that make Boeing planes look better and omitting other figures (while pro Airbus will do the same with Airbus figures).
Let’s forget that this type of discussion is just good for Airliners forums, everyone choosing his arguments and trying to show that he’s right. What I really find disgusting (again!) is that you (a high placed Boeing employee) get into this type of discussion on a Boeing page that looks like your journal where we could think you’d be honest. Well, all I see (and the “Weight a minute” article is just an example) is just Boeing advertisment. Let’s not forget you are “vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Seattle”, and all you do here is communication, marketing, use of biased figures, and the worst - sad Airbus vs. Boeing battle.
I don’t say what you write is true or false. But being so dishonest with you blog-type advertising is really thinking readers cannot think by themselves. Well, I think (and hope) they can and will think about what you write and keep in mind that you are a marketing employee of Boeing. This is a little like the 747-8 website claiming a +28% trip cost(*) for the A380. *Based on Boeing assessment about the A380. Can anyone believe this? And I’d like to add about myself that I am not a pro-Airbus. I like planes, Airbus, Boeing ones or others. 747 and 777 are some of my favorite planes. But I really hate the Airbus vs. Boeing discussions like the ones you do here. Looks like children trying to show that their videogame is the best. Is that the way you want to look?
Let this for Airliners forums, there are so many people here ready to send biased figures about Boeing or Airbus to try to win in the A vs. B discussion… And please, don’t tell what you say isn’t biased. Off course all figures you use are true (just have a doubt about the Boeing A380 assessment ;) - Happy to see that Boeing knows better than Airbus an Airbus plane not in commercial service yet), but you (as about every person does in the A vs. B discussion) use only some figures, some statistics and forget to give others.
Romain, Marseille, France
It is with interest that I have read your blog regarding the merits of the 747 8F as compared to the A380F. There were some really good points as usual but I have not seen anything regarding what types of modifications can be done to modify range and efficiency in particular. Are there plans to alter fuselage dimensions to extend range and payload? I would be surprised if the engineering and marketing expertise at Boeing hasn’t been consulted on this Already. Keep up the great work on your exemplary blog.
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
Your blog input of 10 May 2006 “Weight another minute” http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/05/weight_another.html is quite interesting. Why does someone bother to fly portable PCs or PDAs directly from Shanghai to Los Angeles when you can send thousands of these boxes to Anchorage and then dispatch them to cities in North America?
Weight a minute, Poland is now member of the European Union!
G.I.
I was very amused when I saw the title of your entry “Weight a minute” and its sequel “Weight another minute”. It reminded me of how funny, yet informational reading your blog is. Sometimes it is hard to wait until the new entry is posted ;-) Your point on the dead weight and the significant backhaul loads is indeed very valid. However, as some people pointed out, the sometimes the comparison is also in terms of the max volume, and not necessarily the max weight. Probably depending on the average mission profile (yeah, it sounded military, but could not think of a better way to put it) and the backhaul loads, the calculations for one operator or other might tip the balance. Otherwise, the A-380 would not have any orders.
Overall, I believe the 747-8F is more efficient though. Before I access your blog, I read news on Bloomberg, which leads me to one of the last paragraphs of your last entry: “And when you get right down to it, isn’t it ironic that now Airbus is arguing for nonstop flights without the “hassle” of connecting through hubs? I mean, these are boxes, not people!” The news I read was about the 5th attempt of Airbus to re-design the A-350 and spend USD 10 billion in order to compete with the B-787. I remember that their initial argument was that since the A-380 was the future of aviation, a derivative of the A-330 would do the trick in competing with the B-787. Several years later, and several re-designs as well, point in the direction that they would be validating Boeing’s strategy (both the twin engine airplanes and the point-to-point travel). Since the new EIS date would now be 2012, Boeing has a clear opportunity to get a very tight hold of the market until the competitor arrives, which reminds me about some rumors a while ago saying that Boeing was considering increasing its production rate for the B-787. Clairvoyance? ;-)
Hernan S., Sao Paulo, Brazil
I am very concern over what is currently happening with the Airbus and its effect on Boeing. For whatever reasons, there are many customers who are aggressively seeking Airbus to create a product that would better Boeing. All the major blue chip players like Singapore Airlines, Emirates, ILFC, and GECAS are all pushing Airbus to come up with a better airplane. And especially with GECAS, whose aircraft engine division worked with Boeing to create the GenX engine, has not even ordered the 787. What is going on in the market place where the customers seem to be more willing to wait for Airbus than to commit to Boeing? It’s time to be paranoid and see what can be done to turn around this very real problem. And with the New Airbus A350 to be announced in the next few weeks, it is imperative that Boeing is ready to counter what Airbus may throw at Boeing.
Rebecca V., Santa Clara, California
Randy: Your blog is great, especially last discussion on freighter weights. The link to the SWA blog is appreciated. If flight test or 787 want to create a new culture at Boeing modeled after SWA like management says, then maybe your blog could incorporate more common man stories/entries like the SWA blog does today. IE pilot, mechanic etc. I think the public and Customer Airlines would enjoy.
Brad T., Everett, Washington
When my husband and I fly Southwest to California to visit our family we always have a note of pride because it is one of our airplanes (Boeing’s). I just happen to think your comments were appropriate and I wanted to tell you so.
Faith G., Tukwila, Washington
Although I like the idea of continuing the tradition of murals on the factory doors, I have to say execution of the latest one falls a little short, no pun intended. I have heard numerous people, include myself ask, “When are they gonna finish it?” What I am referring to is the appearance that the bottom is missing. Why would you go through all that effort, and only cover 75% of the surface? Can you imagine commissioning Michelangelo for $1,000,000 to paint the Sistine Chapel, and when he’s done, instead of completing the scene, he just paints a large dark blue line at the bottom of the work? As a painter myself, I do appreciate the abstract of some of the images, but have to wonder, out of all the great, cool, wonderful things we make at Boeing, that THE best choice for images was a chopped off image of a window, a chopped off image of an exit door, and a chopped off image of a winglet? Instead, what about the marvelous engines of the 777 or the famous hump of the 747, you know, things people recognize as “Boeing-esque”? When I first saw the image of the woman, I thought she was coming up out of blue water (the darker blue banner at bottom of murals). To me it looks like she is bobbing in the ocean, trying to signal a rescue helicopter. Okay, I’m being harsh, but maybe having employees vote on the next mural before it goes up would be an idea. Now please, someone go rescue that bobbing woman before she drowns!
Glen, Everett, Washington
Thanks for the mention about our blog! It’s great to be here in the blogosphere with you - we’ve been watching your blog closely and using it as an example of excellent communication with our leaders. Keep up the good work!
Angela V., Dallas, Texas
I have been hunting for news from Boeing on its new Dreamliner development and those of other aircraft and finally found this blog which is great for aviation enthusiasts like myself. I commend
Boeing on taking up the challenge to design newer and better airplanes, and irrespective of who makes “better” planes, we the traveling public benefit from this competition. New planes are the
“best” for shorter times as engineers keep surprising us with their ingenuity. I look forward to more blogs or more RSS feeds from Boeing. Congratulations on your website too.
Paul M., Sydney, Australia
I enjoyed the 777-200LR Flight Test Journal. I think it also allowed the media & public to keep up with the test program without it so much being a secret, nor needing the various press releases that get distorted by the reporter. Would it work to have a similar journal about the 787 program beginning with its development. It would be good PR to have one place where the progress and information on the program would be available.
Jay, Bremerton, Washington
Thank you for doing the ‘simple’ mathematics regarding the weight claims for the Boeing 747-8 Freighter and the Airbus A380-800F! It is very clear that the 747-8F is far more efficient that than the A380F.
So, the A380F, will fly around 40% more airplane structural weight for only 5% more revenue payload over the magnificent 747-8F! Rather dismal I believe. But, the A380F will fly further with full payload. Great? Not really!
The -8F will fly around 8,260km at Mach 0.86, carrying a ‘real-world’ high density payload of 158,6kg/cubic meter, as well as carrying the industry standard containers (3.05mX3.05m), at trip costs 30% less than the A380F and 20% less fuel/tonne of freight!
The 747-8F also only carries 215,280lts of fuel. The A380F, will not carry the ‘real-world’ high density payload (will carry 126.6kg/cubic meter), will not fly the industry standard containers, (max for the A380F are 2.44m high), will not have the flexibility and ground readiness support the 747 has, and will fly slightly slower at Mach 0.85.
Yes, the A380F will have more volume, but that is of a very limited value. But, the A380F has a fuel load capacity of 310,000litres, nearly 100,000litres more than the 747-8F! But, with that 100,000 or so litres of more fuel, the A380F can only fly 10,360km, some 2100km more! Without even getting into the massive amounts of math involved, it is logical to see that from the above the 747-8F is far more efficient, economical and versatile. Hence, the believable figures of the great efficiencies the -8F offers over the A380F. Therefore, can Airbus justify flying only 5% more revenue cargo 2100km more whilst burning nearly a 100,000litres more fuel, considering the above information, and moreover, can the airlines?
Chris C., South Africa
Randy, I am a great admirer of your blog and cite it often in presentations to my clients as a successful model. I recently posted on my marketing blog on another opportunity for you to comment on Airbus’ plans to create standing “seats” as covered by the NY Times. The article is here: http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/yetanotherboe.html
Rohit, Washington, D.C.
Carrying weight is a consideration but carrying volume is equally important. One item is missing from Randy’s Journal and that is a comparison of volume for these aircraft. Some cargo containers cube out way before they reach their max container weight. Especially true when you are hauling say flowers for Valentine’s Day. Would like to see an aircraft comparison with the standard FedEx cube density in the containers.
Tom L., Memphis, Tennessee
In your recent comparison between the B748F and The A380F you didn’t mention the range advantage of the “heavier” A380. From what I know if both flew 5000nm the Boeing would carry only 113tonnes whereas the A380 would carry the full 150tonnes. That is 37 tonnes and not only 7 more.
Mohamed
Your assessment of the 747-800F vs. the A380F is flawed. The A380 can fly MUCH further - 1400 nautical miles (or 25%.. ) more range than the 747-800F so that makes up for the “dead weight” you speak of… Must do better! Most of your arguments, for A vs. B product are great but this one seems a little under researched.
Stephen, Brighton, UK
“Weight a Minute” - The question then becomes, how expensive is the volume that they are buying? The operators must plan to use the freighters on volume limited type parcel service. Can you expound on this aspect of freighters?
Alan C., Seattle, Washington
Do Boeing airplane fly ??? How far ??? Let’s redo the math with the range and you will see that yours is payload limited at 5000nm and the A380F flies 1500nm farther. Always funny to read your propaganda !!!
Stepha, United Kingdom
Randy: I really enjoyed the 747-8F v. Airbus A380F entry. Is the business case there for a LCF Freighter for UPS or Fed Ex? I doubt this is a new idea.
Brad T., Lake Stevens, Washington
I just recently discovered your journal and have become a frequent reader, you point the subjects out very clearly and cleverly. Bad for Airbus! I have a question for you, do you think Airbus would have time to counter-attack the 787 in critical campaigns such as with Emirates, Singapore, etc. if they come to get back to the drawing board and produce a clean sheet new A350 (including the new fuselage)?
Beck N., Brazil
I know I’ve shared this comment with you before, but - Why not build the sonic cruiser, and make it carry passenger baggage: Passengers could leave right away, and their baggage could leave a bit later. It would catch up in flight, and still arrive before the passengers - giving the airline time to offload baggage for immediate pick up. More than that, wouldn’t separating passengers and baggage lessen the exposure to terrorists?
