Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Sonic Cruiser Project Shelved
jonerik writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting that Boeing is set to announce the cancellation of its Sonic Cruiser project tomorrow; not because the technology wasn't mature enough, but because the company was unable to make the case for an airliner that would fly at just under the speed of sound in the airline industry's post-9/11 business environment. Too bad, too. It was a very cool-looking plane. Instead, the company will focus on a new ultra-efficient airliner - codenamed 'Yellowstone' - that will look very much like its existing 767 and 777 models. The new aircraft is expected to be ready to enter service in 2008, two years after Airbus' mammoth 555-seat A380 is expected to be ready for service."
Cool-looking projects should never be canceled.
sPh
With major airlines folding, profit margins slim, a bear market because of any number of reasons, and a new highly expensive plane. I mena you do the math... what major airline is gonna want to dump a bunch of money into basically untested hardware that doesn't have a safety record while attempting to pay out stock dividends. If I were in charge of a major airline I wouldnt consider picking this up for now either. Now if the airline industry gets a major rebound then is the time, just not right now in this shitty economy.
There has been a lot of rumbling in the aerospace industry that Boeing is a sick company. I wanted to believe that they were wrong because Boeing was getting out the Sonic cruiser and the Delta IV rocket (their successful EELV design). It looked to me at the time that the the people claiming such were just wanking and wanting a Big Aerospace (tm) to choke. (there is an undercurrent in some aerospace circles, not unlike some software circles that being BIG is bad).
Part of the reason I had thought that Boeing's Sonic Cruiser would do well is because, frankly, they'd been saying they'd had the airlines lined up from the get-go. However, Post 9/11 might have changed some airlines minds.
Which just sucks. IDK about the rest of you, but when I get on a trans atlantic flight, I'd *LOVE* for it to take only 80% of the time it would have.
Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
The Sonic Cruiser, while cool-looking, is not that much faster than today's aircraft -- it would only cut one hour off the flight time from LA - NYC. It is still sub-sonic. More efficient airport procedures on the group, on both sides could probably cut at least an hour off the total travel time just as well.
Personally, I feel the airline industry could do with being shaken up a bit. The basic business model hasn't changed at all in the past 40 years. It's simply a case of sell tickets as cheaply as possible by putting as many people as you can onto a plane.
Nothing wrong with this in principle - it works, and it drives the costs of flights down. It does tend to discourage risk taking though.
Still, it would be nice to give an airline the chance to compete on something other than cost. A faster plane would be preferable to may people than a marginally cheaper ticket. This also would have given greater flexibility since presumably there would be more planes, so flights would be more frequent.
This would also mean that there would be more point to point services. Since two planes can go to two airports, whereas a single 747 can only go to a single airport, requiring a second plane to travel the short distance to the alternative airport (hub and spoke model).
The problem is that history does not bear it out. Successful companies are built when risk-takers (i) come up with good ideas (ii) implement those ideas they way they think is right, regardless of what the spreadsheets say. See the history of General Electric, du Pont, DEC, Microsoft, etc.
Typically those companies start to die when the bean counters arrive and formalize everything with "rate of return" studies. See DEC for the the most extreme example of such a process, and consider that there could never have been a "rate of return" study for Ford Motor Company, since the market Henry Ford wanted to serve did not exist before his company created it.
sPh
come out with a plane that has the following features:
- Sub-space and trans-sonic capability (like the "hypersonic jet" talked about years ago) that would take passengers from NYC to Tokyo in 2 hours. Or at least go as fast as the late, lamented sonic cruiser.
- Explosion-resistant cargo bay to enhance survivability should a bomb make it on board.
- At check-in time, luggage is placed (carefully, gently, by robots) into Mylar-wrapped, bullet-proofed boxes to contain and reduce the impact of bombs. Damage by throwing and dropping will be eliminated by the mechanical process of loading and unloading.
- Detachable passenger cabin; in the event of an extreme emergency, rather than simply falling to the ground or thudding into a mountainside, the passenger and crew compartments would detach from the expendable portions of the craft and huge parachutes would lower them to the surface. Note: the design goal of the plane is survivability, not efficiency.
- 15" LCD displays in every seat, hooked up to satellite internet broadband connections. Unlimited browsing. Headphones would let people listen to streaming media available on the net. Interactive games also available.
- Pilot cabin inaccessible from passenger compartment except through a large, lock-able door. Pilots have guns. Two air marshalls on every flight, armed with guns and non-lethal pacifying tools; they'll be highly paid and well treated (unlike today).
- Vertical takeoff and landing capability for emergencies (or for regular use, if it could be made efficient)
- Any other ideas?
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
"What...people want AFFORDABLE air travel, not super-cool concept planes? Who do they think we are--Airbus?"
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
This seems a bit odd in light of recent moves away from hub/spoke routes toward regional routes. Some pundits have been citing over-reliance on hub/spoke to be part of the major airlines' financial problems. I live off the main track, and flying anywhere used to involve getting to a hub, first. For the past several years, flying anywhere has involved taking a regional jet, either directly to my destination, or to transfer at a non-major-hub airport.
Most of my recent flights have been on a 50-seat jet build in South America. Prior to that, I remember going to/from major hubs on much bigger planes, largely empty. It makes me wonder about the real economy of coming up with an airplane family that starts at 555 seats. IMHO, "eating low" in the airline chain is the way to go.
The new Boeing plane looked interesting in this respect, though I suspect pursuit of greater operating economy is more important than the speed. As someone else mentioned, delays at airports are more important than airspeed to the total travel time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't think going just under the speed of sound is going to cut your travel time in half, although it will reduce it pretty significantly. How much good does that really do, though, when you spend two hours going through security?
I'd rather see more efficient planes than faster planes; given enough fuel savings, the cost of flight might actually come down a bit.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
And, of course, the Sonic Cruiser would have no effect whatever on the time that the typical aircraft spends waiting in line on the ground for a takeoff slot....
...it's been rumored for at least a couple of months. As an aero engineer, I have to say that the project was suspicious from the very beginning. The Sonic Cruiser would have been only fractionally faster from a super-jumbo (say the upcoming A-380): .87 vs .97 Mach (roughly 60-80mph difference) for about a third to a half the number of passengers.
.9 Mach means that the aircraft is smack in the middle of the "transonic" region, where parts of the aircraft would unavoidably be going sonic/super-sonic. The fluid dynamics in that speed region are not that well understood or easy to simulate. In other words, the Sonic Cruiser would have been a lot more expensive to develop for a very small benefits.
More importantly, going near
Maybe Boeing is just going to concentrate on turning the Pelican into a commercial aircraft. The Pelican is twice the size of the 747 (you could play a game of arena football inside it) and is designed to fly cheap, slow, and low --just above sea level. Right now, it's in development for the military, but there are obvious commercial airliner possibilities.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
The cause of the recession was the internet and business traveler protest. The internet allowed casual travelers to get rock bottom prices. Business travelers, who have traditionally paid the costs of the airlines, were becoming increasing angry at the high prices they had to pay, which were often several times that of the casual traveler. If one looks at the pre-9/11 stories, one sees an industry responding to these crisis by dropping prices, dropping commissions, dropping services, and dropping profits.
Add to this other salient facts. Airbus is getting more contracts now, at the expense of Boeing(New Zealand in July). Many travelers who might have the money to fly on these jets are increasingly flying on private jets. Security is a prime justification to purchase private jets. The airline companies that are doing well, like Southwest, are focused of price and a very defined level of service. They do not randomly spend money on new toys.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Their own flight profiles didn't give the range to even accrue a 2 hr savings.
An hour less to London in day and age is trivial. Between ground delays and head winds you