Frank, Shanghai
The game is afoot. Airbus will undoubtedly revamp the A350 - again. Too many market leaders are demanding a next generation product over warmed-up A330 leftovers. And, while late to market, the new product will be able to offer something compelling. Remember the 777 in its early years? Were not some of its variants considered responses to successful Airbus products? Now look where it sits; on top of the heap. Even the fast selling 787 was born out of apparent miscalculation - the Sonic Cruiser program. This competition is never over and Airbus will fight back (albeit with
European government support). I give credit to Boeing for having come back strong. Moreover, Boeing looks ready to rumble for years to come. The 787 and 747-8 are only the beginning. For now,
Boeing is in great market position and, hopefully, will continue doing the right things to stay in front of Airbus. The 737NG, 747-8, 777 and 787 - Boeing’s 4 planes 4 long haul!
Ken W., Chicago, Illinois
Just a quick comment: I like the new door graphics, but while driving by the factory recently my wife commented that she “missed the little girl” - i.e. the stamp graphic with the little girl looking at the 747. I agree - that was a neat graphic. Maybe we can put that on a paint hanger door?
Tim D., Everett, Washington
I am aviation buff and frequent flyer. 75 trips a year. 10 across the Pacific or Atlantic. I hate stopovers and Narita in particular. Believe it or not I am also prone to air sickness. I fly to Thailand and Singapore a bunch and have been tempted to take the direct service offered by TG and SQ to LA. However my experience with the 340 is not good. Is it me or is the 340 a wobbly plane compared to the 777? Also, are you marketing the new 737-900ER to these Business only flyers such as Maxjet? As you may have guessed I am a big point to point guy. When am I going to be able to fly San Diego Asia direct? It takes me 27+ hours door to door form San Diego to Bangkok. I figure LA-BKK direct would take 8-9 hours off the trip and if SD-BKK I would see a 10+ hour savings. Now that would be productive! I am hopeful Boeing can make this happen.
Fred P.
I recently had a whirlwind business trip to many Indian cities. The A320 felt more comfortable than the B737. Especially sitting in the center seat. It was elbow room that was more a problem than shoulder room. The 777 feels more comfortable than the 747 for the same reason.
Raj, Fremont, California
As a window seat enthusiast, there was one variable left out of the width discussion, angle of the window. A vertical window is comfortable to look out of. A window that slopes up to your head like on the upper deck of a 747, are less comfortable for viewing. I’d be curious to see a comparison of the various Airbus and Boeing window angles. Second, apparently the Germans got it right from the start with the first production jet the ME 262 with two engines mounted under the wing. Evolution of jetliners has produced two final answers, a twin with six abreast seating, and a twin with nine abreast seating. Sure, I’d love to fly in a trijet with seven abreast, but money has spoken, and it won. The real question, how do you fly without oil?
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Washington
It occurred to me that the Boeing 787-10 could face major problems. It was recently stated that the range of the 787-10 will lack the 787-9. Boeing has to sacrifice the range for the length. Ouch. Emirates Airways stated that they are looking at a range about 9100 nautical miles, but it seems that Boeing should get a better engine with better range capabilities. Maybe, GENx Evo? Also, I do have a larger question. Since the Boeing 787-10 is to compete with the Airbus A350-900, wouldn’t the A350 get a punch? The A350 is of course, a “carbon-copy” of its brother, the A330 only with new improved engines. However, it’s so seemed that the engine will be also the GENx. It’s true that the Rolls Royce Trent 1500 has greater thrust, but does it matter? The Airbus A350-900 is also heavier than the Boeing 787-10, because of the use of “unneeded metal. However, it also has the GENx. So do you see a problem with Airbus’s A350-900(x)?
Andre, Montreal, Canada
There are several things you have to think about before you make a soup: the recipe, the cauldron and the timing.
Let’s consider that you wish to produce some soup in the coming years. Firstly, you try to figure out the appropriate recipe. Secondly, you would contact local groceries and make sure that you can get the ingredients in due time. Thirdly, you will acquire a very good cauldron that can contain the desired quantity of soup that you have to produce.
And finally, since you cannot do everything at the same time you would optimize your time schedule. The outcome is a plan like this: from 2004 to 2008: soup for 200 to 250 people, from 2006 to 2009: soup for about 450 people, from 2008 to 2011: soup for 290 to 360 people, from 2010 to 2014: soup for 150 to 200 people.
If you are smart enough, you will define the right ingredients, choose the right grocery and acquire the right cauldron for everything you have to do. In other words, you prepare a consistent production base.
G.I.
My opinion: Boeing should take advantage of Emirates deferred A340-600HGW’s by trying to sell some more 777s ( I never thought that the A340 suited Emirates anyway…) (to other people): come on what’s so bad with 787 9-abreast…fine we all want to be comfortable in our economy classes but at the end of the day that’s what business class is there for… If anything I’d be more aware of trying to sleep under those new plasticky stowage bins in the A350… that new cabin gives me shivers.
Sam
I am impressed how some people in such a large and serious company as Boeing have shown in the last years what clowns they can be. Mr. Alan Mulally clowning and giggling about when attending a press presentation of a possible “Boeing Sonic Cruiser” - showing he had no idea what he was talking about. (and that project then being “scrapped” for the moment). Anyone keeping track of Boeing’s Marketing division appearances in the news must have noted how “bitchy” and childish Mr. Randy Baseler has been lately in the 787/A350 competition… Basing himself on a muppet, inane and little thought-out questions from the public he’s done nothing but amuse me. Instead of behaving like an editor in a cheap yellowist newspaper maybe it is reasonable to wait until the two aircraft are out and see the different pros and cons each of them presents. Before I forget, Mr. Baseler: There is NOTHING wrong with an 8-abreast seat configuration (as used in A330/340/350), it just makes the aircraft longer -what’s more it becomes a more effective use of space. Don’t believe me? Read your notes on statistics/normal distribution and amaze yourself in the fact that aluminum cans for drinks are a better use of material the longer and slimmer they are - although impractical (to hold in your hand). Why not perhaps stop and think in the composite fuselage 787 will have? Did you know composites are light, strong but incredibly brittle? On impact all it would do is shatter like cheap glass. I do not go on Boeing or Airbus’ side, on the contrary I enjoy the advantages each one of them have presented to the world in their aircraft. All I am against is Mr. Baseler’s attitude.
Alan P., Montevideo, Uruguay
I am an engineer, interested in 777-200LR. I have examined the chart payload range. I have seen in Boeing documents that OEW is 145 tons, which corresponds to 301 pax. plus 11 tons of cargo on a range of 9.420 nm. But on Boeing site I see that that range is 9.420 nm only with 301 pax. Which is the real OEW of 777-200LR in the configuration with 3 auxiliary fuel tanks, 301 seats, 162.400 kg of fuel and all that is necessary (passengers and fuel excluded) for a flight? If the OEW was really 145 tons, the range chart says that max range with 301 pax and no cargo is 9.750 nm. Which could be the weight savings with the lighter interior of 787 in the 200LR derivative with six auxiliary fuel tanks for Qantas and max range with 250 passengers at maximum MTOW?
Sorrentino F., Milano, Italy
It would seem to me all the wonderful ideas of passenger amenities have neglected the reality of clear air turbulence (or any turbulence or aircraft upset for that matter). I, for one, would not like to be in the process of flinging a fifteen (15) pound bowling ball just as the airplane loses a hundred (100) feet or so of altitude. We have not, I believe, encountered every type of atmospheric disturbance Mother Nature can throw at us. I’ll happily keep my seat belt fastened and read a book ere I go mall hopping at cruise level altitude.
W.B., Newcastle, Washington
Airbus seems to be in a predicament regarding its A350. Airbus has been called upon to re-design and radically upgrade the A350, such as incorporate a new, wider fuselage and an all-new wing in order to be more competitive to the phenomenally advanced 787 Dreamliner. This is the second time now that Airbus has been asked to really ‘beef-up’ the A350 after ILFC initially voiced concern over the then Mach 0.82 / 0.83 cruise speed - saying it is too slow, and airlines asked for better conditions for the flight-deck crew rest areas - this is a problem on all Airbus products. With these recent calls from ILFC and GECAS to further re-design the A350, it seems Airbus is in a catch 22 position. It has virtually been pointed out now that the A350 does not quite compete against the 787, and in doing so, the Airbus product has become a rather dismal counter to the Dreamliner. The A350 does not have the versatility the 787 offers. The real problem, I believe, is that Airbus did not take the threat of the 787 seriously enough in April 2004 after they virtually laughed at Boeing and said they could counter with a standard A330. We all know what happened after that at Airbus.
Now, they have reached a stage that should they continue with the ‘firm’ A350 design, they will bring an airplane to the market that will find it extremely difficult to compete against the Boeing products as the A350 is the inferior product, and should Airbus launch a new long haul wide-body family to replace the A330 and A340, the A350 would virtually become obsolete as the newer Airbus family will feature wider cabins, and more composites. But, if Airbus listens to its customers, and decides to re-design the A350 as well as launch an A340 replacement, this will put Airbus in a massive predicament of not having any real competitor to the Boeing products for the foreseeable future. And once the new A340 replacement, 777 competitor, has surfaced, Boeing will already have, if not launched, a 777 replacement . It is also amusing watching the development of the current ‘firm’ A350 as more and more features that are being revealed are virtually copied from the 787, such as larger cabin windows, four pane windshields for the flight-deck, 787 like interior (although the A350’s looks very plastic)…must I continue?
Chris C, South Africa
We here in Oak Ridge are designing Flight Deck components for the 787 and we don’t get much info as to what else is going on with the 787 elsewhere so it is good to see more info on this plane. I especially liked the seating comparison…well done.
Mike M., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
I saw the mural at Paine Field when it first got done on the Boeing Tour. Great job by the painters who worked on that masterpiece!
Andrew, Seattle, Washington
I am still fascinated with this blog and the stories it features. It truly reveals how Boeing has responded to the challenges of the market place and to those of a worthy competitor. Most helpful has been explaining the different corporate philosophies and then seeing the effect on the aviation shortly after. I will continue to follow as the dedicated men and women in both companies continue to produce phenomenal aircraft to benefit everybody.
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
I recall when Boeing was trying to convince Singapore Airlines into buying 747’s vs Airbus’s Giant simply on the name and past glory of “BOEING”. There was an older Boeing rep that held respect of SAS, but that was not enough and SAS was very cordial, but determined to advance with technology. BOEING has it now, but at a price! The SONIC CRUISER could have captured the world simply on the basis of nations saying, “We need one to show the flag”. Never mind the expense! I think the DREAMLINER is great. Why can’t BOEING give just a little more room for a little wider seat? I flew on an AIRBUS in Morocco and that plane (coach) was a real comfort to Spain. Now is the chance to make the mark; get a customer to buy the stretched 747 and fit it with seats. Another item; pay more attention to Korea or they will desert BOEING for jobs in their nation’s aircraft industry.
John M., San Diego, California
I know I’ve shared this comment with you before, but - Why not build the sonic cruiser, and make it carry passenger baggage: Passengers could leave right away, and their baggage could leave a bit later. It would catch up in flight, and still arrive before the passengers - giving the airline time to offload baggage for immediate pick up. More than that, wouldn’t separating passengers and baggage lessen the exposure to terrorists?
Mark M., Wichita, Kansas
The mural on Boeing’s Everett Site is simply superb! The Mural sure makes that massive Boeing wide-body plant look attractive, and in many ways, makes Everett Factory look extremely modern and efficient - a prelude to the phenomenal airplanes being built behind those doors. Congratulations and well done for capturing the joy and passion of flying - both in your mural and your awesome airplanes.
Chris C., South Africa
I read today that the chairman of Singapore Airlines has told Airbus to re-design the A350 again. This brings the number to three very influential airline buyers who have called for the same action. This only validates Boeing’s approach to the market and how far Airbus has fallen from grace. Their fall over the last year is stunning - a true subject for a Harvard MBA case study. Boeing’s market and product strategy saw years ago the hole in Airbus’ strategy and only now are we seeing the exploitation of that hole - one big enough to fly an A380 through. Good work Boeing.
Mark H., Newport Beach, California
Could the 747 transporter for the 787 barrels be commercially sold as oversized transporters or passenger liners to compete with the A380? Since it’s been designed and built already anyway. Has Boeing considered it?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
I heard that Australian carrier Qantas is eyeing the 777-200LR as “hub-buster” for the presently unattainable London to Sydney route. Qantas claims 777-200LR currently does not have range to fly this route now what are you doing to change this.
When you read these articles carefully, all is about economy class seats.
The reality is that businessmen who travel on long flights of more than 4 hours are in business class and their travel expenses are paid by the employer. So the question about fare and seat width is not relevant because all business class seats in med or long haul flights are very comfortable.
Now, you do not really care about comfort on a two hour flight if you can go to where you want to go at the right time and without delay. The value of an hour is much higher on short business trips than on trips with a long flight. On a short business trip, a journey that is 45 minutes longer can cost you the whole day and even add an overnight stay plus hotel and restaurant expenses.
How about VFR flights? (VFR = Vacation, Friends and Relatives) For these trips the only thing that counts is that you arrive at your destination with the lowest fare possible and on time. You would prefer to spend the money with you friends or your family during your vacation.
So, why all this fuss about inches?
G., France
Looking at the use of composite materials in new aircraft compared to previous metal alloys, composites provide some ease of maintenance (and in particular they are free of corrosion), as well as a weight saving. However, composites do not take strain in the same ways as the metal alloys used traditionally, and I was wondering if there was some comparison you could give for example in terms of twist & flex for the fuselage & the wings - does a composite fuselage twist more, and a composite wing flex more?
R.S., Bournemouth, U.K.
Does Airbus know what they are doing? Even after the president of ILFC says the A350 needs to be redesigned, they say no to a “new A350.” Oh well as long as they continue to ignore their clients’ complaints about the plane, they will lose orders, how ignorant of them. By the way, the only thing that Airbus has going for it is the A320 family. The A300/A330/A340 are losing orders to the 777, but yet they continue those programs. Even Emirates sees this, and responds by postponing an order of 20 A340’s worth billions, too bad. The 15 billion dollar A380 has 159 orders which needs 350 to even break even. Sales have slowed down and will continue because of the 747-8. I’m not even going to talk about the 787 and A350 because they aren’t in the same ball park. Even with the A320 market majority, Boeing takes in about half of it with its 737-NG family. So I predict as does just about everybody else, good times are in store for Boeing. Keep up the good work, and keep selling those planes!
Troy H.
You have a great plane in 777, this will make Boeing a world leader for along time. Showcase the 777 to buyers in BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA AND INDONESIA, at least three times in a year. Fly the executives of industry/business/govt in theses countries to make them feel the wonder of 777 built by Boeing.
Brigadier N., Portland, Oregon
Thank you for the great insights. I expect you to be over-loyal to Boeing (as I am, and a lot more people) but I’ve always seen your comments and arguments as being sensible to most intellects and sensitive to the facts. This I commend you and your Boeing team. I have yet to ride a Dreamliner, but we all know that Airbus has been more of a “trip maximizer” than a passenger pleaser. Surely, their planes might make more money per trip on some routes, primarily they have made their planes half passenger, half cargo aircrafts. While their fuselages seem wider, inside the passenger compartment - they are downright cramped! They’ve placed the floor so high for cargo to fit below. It’s a good for utilization, but if passengers really wanted to have volume parity with cargo, then maybe a C-5 Galaxy would be a great selling plane. Both A330 and A340 are cramped and tight inside, and for a 5-foot-9 guy that I am, whenever I fly an Airbus - I find my face almost doing a beso-beso with the wall. I’ve never felt this on a 737, 757 and 767; much more on a 777, which is a wonderful aircraft to fly on - any class. The fundamental argument is clear - Airbus is using their 1960s A300 fuselage to come up with a 21st century design. It just will not work. The sales numbers have told them that. Udvar-Hazy just told them that. Emirates’ Tim Clark has told them that, as well. Airbus has just been crazy in making per-seat mile costs based on inflated seat counts. Has any airline configured a 340-600 for 380 seats? And they say it’s a 747 replacement? There they go. Randy, I call on you. Bring Scott Carson to Manila. Bid for Philippine carriers to get the 777, the Dreamliner and the 747-8i. We need to bring back the magic into flying.
Jun L., Manila, Philippines
I enjoy your blog very much and I read it regularly. And, yes, I have been a Boeing fan for a long time now… However, I’m getting very disappointed with what I’ve been hearing about the B787. In your latest blog entry you talk about the B787 vs. A350 width and you claim that the B787 in a 9-abreast configuration will have the same “comfort levels” as the B747 and A330/A340. Sadly, the latter are based on 30-year-old designs and are noticeably more uncomfortable compared to the more modern B777 and A320. So, where is the extra comfort that Boeing has been promising on the B787? To be honest, I’d rather fly on the A350: more (or same) room per passenger and a better config (I like window seats and I’d rather have one person next to me instead of two). An 8-abreast B787; yes, that’d be something to look forward to. But, by the sound of it, this will be the exception rather than the rule.
Tony, Burlington, Massachusetts
I know you have touched on it, but it would be nice to get a comparison of the fuel burn on the A340 series vs. the 777 series of jets…clearly the difference is not 7%.
Howard R., New York, New York
Thank you, Randy for the wonderful explanation on the 8- v 9- abreast seating for the 787 v A350. You are preaching to the converted here. I’m a huge 787 fan and my nerves really jangled as QF was deciding which way to go. I really thought the 787 was the plane for them but I was highly suspicious of certain Airbus tactics. I think Udvar-Hazy is correct in saying that Airbus really have to look at a massive redo of the 350, or cede a high proportion of the market. The 787 really caught them on the hop and continues to do so. Thanks again for mentioning me in the blog. It’s quite an honour.
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
Who is going to have ultimate control of the electronic window shades on the 787? I like to fly back from Europe (or any other daylight flight) with my shade open, enjoying the view and the light. The flight attendant would prefer me to put the shade down, so the cabin falls asleep and requires less service. Who gets the master switch? The customer who has paid, potentially, several thousand dollars for a window seat or the flight attendant? What’s the point of putting large windows into the fuselage of the plane if someone in the galley is going to make them dark all the time so they don’t have to offer up another round of beverages? I don’t want 10% discretion on shading, I want 100%. If flight attendants can adjust the cabin shades, that is OK, as along as the individual customer has ultimate control of the full range of electronic shade darkening. Give me the control switch. It is maddening to sit in a plane in darkness on a daylight flight — instead, put the shades up, stay awake, and avoid jetlag. Please give me the control switch and let me admire the view out of those new large windows.
Doug R., New York, New York
I recently read that a major lease company has told Airbus to scrap their A-340 and A-350 in light of the fact that the 777 and new 787 has rendered those Airbus models impotent in sales campaigns. It seems that if it takes 8-10 billion dollars to bring an entirely new airplane to market, that Airbus may very well have planned themselves out of the game for the foreseeable future. Unless of course their governments bail them out with new development loans. With this in mind—what exactly is Boeings response if Airbus does come online with two new designs?
Mike L.
When will the Boeing 787-10 be announced? Some say this July for the Farnborough Air Show, awaiting the large order Emirates Airways will place. Emirates Airways is known for their large orders in air shows. Take Dubai 2005 for example, they bought about 42 Boeing 777, such as the Boeing 777-200LR/-200LRF/-300ER. P.S. I hope all goes well for Boeing and Singapore Airlines on their new wide-bodied order!
Andre D., Montreal, Canada
As a North American, I am partial to our products and for some time thought that Boeing was the greatest. That was when I was 12, and still under 6 feet tall. When I got to 6’5” and filled out a little, it became painfully obvious as a few other people have pointed out here that the Airbus has apparently given us an extra inch or two in the width of the seats that make a world of difference. For me, a 13 hour flight between Vancouver and Hong Kong is bearable on a Boeing but can be downright comfortable on most of the larger Airbus that travel this route. Air Canada uses both Airbus and Boeing, and any long flight on a Boeing, for me, is met with a sigh of resignation. I don’t vote French often, and think that command by committee is usually a poorly done thing, but I have to admit that the Airbus consortium has overall done a pretty sweet job. Looking forward to seeing what Boeing will do for us slightly oversized people in the near future.
Trevor W., Toronto, Canada
Is Boeing any closer to bringing the BWB onto the market?? I think the advantages of the BWB design over the “tube with wings” design that has been in use for decades are staggering and have the potential to radically alter air travel as we know it.
Joseph B.
Your competitor’s long term strategy is obviously less attractive than yours. Be careful not to crush your competitor if you do not want to have trouble with the anti-trust law. There is only one way out to avoid this: put higher price tag on your airplanes. You are condemned to amass hefty profits in the next fifteen years.
G. France
Hello, Boeing cries around the world that the Dreamliner very better is, as the A350. In Europe we have a proverb that is “who laughs too last, laughs best”. Greetings from Germany.
Frank S., Hamburg, Germany
If airlines opt for the nine across seating in the 787, I think the average traveler just lost the “war of inches”. Not good for 8 or 10 hour flights. I thought it was mostly weight that drives up the cost of flight. Does giving each passenger more volume or space cost so much? It seems like you’re only lifting air up into the air, which should be basically free, except that you have to buy another 10 feet of airplane initially.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Washington
The headline of this Flight International article is “Airbus aims to counter 787 stretch with heavier A350”. It will be very funny when Flight International will publish the article “Boeing aims to counter A350 stretch with lighter 787”.
G., France
Pardon my paraphrase, but in this business isn’t it “It must SHOW to GO”? That is why so many folks are reading your blog. For me, I can’t wait to read the next one. Maybe you should write two a week! I’m a life-long Boeing freak; I’m sorry to say I got duped one time to fly an A300 from ATL to LAX. No air vent, smokers behind me, one gigantic headache for two days. Keep up the good work and writing.
Wes C., Arab, Alabama
I have read your blog for a long time now. It is good to see you write about Latin America and of course about Mexico. Aeromexico is sure in a very good moment now. It has its first B-777 (best airliner in the world so far) and being a Boeing client for a long time Aeromexico has made a good choice for the future. I think our other Airline, Mexicana had its best time as leader in Mexico when it had a big B-727 fleet, now they took the back seat and most of their planes are Airbus. Are you trying to get them on their senses? Id sure love to see them use Boeings again in the future.
Previously archived comments (page 3 of 5)
« Newer | Older »
Re: Weight a minute. What about actual productivity measured in ton-miles? The A380F range is almost as far as the 747-8F. How would the calculations look then? Total fuel + landing fees + pilot additional labour cost.
Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Isn’t it true that the major commercial customers like the ILFC and Singapore Airlines want the A350 to be redesigned so that it can compete successfully with the 787 because they don’t want Boeing to have a monopoly on this segment of the market? I’ve heard that they’re afraid that Boeing could then charge whatever the market could bear for the 787.
John H., Renton, Washington
Much has been made of Airbus’ late arrival with the A350/70, but through the history of aviation victory hasn’t always gone to the first, but to the best, and time often gives the advantage of technological superiority and more detailed knowledge of the market. The Boeing 247 (1933) was trounced by the DC-3 (1935). The 737 arrived two years after the DC-9, and solidly beat that aircraft. The MD-11 (1990) was passed by the A330 (1992) which was then obsoleted by the 777 (1994).
Eric, Lombard, Illinois
Re: Global warming from airliners. Randy, fact-based perspective that greatly aids better objective understanding of this emotionally-laden challenge. Thank you - Barry
Barry S., Mukilteo, Washington
With the bad news of the A380 delay and seemingly limited interest, Airbus appears to be hurting in both the midsize and jumbo market segment. Do you think they would swallow their pride and drop out of both segments and strictly concentrate in the single isle market since Boeing won’t redo that plane until much later? This way they would have a head start on Boeing when airlines are looking for a better single aisle plane now?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
My family doesn’t fly a whole lot, and we are pretty much ‘get from point a to point b’. Hence: to do the flying we do, we are quite willing to make sacrifices in style and sexiness in cars, saving as much gas as we need to, in order to fly where we want to. Electric, hybrid, fuel cell, diesel, whatever - as long as we get there its OK, just keep those planes flying.
Rob L., Chehalis, Washington
Randy, I find your blogs to be very informative and I look forward to reading them every time a new one arrives. It’s good to see that Boeing is once again paving the way in the aviation industry. I do wish though that Airbus had something like this so I am able to see it from both sides.
Stanley, Houston, Texas
First Airbus announces production bottlenecks on their A380 white elephant, which is going to cost them dearly in penalties & lost orders… and then Singapore chooses Boeing over Airbus for a huge contract. I love it. Great job, Boeing!
Brent, California
I logged onto my computer only to find some extremely exciting news to read - Singapore Airlines is to order 20 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners! I am thrilled beyond belief. What a great piece of news!
Congratulations and well done to you guys at the marketing department that helped sell this phenomenal airplane to one of the world’s most prestigious companies. A great team effort - WORKING
TOGETHER!
Chris C., South Africa
I am writing this just after a call from friend who is standing on a huge paper loss on EADS shares, caused by news of the latest A380 delays. The markets believe they will lead to performance penalties and possible order cancellations. However, Boeing is also reported to be experiencing challenges with the 787 schedule. Could it be fair to say that in airplane manufacturing, both key parties are perhaps a little too optimistic with estimating when they can resolve the issues surrounding advanced new aircraft, both with their technologies and logistics processes? I am certain both the A380 and especially the 787 will emerge as superlative aircraft in service, but are the present timelines truly realistic?
Borys P., Sydney, Australia
Just learned about your blog at a conference. I don’t know anything about aviation, but I think the blog is illuminating. Thanks.
F.G., Stamford, Connecticut
I’d just quickly like to take this opportunity to congratulate Boeing (and you!) on the first of many sales of the 747-8 Intercontinental.
Saj, London, U.K.
Let’s examine this chart presenting Boeing’s widebody-long-range (“WBLR”) strategy. The left hand part of the chart is the situation of Boeing’s WBLR family in 2010. Today, you still have to keep the question mark on the right hand part of the chart because Airbus has not yet made public its WBLR strategy. Boeing’s will is quite clear: to cover the market from 210 to 450 seat with 5 aircraft having a range of around 8 000 nm and with a regular distribution of capacity between each of them (20% step). Still, you can improve this strategy because 777’s capacity is somewhat too close to 787. So, if you put the context in 2014, the conclusions are clear. Firstly, 777 will need improvement and its capacity will have to increase by around 30-40 seats. Secondly, 777-8 and 777-9 won’t have any competition in 2014 because Airbus will have just finished the development of its next-new-A350.
G.I.
On your Blog on June 6th, you note that the A340-600 seat 323 passengers compared with a Boeing 777-300ER seating 365. All the comparisons that I have seen outside of Boeing show the Airbus
340-600 at 380 passengers. Can you please explain the difference?
John L., Tucson, Arizona
I am quite surprised by Boeing executive’s willingness to talk openly about the snags during 787 development. See this article. Mr. Bair also seems to be quite comfortable when he said that 787 was 2.5% above the weight target at this stage of development. You appreciate his comments because the message is clear, “We have got some problems but we are working hard to solve them.”
Many aviation fans prefer this public relation style to the black out around A380 after 4 months of flight testing.
G.I.
Your product strategy described in your blog entry of 6 June 06 is valid. However, I see a possible weakness in the wide body long-range family. It is the 777 family. In 2012, all Boeing wide body airplanes will be built based on 2005-knowledge except the 777 family. I can’t believe that you will leave the 777 as it is today. Not later than in 2010 one can expect to see the launch of 777-8 and -9 which will be lighter, bigger and better than the current 777. If I apply the well known 20% capacity step between Boeing products, then I expect to see a 777-8 with 335 seats and a 777-9 with 400 seats while keeping the same range as the current 772LR and 773ER. A simple bill of materials change, some aero-tweaks and a re-engining might do the job! That will be a “low” investment of less than 2 bil. USD.
G.I.
Recently many have read about the 787 barrel tests. Why not get the “Flight Test Journal” up and running, keep people filled in on the latest 787 testing. That would allow those interested to follow it from the VERY beginning to certification? Maybe have the same with the 747-8? I personally would be interested to learn about the tests things go through early in the process, not just once assembled.
Kaleb, Ndola, Zambia
While reading this AviationNow article an idea came into my head. It may sound silly. But who knows? It may be not so silly. There is much space in that unused crown space in 747-8i. If Boeing develops a windowless cockpit technology, you can use this area for a cockpit and crew rest compartment. You can get at least 6 extra revenue seats with forward view for the passengers.
G.I.
I continue to read this blog and I remain impressed. The competition between the 787 and A350 is quite interesting. I believe they will both do very well. The more I ponder which aircraft will be more successful the more I think of the following saying: the early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. Keep up the excellent blog
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
While one must always respect its competition and take things seriously, the current disarray at Airbus is rather amusing, and at the same time frustrating. Airbus is no under-dog, but rather a powerful rival, but lately the company seems to be steaming off in the wrong direction and blaming everyone else. Airbus needs to address its issues fast, or it will risk becoming an under-dog’s pet. The current fiasco surrounding the A350 programme should have been predicted long ago. Whilst it seems that people are all saying doom and gloom for Airbus, the hard truth is that there really isn’t anything positive to say about them at the moment. The A350 was firstly an airplane they said they did not need, then they launched it with launch aid, then they re-designed it four times, and now they are ‘blaming’ customers for a lack of speedily design input and have flaunted a new A350 to take on both 787 and 777 from 2012. What is really irritating is that they have been rumoured to wanting launch aid to help with its ‘new’ A350. What I want to know is that should Airbus reveal a significantly improved A350 to take on 787 and 777, do they think that Boeing will not look at further improving the 777 and 787-10x that would become yet another A350 crusher? The 777 family will be ready for further improvements by the time the new A350 comes out - so Airbus will not be out of the woods at all, considering that the already phenomenal 777 family can only go one way with further improvements and that is even more advanced and efficient. As for the slow sales with the 747-8: If Boeing were sitting with 100 orders for the type would you be really happy? I for one would be slightly worried as the current orders for the -8 are in line with your market forecasts, and should you have a swelling order book already would mean Airbus and its A380 are correct - which they are not! The 747-8 is a phenomenal airplane, and with her efficiencies and economics and formidable characteristics, she will sell well over the course of 20 years or so. No doubt Boeing will receive an Intercontinental customer this year as well as further freighter customers. The 747 is simply a great airplane from every aspect. Keep it up Boeing, you are forever heading for new exciting frontiers!!
Chris C., South Africa
I’d like to second the concept of seat pitch. Too many planes have a seat pitch which makes me feel like I am in a baby seat. While I am not too tall (180 cm/5’11”), the leg room especially on long flights, is very cramped (31” seat pitch). Extending this from 30-31” to a more comfortable 34” will help a lot. Currently I scan all plane statistics looking for plane flights where the seat pitch is greater than or equal 32” or at a bare minimum where I can get an aisle seat where my legs can extend into the walk way.
Alexander, Kiev
The problem that Boeing had after the B-777 came up was a complete lack of vision and people at Boeing became very complacent. Today, the company seems to have a bright future with the B787. I fear that the company may once again become complacent and allow its rival Airbus to take the lead. It was very painful for us Boeing supporters to see the title “World Biggest Commercial Airplane Maker” switch sides. Now that the Dreamliner is trashing the A350, Boeing should not become complacent anymore. While Airbus is struggling to remake the A350 Boeing should indeed start thinking of the possibility that the new “New” 350 may actually be better than the B787 and B777-300ER combined. If I were a Boeing CEO, I would ask my people to start seriously working on the replacement of the B777 family (which is a very good plane, I reckon) but which may be seriously challenged by a possibly much more fuel efficient new “New” A350-1000. But if Boeing is certain that the A350 cannot beat the Dreamliner, then it is better to make the B787-10 even more awesome than the upcoming A350 in terms of technological advancements. That will ensure Boeing’s dominance in the field and allow our dear company to reclaim the title “world biggest commercial airplane maker”.
Andre T., Bloomington, Illinois
I did refer to Geoff Thomas’ article about the 748I. It is my belief the 748I cannot do DFW-SYD on a year round basis. I don’t know if you can comment on that. The striking thing I found about the article was the claim that QF had dismissed the 772LR. I find this very strange as the 772LR can do MEL/SYD-DFW both directions with ease all-year round. I personally don’t think QF has decided yet b/w the 748I and the 772LR (and maybe 773ER). Secondly, I would like clarification on the timing of the 787 program. I read many comments that Boeing will have delays in the program and it is very aggressive. I have even read that QF have been told of delivery delays already. To my knowledge that is not true. Would you care to comment? By the way, my understanding is that the program is running to schedule and no delays of EIS have been advised to the airlines.
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
With he new “8” technology Boeing should look at some of its older models and consider upgrading each one to conclude their dominance of the aerospace market. For starters the much loved 727 should be upgraded and redesigned using the “8” technology as well as aircraft like the MD-11 and the 717.
Kevin, Miami, Florida
I recently read that Boeing reduced the number of suppliers it works with by 79%. Can you explain how you’ve gone about doing that? Is it part and parcel of the shift to a global IT organization? How does the reduction fit with the new collaborative model that you’ve employed in the 787? Much appreciated - great blog, definitely one of the best corporate blogs out there.
D.H., Toronto, Canada
The 777 will be very vulnerable to 787 and A350 competition from 2009. One way of minimizing this before a follow on for this airplane size, is a 777-8. Even before a 797 replaces the 737. The 777 will need lightening, more engine efficiency, more aerodynamic efficiency, active controls, space optimization (maybe you can relocate pilots to a semi-virtual cockpit in the wingbox).
Rene A., Camiling, Philippines
Love the new 787, I can’t wait to ride one!! Boeing’s out of the box thinking in developing this plane, and the clear benefits to Airlines is showing up in the orders it. I had a question about what Boeing thinks about using a “Flying Wing” design for future passenger aircraft. If you can address this on your blog, I’d appreciate it.
Jason K., San Francisco, California
This Aviation Now article is very interesting. It says “Airbus North America Chairman Allan McArtor said the European manufacturer “guessed wrong” in the initial design of the A350”. This article means that this Airbus executive admitted explicitly that the current design of A350 is not good enough compared to 787. Implicitly, he said that whatever comes out in July will be MUCH better than the current A350 design. But, there will be only 2 years of difference between 787 and the next new A350. So, what kind of technology leap will Airbus put into the new A350 to make it better than 787? We are all impatient to see what Airbus will offer.
G.I.
I’d like to second the concept of seat pitch. Too many planes have a seat pitch which makes me feel like I am in a baby seat. While I am not too tall (180 cm/5’11”), the leg room especially on long flights, is very cramped (31” seat pitch). Extending this from 30-31” to a more comfortable 34” will help a lot. Currently I scan all plan statistics looking for plane flights where the seat pitch is greater than or equal 32” or at a bare minimum where I can get an aisle seat where my legs can extend into the walk way.
Don, San Jose, California
I read your article on the A320 “cabin width” and that got me thinking, how about showing a comparison of aircraft type and seat width & shoulder width. As you probably know Americans and people in general are getting bigger, not smaller. I’m 5’10 and 225 lbs (stocky but mostly in an athletic way), so although I don’t need lots of leg room seat width & shoulder room are important factors for my comfort. Why do people hate sitting in middle seats? Mostly because you have two people spilling over their shoulders and elbows into your personal space. If it is hot outside and the air conditioning can’t control the temperature it is even worse. I flew one flight on a 757 where I was in the middle and it was almost unbearable. The point of this is that people need enough space that they aren’t being bent into pretzels and sweated on. In my opinion the 757 was the all time (now defunked) was the worst in terms of comfort and the 737 is not much better. I much prefer DC-9 type airplanes (better seats and fewer middle seats), Embraer RJs with no middle seats, etc. I think I’ve read that 787 tries to address this issue. So how about it, what are the seat & shoulder widths for the aircraft out there and what is Boeing’s view of the right balance? Lastly I’d like to offer you a challenge. This summer on a hot day fly a 4-hour flight sitting in the middle seat with two big guys (like 6’2” & 240 lbs.) in the other two seats on a 737. Then describe how you felt comfort-wise about the flight on your blog and address whether or not another pencil width or two of seat and shoulder room would have been welcome.
Erik S., St. Louis, Missouri
My question - How does Airbus keep their credibility? Back in December 2004, and even more recently, John Leahy portrayed the A350 as a “brand new” jet with 90% new part numbers which will become a 787 killer. Now 18 months after “product launch”, Airbus is still trying to figure out what the A350 is going to be. From the beginning, when Boeing announced the development of the then 7E7, Airbus dismissed it continually - as a “me too” A330, a “Chinese Copy” of a A330, a “Boeing Paper Airplane” and on and on. I have to believe that in airline boardrooms around the world, there must be pictures of Airbus executives Noel Forgeard, John Leahy and Co. with egg on their faces.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
WARNING this all new A350 (the very latest idea emerging from Toulouse: an A350 with a wider cabin and more efficiency) seems to be holding potential 787 customers back… be ready for whatever Airbus can bring out… don’t do a typical Airbus mistake and pretend that they can’t beat you…or else those 350 787s could be the first and last ever sold.
Sam
I would like to suggest that Airbus might be on the edge of bankruptcy. They have too many planes in early or final design with serous design problems. The monster, A380 is still being tinkered with to reduce weight and keep on production schedule. The A350 is now completely back to the drawing boards. How can any airline expect scheduled delivery when the entire A350 design is being redone? They don’t have enough good engineers to complete all of this work. Orders for the A350 have been meager to nil, now they will all be pushed back. On top of the A380 and A350 problems, the often forgotten Airbus military transport, the M400 has poor orders and is priced above the Boeing C-17. The C-17 is a proven design. The M400 is a larger copy of the Boeing C-130, a plane used in Vietnam. As an accountant, all of these design problems spell an economic disaster for Airbus. They have too many problems to survive without a major bailout from the French government. They have scurried around Europe arm twisting suppliers to give them more money. If they get government loans, their position in the World Trade Organization lawsuit against Boeing will be damaged. From the French view, the A380 was a design that was the largest passenger plane made and very ‘grandiose’ and elegant; all show and so much pretense. It was to be an example of “superior French thinking.” Now their grand plans are crashing to earth and my guess is Airbus is badly damaged. If you like to play the stock market, think of buying an option on Airbus stock going down. Your broker knows the routine.
John, Eugene, Oregon
Keep up the contributions you make to aviation. They make enjoyable reading and give me an insight into Boeing’s aircraft.
Mike M., Marion, South Australia
I’ll announce my interest up front. I’m a production engineer at Airbus Hamburg, Germany. I’d be interested to get your thoughts on the recently mooted ideas about redesigning the A350. The question is posed out of personal curiosity and I do not in any way represent Airbus in any official capacity here.
David M., Hamburg, Germany
One thing that always comes up in these discussions is “Well. The A380’s larger cube will let it haul all those expensive high value shipments-expensive electronics, cut flowers, and the like from Asia to Europe and the US, while your product, my friend, will be hauling hogs and scrap iron to the Orient. “Last I heard, hogs and scrap iron pay the same in the airfreight business as cut flowers and electronics. The only important thing is if the cargo arrives, on time and intact, and alive if it’s livestock. And if your floor can take hogs and scrap iron, you don’t have to deadhead-which you will, if your vehicle can’t carry hogs and scrap iron. A lot of folks don’t seem to know much about the trucking business, which in many fundamental respects is similar to the air freight business. You want to haul as much freight as you can and minimize unpaid mileage, i.e., deadheading and turn time. All that matters is if the customer can pay. Nobody in the airfreight business cares whether the vehicle is refined. It’s a truck with wings, for heaven’s sake, not a health spa or an art gallery. The rules are different.
Robert L., Des Moines, Iowa
Assuming that Airbus will introduce a whole new design for the A350, Boeing will still have them in a box. If reports are correct, the new A350 will not be available until 2012 at the earliest, with bigger versions available around the 2013-14 timeframe. These dates are right where Boeing plans the single aisle replacement for the 737. Boeing may even be thinking on a replacement for the 777 too. Nevertheless, Airbus will be years behind in the A320 replacement. It looks like Airbus will be playing catch up for their messed up product line for at least the next 10 years.
Mark, Newport Beach, California
If all the production slots are filled for the 787 for the next 3 years would it be feasible to open another like in Long Beach now that the 717 is completed? Instead of losing orders to Airbus due to lack of production capability they would open a new line. Subcontractors and suppliers would need to also ramp up or other subs may be needed. All that space in Long beach needs to be utilized for production.
Doug L., Beaumont, Texas
I didn’t know Boeing had a blog! I found this one from a link off the SWA blog site. I’m very glad to see that two great companies are in on the action. I have a vested interest in both companies 1) I used to work for Boeing and 2) I now work for SWA. Boeing and SWA have been the high points in my career and really enjoy what both companies are and have been doing. Keep up the good work!
Roberto A., Allen, Texas
I was quite impressed by the weight issue blog entry, but, even as an uninformed outsider, I was aware of an omission. And it in fact was the one mentioned in the forum link you gave us. The 380 is obviously a much larger plane, and hence much larger volume. It may fill a niche for those sorts of freight where volume and not weight are the issue. I suspect that in the gamesmanship (I am not complaining) it is difficult to concede points now and again. Here I think you should have given a tip of the hat to this issue. Though I enjoyed reading about the controversy. Rob
R.L.L., Seattle
Carrying weight is a consideration but carrying cubic volume is equally important. One item is missing from Randy’s analysis of these two aircraft is a comparison of volume for these aircraft.
Some cargo containers cube out way before they reach their max container weight. Especially true when you are hauling say flowers for Valentine’s Day. Would like to see an aircraft comparison with the standard FedEx cube density in the containers. What is the 2006 FedEx weight per cube?
Tom L, Memphis, Tennessee
I personally believe that due to the 787 Dreamliner embracing the latest technologies of today and tomorrow, the 787 will be so phenomenally advanced that nothing will compete against it for decades to come! The current models, the -3/-8/-9, are perfectly suited and fully optimized for the market they are going to serve. No doubt they will rule the 200 - 300 seat market, (330 seat market in case of high density -3). These airplanes are a very refreshing design, and will become the icon of the 21st Century, as the 747 was of the 20th. It is great, and believable, to read that the proposed -10x will have “economics that are virtually unbelievable” due to its ultra efficiencies, but since this -10x has yet to be launched, why doesn’t Boeing totally rethink the Dreamliner from the -10x and upwards? As I said, the current models are perfect for the segment they are going to slot into, but 300 to 400 seats needs a 777 style airplane. Therefore I propose:
The 787-10x should be offered as a 777-200/-200ER replacement, whilst a 787-11x should be offered as a 777-300/-300ER replacement from 2015 at the earliest onwards. But, instead of stretching the -9 to ludicrous lengths, rather widen it. Give the -10x/-11x a 777 fuselage diameter and cabin size, bleedless engines of the GE90’s, the same style flightdeck , and an all-composite fuselage, new wings and a Mach 0.86 cruise speed. The reason for the wider fuselage is three-fold. Firstly, the 777 diameter is able to seat 10 abreast in economy, secondly, the -10x/-11x fuselage can be assembled in the same 777 jig avoiding high costs (as it is essentially a composite version of the 777 fuselage), and lastly, the fuselage diameter offers the best flexibility for freight flying when a freighter version emerges. You now have a ‘777-sized airplane’ that looks like a bigger brother of the current 787 models. And on the 747-8 side, (my favourite topic),
I think that once the airplane nears design freeze, or from about the beginning of the third-quarter, it will receive orders as more performance data and prices can be given to airlines. The -8 Intercontinental also has a good potential to be converted into a -8BCF in 2025, so I am pretty sure that this phenomenal airplane will sell well.
Chris C, South Africa
I’d like to express myself about this “journal”. Even if it looks nice, and seems to be the journal of a high Boeing employee, it really looks disgusting (sorry for the term - couldn’t find any other) how you use this nice blog appearance to finally just keep on the basic and boring Airbus vs. Boeing, using - as everyone who tries to participate in this “battle” of arguments (pro Airbus or pro Boeing) - just biased arguments, selecting figures that make Boeing planes look better and omitting other figures (while pro Airbus will do the same with Airbus figures).
Let’s forget that this type of discussion is just good for Airliners forums, everyone choosing his arguments and trying to show that he’s right. What I really find disgusting (again!) is that you (a high placed Boeing employee) get into this type of discussion on a Boeing page that looks like your journal where we could think you’d be honest. Well, all I see (and the “Weight a minute” article is just an example) is just Boeing advertisment. Let’s not forget you are “vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Seattle”, and all you do here is communication, marketing, use of biased figures, and the worst - sad Airbus vs. Boeing battle.
I don’t say what you write is true or false. But being so dishonest with you blog-type advertising is really thinking readers cannot think by themselves. Well, I think (and hope) they can and will think about what you write and keep in mind that you are a marketing employee of Boeing. This is a little like the 747-8 website claiming a +28% trip cost(*) for the A380. *Based on Boeing assessment about the A380. Can anyone believe this? And I’d like to add about myself that I am not a pro-Airbus. I like planes, Airbus, Boeing ones or others. 747 and 777 are some of my favorite planes. But I really hate the Airbus vs. Boeing discussions like the ones you do here. Looks like children trying to show that their videogame is the best. Is that the way you want to look?
Let this for Airliners forums, there are so many people here ready to send biased figures about Boeing or Airbus to try to win in the A vs. B discussion… And please, don’t tell what you say isn’t biased. Off course all figures you use are true (just have a doubt about the Boeing A380 assessment ;) - Happy to see that Boeing knows better than Airbus an Airbus plane not in commercial service yet), but you (as about every person does in the A vs. B discussion) use only some figures, some statistics and forget to give others.
Romain, Marseille, France
It is with interest that I have read your blog regarding the merits of the 747 8F as compared to the A380F. There were some really good points as usual but I have not seen anything regarding what types of modifications can be done to modify range and efficiency in particular. Are there plans to alter fuselage dimensions to extend range and payload? I would be surprised if the engineering and marketing expertise at Boeing hasn’t been consulted on this Already. Keep up the great work on your exemplary blog.
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
Your blog input of 10 May 2006 “Weight another minute” http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/05/weight_another.html is quite interesting. Why does someone bother to fly portable PCs or PDAs directly from Shanghai to Los Angeles when you can send thousands of these boxes to Anchorage and then dispatch them to cities in North America?
It is not surprising that Anchorage is becomes the second biggest US freight airport. Check the statistics here. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/anc/doingbusiness/departments/marketing/statistics/AnnualStats_57-05.pdf Warsaw has a good potential to be the main cargo hub between China and Europe. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=sha-WAW,waw-fra,waw-cdg,waw-ams,waw-mxp,waw-lis,waw-mad
Weight a minute, Poland is now member of the European Union!
G.I.
I was very amused when I saw the title of your entry “Weight a minute” and its sequel “Weight another minute”. It reminded me of how funny, yet informational reading your blog is. Sometimes it is hard to wait until the new entry is posted ;-) Your point on the dead weight and the significant backhaul loads is indeed very valid. However, as some people pointed out, the sometimes the comparison is also in terms of the max volume, and not necessarily the max weight. Probably depending on the average mission profile (yeah, it sounded military, but could not think of a better way to put it) and the backhaul loads, the calculations for one operator or other might tip the balance. Otherwise, the A-380 would not have any orders.
Overall, I believe the 747-8F is more efficient though. Before I access your blog, I read news on Bloomberg, which leads me to one of the last paragraphs of your last entry: “And when you get right down to it, isn’t it ironic that now Airbus is arguing for nonstop flights without the “hassle” of connecting through hubs? I mean, these are boxes, not people!” The news I read was about the 5th attempt of Airbus to re-design the A-350 and spend USD 10 billion in order to compete with the B-787. I remember that their initial argument was that since the A-380 was the future of aviation, a derivative of the A-330 would do the trick in competing with the B-787. Several years later, and several re-designs as well, point in the direction that they would be validating Boeing’s strategy (both the twin engine airplanes and the point-to-point travel). Since the new EIS date would now be 2012, Boeing has a clear opportunity to get a very tight hold of the market until the competitor arrives, which reminds me about some rumors a while ago saying that Boeing was considering increasing its production rate for the B-787. Clairvoyance? ;-)
Hernan S., Sao Paulo, Brazil
I am very concern over what is currently happening with the Airbus and its effect on Boeing. For whatever reasons, there are many customers who are aggressively seeking Airbus to create a product that would better Boeing. All the major blue chip players like Singapore Airlines, Emirates, ILFC, and GECAS are all pushing Airbus to come up with a better airplane. And especially with GECAS, whose aircraft engine division worked with Boeing to create the GenX engine, has not even ordered the 787. What is going on in the market place where the customers seem to be more willing to wait for Airbus than to commit to Boeing? It’s time to be paranoid and see what can be done to turn around this very real problem. And with the New Airbus A350 to be announced in the next few weeks, it is imperative that Boeing is ready to counter what Airbus may throw at Boeing.
Rebecca V., Santa Clara, California
Randy: Your blog is great, especially last discussion on freighter weights. The link to the SWA blog is appreciated. If flight test or 787 want to create a new culture at Boeing modeled after SWA like management says, then maybe your blog could incorporate more common man stories/entries like the SWA blog does today. IE pilot, mechanic etc. I think the public and Customer Airlines would enjoy.
Brad T., Everett, Washington
When my husband and I fly Southwest to California to visit our family we always have a note of pride because it is one of our airplanes (Boeing’s). I just happen to think your comments were appropriate and I wanted to tell you so.
Faith G., Tukwila, Washington
Although I like the idea of continuing the tradition of murals on the factory doors, I have to say execution of the latest one falls a little short, no pun intended. I have heard numerous people, include myself ask, “When are they gonna finish it?” What I am referring to is the appearance that the bottom is missing. Why would you go through all that effort, and only cover 75% of the surface? Can you imagine commissioning Michelangelo for $1,000,000 to paint the Sistine Chapel, and when he’s done, instead of completing the scene, he just paints a large dark blue line at the bottom of the work? As a painter myself, I do appreciate the abstract of some of the images, but have to wonder, out of all the great, cool, wonderful things we make at Boeing, that THE best choice for images was a chopped off image of a window, a chopped off image of an exit door, and a chopped off image of a winglet? Instead, what about the marvelous engines of the 777 or the famous hump of the 747, you know, things people recognize as “Boeing-esque”? When I first saw the image of the woman, I thought she was coming up out of blue water (the darker blue banner at bottom of murals). To me it looks like she is bobbing in the ocean, trying to signal a rescue helicopter. Okay, I’m being harsh, but maybe having employees vote on the next mural before it goes up would be an idea. Now please, someone go rescue that bobbing woman before she drowns!
Glen, Everett, Washington
Thanks for the mention about our blog! It’s great to be here in the blogosphere with you - we’ve been watching your blog closely and using it as an example of excellent communication with our leaders. Keep up the good work!
Angela V., Dallas, Texas
I have been hunting for news from Boeing on its new Dreamliner development and those of other aircraft and finally found this blog which is great for aviation enthusiasts like myself. I commend
Boeing on taking up the challenge to design newer and better airplanes, and irrespective of who makes “better” planes, we the traveling public benefit from this competition. New planes are the
“best” for shorter times as engineers keep surprising us with their ingenuity. I look forward to more blogs or more RSS feeds from Boeing. Congratulations on your website too.
Paul M., Sydney, Australia
I enjoyed the 777-200LR Flight Test Journal. I think it also allowed the media & public to keep up with the test program without it so much being a secret, nor needing the various press releases that get distorted by the reporter. Would it work to have a similar journal about the 787 program beginning with its development. It would be good PR to have one place where the progress and information on the program would be available.
Jay, Bremerton, Washington
Thank you for doing the ‘simple’ mathematics regarding the weight claims for the Boeing 747-8 Freighter and the Airbus A380-800F! It is very clear that the 747-8F is far more efficient that than the A380F.
So, the A380F, will fly around 40% more airplane structural weight for only 5% more revenue payload over the magnificent 747-8F! Rather dismal I believe. But, the A380F will fly further with full payload. Great? Not really!
The -8F will fly around 8,260km at Mach 0.86, carrying a ‘real-world’ high density payload of 158,6kg/cubic meter, as well as carrying the industry standard containers (3.05mX3.05m), at trip costs 30% less than the A380F and 20% less fuel/tonne of freight!
The 747-8F also only carries 215,280lts of fuel. The A380F, will not carry the ‘real-world’ high density payload (will carry 126.6kg/cubic meter), will not fly the industry standard containers, (max for the A380F are 2.44m high), will not have the flexibility and ground readiness support the 747 has, and will fly slightly slower at Mach 0.85.
Yes, the A380F will have more volume, but that is of a very limited value. But, the A380F has a fuel load capacity of 310,000litres, nearly 100,000litres more than the 747-8F! But, with that 100,000 or so litres of more fuel, the A380F can only fly 10,360km, some 2100km more! Without even getting into the massive amounts of math involved, it is logical to see that from the above the 747-8F is far more efficient, economical and versatile. Hence, the believable figures of the great efficiencies the -8F offers over the A380F. Therefore, can Airbus justify flying only 5% more revenue cargo 2100km more whilst burning nearly a 100,000litres more fuel, considering the above information, and moreover, can the airlines?
Chris C., South Africa
Randy, I am a great admirer of your blog and cite it often in presentations to my clients as a successful model. I recently posted on my marketing blog on another opportunity for you to comment on Airbus’ plans to create standing “seats” as covered by the NY Times. The article is here: http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/04/yetanotherboe.html
Rohit, Washington, D.C.
Carrying weight is a consideration but carrying volume is equally important. One item is missing from Randy’s Journal and that is a comparison of volume for these aircraft. Some cargo containers cube out way before they reach their max container weight. Especially true when you are hauling say flowers for Valentine’s Day. Would like to see an aircraft comparison with the standard FedEx cube density in the containers.
Tom L., Memphis, Tennessee
In your recent comparison between the B748F and The A380F you didn’t mention the range advantage of the “heavier” A380. From what I know if both flew 5000nm the Boeing would carry only 113tonnes whereas the A380 would carry the full 150tonnes. That is 37 tonnes and not only 7 more.
Mohamed
Your assessment of the 747-800F vs. the A380F is flawed. The A380 can fly MUCH further - 1400 nautical miles (or 25%.. ) more range than the 747-800F so that makes up for the “dead weight” you speak of… Must do better! Most of your arguments, for A vs. B product are great but this one seems a little under researched.
Stephen, Brighton, UK
“Weight a Minute” - The question then becomes, how expensive is the volume that they are buying? The operators must plan to use the freighters on volume limited type parcel service. Can you expound on this aspect of freighters?
Alan C., Seattle, Washington
Do Boeing airplane fly ??? How far ??? Let’s redo the math with the range and you will see that yours is payload limited at 5000nm and the A380F flies 1500nm farther. Always funny to read your propaganda !!!
Stepha, United Kingdom
Randy: I really enjoyed the 747-8F v. Airbus A380F entry. Is the business case there for a LCF Freighter for UPS or Fed Ex? I doubt this is a new idea.
Brad T., Lake Stevens, Washington
I just recently discovered your journal and have become a frequent reader, you point the subjects out very clearly and cleverly. Bad for Airbus! I have a question for you, do you think Airbus would have time to counter-attack the 787 in critical campaigns such as with Emirates, Singapore, etc. if they come to get back to the drawing board and produce a clean sheet new A350 (including the new fuselage)?
Beck N., Brazil
I know I’ve shared this comment with you before, but - Why not build the sonic cruiser, and make it carry passenger baggage: Passengers could leave right away, and their baggage could leave a bit later. It would catch up in flight, and still arrive before the passengers - giving the airline time to offload baggage for immediate pick up. More than that, wouldn’t separating passengers and baggage lessen the exposure to terrorists?
Frank, Shanghai
The game is afoot. Airbus will undoubtedly revamp the A350 - again. Too many market leaders are demanding a next generation product over warmed-up A330 leftovers. And, while late to market, the new product will be able to offer something compelling. Remember the 777 in its early years? Were not some of its variants considered responses to successful Airbus products? Now look where it sits; on top of the heap. Even the fast selling 787 was born out of apparent miscalculation - the Sonic Cruiser program. This competition is never over and Airbus will fight back (albeit with
European government support). I give credit to Boeing for having come back strong. Moreover, Boeing looks ready to rumble for years to come. The 787 and 747-8 are only the beginning. For now,
Boeing is in great market position and, hopefully, will continue doing the right things to stay in front of Airbus. The 737NG, 747-8, 777 and 787 - Boeing’s 4 planes 4 long haul!
Ken W., Chicago, Illinois
Just a quick comment: I like the new door graphics, but while driving by the factory recently my wife commented that she “missed the little girl” - i.e. the stamp graphic with the little girl looking at the 747. I agree - that was a neat graphic. Maybe we can put that on a paint hanger door?
Tim D., Everett, Washington
I am aviation buff and frequent flyer. 75 trips a year. 10 across the Pacific or Atlantic. I hate stopovers and Narita in particular. Believe it or not I am also prone to air sickness. I fly to Thailand and Singapore a bunch and have been tempted to take the direct service offered by TG and SQ to LA. However my experience with the 340 is not good. Is it me or is the 340 a wobbly plane compared to the 777? Also, are you marketing the new 737-900ER to these Business only flyers such as Maxjet? As you may have guessed I am a big point to point guy. When am I going to be able to fly San Diego Asia direct? It takes me 27+ hours door to door form San Diego to Bangkok. I figure LA-BKK direct would take 8-9 hours off the trip and if SD-BKK I would see a 10+ hour savings. Now that would be productive! I am hopeful Boeing can make this happen.
Fred P.
I recently had a whirlwind business trip to many Indian cities. The A320 felt more comfortable than the B737. Especially sitting in the center seat. It was elbow room that was more a problem than shoulder room. The 777 feels more comfortable than the 747 for the same reason.
Raj, Fremont, California
As a window seat enthusiast, there was one variable left out of the width discussion, angle of the window. A vertical window is comfortable to look out of. A window that slopes up to your head like on the upper deck of a 747, are less comfortable for viewing. I’d be curious to see a comparison of the various Airbus and Boeing window angles. Second, apparently the Germans got it right from the start with the first production jet the ME 262 with two engines mounted under the wing. Evolution of jetliners has produced two final answers, a twin with six abreast seating, and a twin with nine abreast seating. Sure, I’d love to fly in a trijet with seven abreast, but money has spoken, and it won. The real question, how do you fly without oil?
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Washington
It occurred to me that the Boeing 787-10 could face major problems. It was recently stated that the range of the 787-10 will lack the 787-9. Boeing has to sacrifice the range for the length. Ouch. Emirates Airways stated that they are looking at a range about 9100 nautical miles, but it seems that Boeing should get a better engine with better range capabilities. Maybe, GENx Evo? Also, I do have a larger question. Since the Boeing 787-10 is to compete with the Airbus A350-900, wouldn’t the A350 get a punch? The A350 is of course, a “carbon-copy” of its brother, the A330 only with new improved engines. However, it’s so seemed that the engine will be also the GENx. It’s true that the Rolls Royce Trent 1500 has greater thrust, but does it matter? The Airbus A350-900 is also heavier than the Boeing 787-10, because of the use of “unneeded metal. However, it also has the GENx. So do you see a problem with Airbus’s A350-900(x)?
Andre, Montreal, Canada
There are several things you have to think about before you make a soup: the recipe, the cauldron and the timing.
Let’s consider that you wish to produce some soup in the coming years. Firstly, you try to figure out the appropriate recipe. Secondly, you would contact local groceries and make sure that you can get the ingredients in due time. Thirdly, you will acquire a very good cauldron that can contain the desired quantity of soup that you have to produce.
And finally, since you cannot do everything at the same time you would optimize your time schedule. The outcome is a plan like this: from 2004 to 2008: soup for 200 to 250 people, from 2006 to 2009: soup for about 450 people, from 2008 to 2011: soup for 290 to 360 people, from 2010 to 2014: soup for 150 to 200 people.
If you are smart enough, you will define the right ingredients, choose the right grocery and acquire the right cauldron for everything you have to do. In other words, you prepare a consistent production base.
G.I.
My opinion: Boeing should take advantage of Emirates deferred A340-600HGW’s by trying to sell some more 777s ( I never thought that the A340 suited Emirates anyway…) (to other people): come on what’s so bad with 787 9-abreast…fine we all want to be comfortable in our economy classes but at the end of the day that’s what business class is there for… If anything I’d be more aware of trying to sleep under those new plasticky stowage bins in the A350… that new cabin gives me shivers.
Sam
I am impressed how some people in such a large and serious company as Boeing have shown in the last years what clowns they can be. Mr. Alan Mulally clowning and giggling about when attending a press presentation of a possible “Boeing Sonic Cruiser” - showing he had no idea what he was talking about. (and that project then being “scrapped” for the moment). Anyone keeping track of Boeing’s Marketing division appearances in the news must have noted how “bitchy” and childish Mr. Randy Baseler has been lately in the 787/A350 competition… Basing himself on a muppet, inane and little thought-out questions from the public he’s done nothing but amuse me. Instead of behaving like an editor in a cheap yellowist newspaper maybe it is reasonable to wait until the two aircraft are out and see the different pros and cons each of them presents. Before I forget, Mr. Baseler: There is NOTHING wrong with an 8-abreast seat configuration (as used in A330/340/350), it just makes the aircraft longer -what’s more it becomes a more effective use of space. Don’t believe me? Read your notes on statistics/normal distribution and amaze yourself in the fact that aluminum cans for drinks are a better use of material the longer and slimmer they are - although impractical (to hold in your hand). Why not perhaps stop and think in the composite fuselage 787 will have? Did you know composites are light, strong but incredibly brittle? On impact all it would do is shatter like cheap glass. I do not go on Boeing or Airbus’ side, on the contrary I enjoy the advantages each one of them have presented to the world in their aircraft. All I am against is Mr. Baseler’s attitude.
Alan P., Montevideo, Uruguay
I am an engineer, interested in 777-200LR. I have examined the chart payload range. I have seen in Boeing documents that OEW is 145 tons, which corresponds to 301 pax. plus 11 tons of cargo on a range of 9.420 nm. But on Boeing site I see that that range is 9.420 nm only with 301 pax. Which is the real OEW of 777-200LR in the configuration with 3 auxiliary fuel tanks, 301 seats, 162.400 kg of fuel and all that is necessary (passengers and fuel excluded) for a flight? If the OEW was really 145 tons, the range chart says that max range with 301 pax and no cargo is 9.750 nm. Which could be the weight savings with the lighter interior of 787 in the 200LR derivative with six auxiliary fuel tanks for Qantas and max range with 250 passengers at maximum MTOW?
Sorrentino F., Milano, Italy
It would seem to me all the wonderful ideas of passenger amenities have neglected the reality of clear air turbulence (or any turbulence or aircraft upset for that matter). I, for one, would not like to be in the process of flinging a fifteen (15) pound bowling ball just as the airplane loses a hundred (100) feet or so of altitude. We have not, I believe, encountered every type of atmospheric disturbance Mother Nature can throw at us. I’ll happily keep my seat belt fastened and read a book ere I go mall hopping at cruise level altitude.
W.B., Newcastle, Washington
Airbus seems to be in a predicament regarding its A350. Airbus has been called upon to re-design and radically upgrade the A350, such as incorporate a new, wider fuselage and an all-new wing in order to be more competitive to the phenomenally advanced 787 Dreamliner. This is the second time now that Airbus has been asked to really ‘beef-up’ the A350 after ILFC initially voiced concern over the then Mach 0.82 / 0.83 cruise speed - saying it is too slow, and airlines asked for better conditions for the flight-deck crew rest areas - this is a problem on all Airbus products. With these recent calls from ILFC and GECAS to further re-design the A350, it seems Airbus is in a catch 22 position. It has virtually been pointed out now that the A350 does not quite compete against the 787, and in doing so, the Airbus product has become a rather dismal counter to the Dreamliner. The A350 does not have the versatility the 787 offers. The real problem, I believe, is that Airbus did not take the threat of the 787 seriously enough in April 2004 after they virtually laughed at Boeing and said they could counter with a standard A330. We all know what happened after that at Airbus.
Now, they have reached a stage that should they continue with the ‘firm’ A350 design, they will bring an airplane to the market that will find it extremely difficult to compete against the Boeing products as the A350 is the inferior product, and should Airbus launch a new long haul wide-body family to replace the A330 and A340, the A350 would virtually become obsolete as the newer Airbus family will feature wider cabins, and more composites. But, if Airbus listens to its customers, and decides to re-design the A350 as well as launch an A340 replacement, this will put Airbus in a massive predicament of not having any real competitor to the Boeing products for the foreseeable future. And once the new A340 replacement, 777 competitor, has surfaced, Boeing will already have, if not launched, a 777 replacement . It is also amusing watching the development of the current ‘firm’ A350 as more and more features that are being revealed are virtually copied from the 787, such as larger cabin windows, four pane windshields for the flight-deck, 787 like interior (although the A350’s looks very plastic)…must I continue?
Chris C, South Africa
We here in Oak Ridge are designing Flight Deck components for the 787 and we don’t get much info as to what else is going on with the 787 elsewhere so it is good to see more info on this plane. I especially liked the seating comparison…well done.
Mike M., Oak Ridge, Tennessee
I saw the mural at Paine Field when it first got done on the Boeing Tour. Great job by the painters who worked on that masterpiece!
Andrew, Seattle, Washington
I am still fascinated with this blog and the stories it features. It truly reveals how Boeing has responded to the challenges of the market place and to those of a worthy competitor. Most helpful has been explaining the different corporate philosophies and then seeing the effect on the aviation shortly after. I will continue to follow as the dedicated men and women in both companies continue to produce phenomenal aircraft to benefit everybody.
Dr. John D., Auburn, Alabama
I recall when Boeing was trying to convince Singapore Airlines into buying 747’s vs Airbus’s Giant simply on the name and past glory of “BOEING”. There was an older Boeing rep that held respect of SAS, but that was not enough and SAS was very cordial, but determined to advance with technology. BOEING has it now, but at a price! The SONIC CRUISER could have captured the world simply on the basis of nations saying, “We need one to show the flag”. Never mind the expense! I think the DREAMLINER is great. Why can’t BOEING give just a little more room for a little wider seat? I flew on an AIRBUS in Morocco and that plane (coach) was a real comfort to Spain. Now is the chance to make the mark; get a customer to buy the stretched 747 and fit it with seats. Another item; pay more attention to Korea or they will desert BOEING for jobs in their nation’s aircraft industry.
John M., San Diego, California
I know I’ve shared this comment with you before, but - Why not build the sonic cruiser, and make it carry passenger baggage: Passengers could leave right away, and their baggage could leave a bit later. It would catch up in flight, and still arrive before the passengers - giving the airline time to offload baggage for immediate pick up. More than that, wouldn’t separating passengers and baggage lessen the exposure to terrorists?
Mark M., Wichita, Kansas
The mural on Boeing’s Everett Site is simply superb! The Mural sure makes that massive Boeing wide-body plant look attractive, and in many ways, makes Everett Factory look extremely modern and efficient - a prelude to the phenomenal airplanes being built behind those doors. Congratulations and well done for capturing the joy and passion of flying - both in your mural and your awesome airplanes.
Chris C., South Africa
I read today that the chairman of Singapore Airlines has told Airbus to re-design the A350 again. This brings the number to three very influential airline buyers who have called for the same action. This only validates Boeing’s approach to the market and how far Airbus has fallen from grace. Their fall over the last year is stunning - a true subject for a Harvard MBA case study. Boeing’s market and product strategy saw years ago the hole in Airbus’ strategy and only now are we seeing the exploitation of that hole - one big enough to fly an A380 through. Good work Boeing.
Mark H., Newport Beach, California
Could the 747 transporter for the 787 barrels be commercially sold as oversized transporters or passenger liners to compete with the A380? Since it’s been designed and built already anyway. Has Boeing considered it?
Anton S., Long Beach, California
I heard that Australian carrier Qantas is eyeing the 777-200LR as “hub-buster” for the presently unattainable London to Sydney route. Qantas claims 777-200LR currently does not have range to fly this route now what are you doing to change this.
Matthew P., Westfield, New Jersey
Do inches count? There have been some hot debate about inches here: http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/04/maxheadroom.html http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/03/warofinches.html http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/03/widthis_which.html.
When you read these articles carefully, all is about economy class seats.
The reality is that businessmen who travel on long flights of more than 4 hours are in business class and their travel expenses are paid by the employer. So the question about fare and seat width is not relevant because all business class seats in med or long haul flights are very comfortable.
Now, you do not really care about comfort on a two hour flight if you can go to where you want to go at the right time and without delay. The value of an hour is much higher on short business trips than on trips with a long flight. On a short business trip, a journey that is 45 minutes longer can cost you the whole day and even add an overnight stay plus hotel and restaurant expenses.
How about VFR flights? (VFR = Vacation, Friends and Relatives) For these trips the only thing that counts is that you arrive at your destination with the lowest fare possible and on time. You would prefer to spend the money with you friends or your family during your vacation.
So, why all this fuss about inches?
G., France
Looking at the use of composite materials in new aircraft compared to previous metal alloys, composites provide some ease of maintenance (and in particular they are free of corrosion), as well as a weight saving. However, composites do not take strain in the same ways as the metal alloys used traditionally, and I was wondering if there was some comparison you could give for example in terms of twist & flex for the fuselage & the wings - does a composite fuselage twist more, and a composite wing flex more?
R.S., Bournemouth, U.K.
Does Airbus know what they are doing? Even after the president of ILFC says the A350 needs to be redesigned, they say no to a “new A350.” Oh well as long as they continue to ignore their clients’ complaints about the plane, they will lose orders, how ignorant of them. By the way, the only thing that Airbus has going for it is the A320 family. The A300/A330/A340 are losing orders to the 777, but yet they continue those programs. Even Emirates sees this, and responds by postponing an order of 20 A340’s worth billions, too bad. The 15 billion dollar A380 has 159 orders which needs 350 to even break even. Sales have slowed down and will continue because of the 747-8. I’m not even going to talk about the 787 and A350 because they aren’t in the same ball park. Even with the A320 market majority, Boeing takes in about half of it with its 737-NG family. So I predict as does just about everybody else, good times are in store for Boeing. Keep up the good work, and keep selling those planes!
Troy H.
You have a great plane in 777, this will make Boeing a world leader for along time. Showcase the 777 to buyers in BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA AND INDONESIA, at least three times in a year. Fly the executives of industry/business/govt in theses countries to make them feel the wonder of 777 built by Boeing.
Brigadier N., Portland, Oregon
Thank you for the great insights. I expect you to be over-loyal to Boeing (as I am, and a lot more people) but I’ve always seen your comments and arguments as being sensible to most intellects and sensitive to the facts. This I commend you and your Boeing team. I have yet to ride a Dreamliner, but we all know that Airbus has been more of a “trip maximizer” than a passenger pleaser. Surely, their planes might make more money per trip on some routes, primarily they have made their planes half passenger, half cargo aircrafts. While their fuselages seem wider, inside the passenger compartment - they are downright cramped! They’ve placed the floor so high for cargo to fit below. It’s a good for utilization, but if passengers really wanted to have volume parity with cargo, then maybe a C-5 Galaxy would be a great selling plane. Both A330 and A340 are cramped and tight inside, and for a 5-foot-9 guy that I am, whenever I fly an Airbus - I find my face almost doing a beso-beso with the wall. I’ve never felt this on a 737, 757 and 767; much more on a 777, which is a wonderful aircraft to fly on - any class. The fundamental argument is clear - Airbus is using their 1960s A300 fuselage to come up with a 21st century design. It just will not work. The sales numbers have told them that. Udvar-Hazy just told them that. Emirates’ Tim Clark has told them that, as well. Airbus has just been crazy in making per-seat mile costs based on inflated seat counts. Has any airline configured a 340-600 for 380 seats? And they say it’s a 747 replacement? There they go. Randy, I call on you. Bring Scott Carson to Manila. Bid for Philippine carriers to get the 777, the Dreamliner and the 747-8i. We need to bring back the magic into flying.
Jun L., Manila, Philippines
I enjoy your blog very much and I read it regularly. And, yes, I have been a Boeing fan for a long time now… However, I’m getting very disappointed with what I’ve been hearing about the B787. In your latest blog entry you talk about the B787 vs. A350 width and you claim that the B787 in a 9-abreast configuration will have the same “comfort levels” as the B747 and A330/A340. Sadly, the latter are based on 30-year-old designs and are noticeably more uncomfortable compared to the more modern B777 and A320. So, where is the extra comfort that Boeing has been promising on the B787? To be honest, I’d rather fly on the A350: more (or same) room per passenger and a better config (I like window seats and I’d rather have one person next to me instead of two). An 8-abreast B787; yes, that’d be something to look forward to. But, by the sound of it, this will be the exception rather than the rule.
Tony, Burlington, Massachusetts
I know you have touched on it, but it would be nice to get a comparison of the fuel burn on the A340 series vs. the 777 series of jets…clearly the difference is not 7%.
Howard R., New York, New York
Thank you, Randy for the wonderful explanation on the 8- v 9- abreast seating for the 787 v A350. You are preaching to the converted here. I’m a huge 787 fan and my nerves really jangled as QF was deciding which way to go. I really thought the 787 was the plane for them but I was highly suspicious of certain Airbus tactics. I think Udvar-Hazy is correct in saying that Airbus really have to look at a massive redo of the 350, or cede a high proportion of the market. The 787 really caught them on the hop and continues to do so. Thanks again for mentioning me in the blog. It’s quite an honour.
Dale C., Melbourne, Australia
Who is going to have ultimate control of the electronic window shades on the 787? I like to fly back from Europe (or any other daylight flight) with my shade open, enjoying the view and the light. The flight attendant would prefer me to put the shade down, so the cabin falls asleep and requires less service. Who gets the master switch? The customer who has paid, potentially, several thousand dollars for a window seat or the flight attendant? What’s the point of putting large windows into the fuselage of the plane if someone in the galley is going to make them dark all the time so they don’t have to offer up another round of beverages? I don’t want 10% discretion on shading, I want 100%. If flight attendants can adjust the cabin shades, that is OK, as along as the individual customer has ultimate control of the full range of electronic shade darkening. Give me the control switch. It is maddening to sit in a plane in darkness on a daylight flight — instead, put the shades up, stay awake, and avoid jetlag. Please give me the control switch and let me admire the view out of those new large windows.
Doug R., New York, New York
I recently read that a major lease company has told Airbus to scrap their A-340 and A-350 in light of the fact that the 777 and new 787 has rendered those Airbus models impotent in sales campaigns. It seems that if it takes 8-10 billion dollars to bring an entirely new airplane to market, that Airbus may very well have planned themselves out of the game for the foreseeable future. Unless of course their governments bail them out with new development loans. With this in mind—what exactly is Boeings response if Airbus does come online with two new designs?
Mike L.
When will the Boeing 787-10 be announced? Some say this July for the Farnborough Air Show, awaiting the large order Emirates Airways will place. Emirates Airways is known for their large orders in air shows. Take Dubai 2005 for example, they bought about 42 Boeing 777, such as the Boeing 777-200LR/-200LRF/-300ER. P.S. I hope all goes well for Boeing and Singapore Airlines on their new wide-bodied order!
Andre D., Montreal, Canada
As a North American, I am partial to our products and for some time thought that Boeing was the greatest. That was when I was 12, and still under 6 feet tall. When I got to 6’5” and filled out a little, it became painfully obvious as a few other people have pointed out here that the Airbus has apparently given us an extra inch or two in the width of the seats that make a world of difference. For me, a 13 hour flight between Vancouver and Hong Kong is bearable on a Boeing but can be downright comfortable on most of the larger Airbus that travel this route. Air Canada uses both Airbus and Boeing, and any long flight on a Boeing, for me, is met with a sigh of resignation. I don’t vote French often, and think that command by committee is usually a poorly done thing, but I have to admit that the Airbus consortium has overall done a pretty sweet job. Looking forward to seeing what Boeing will do for us slightly oversized people in the near future.
Trevor W., Toronto, Canada
Is Boeing any closer to bringing the BWB onto the market?? I think the advantages of the BWB design over the “tube with wings” design that has been in use for decades are staggering and have the potential to radically alter air travel as we know it.
Joseph B.
Your competitor’s long term strategy is obviously less attractive than yours. Be careful not to crush your competitor if you do not want to have trouble with the anti-trust law. There is only one way out to avoid this: put higher price tag on your airplanes. You are condemned to amass hefty profits in the next fifteen years.
G. France
Hello, Boeing cries around the world that the Dreamliner very better is, as the A350. In Europe we have a proverb that is “who laughs too last, laughs best”. Greetings from Germany.
Frank S., Hamburg, Germany
If airlines opt for the nine across seating in the 787, I think the average traveler just lost the “war of inches”. Not good for 8 or 10 hour flights. I thought it was mostly weight that drives up the cost of flight. Does giving each passenger more volume or space cost so much? It seems like you’re only lifting air up into the air, which should be basically free, except that you have to buy another 10 feet of airplane initially.
Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Washington
The headline of this Flight International article is “Airbus aims to counter 787 stretch with heavier A350”. It will be very funny when Flight International will publish the article “Boeing aims to counter A350 stretch with lighter 787”.
G., France
Pardon my paraphrase, but in this business isn’t it “It must SHOW to GO”? That is why so many folks are reading your blog. For me, I can’t wait to read the next one. Maybe you should write two a week! I’m a life-long Boeing freak; I’m sorry to say I got duped one time to fly an A300 from ATL to LAX. No air vent, smokers behind me, one gigantic headache for two days. Keep up the good work and writing.
Wes C., Arab, Alabama
I have read your blog for a long time now. It is good to see you write about Latin America and of course about Mexico. Aeromexico is sure in a very good moment now. It has its first B-777 (best airliner in the world so far) and being a Boeing client for a long time Aeromexico has made a good choice for the future. I think our other Airline, Mexicana had its best time as leader in Mexico when it had a big B-727 fleet, now they took the back seat and most of their planes are Airbus. Are you trying to get them on their senses? Id sure love to see them use Boeings again in the future.
Alfonso A., Guanajuato, Mexico
« Newer | Older »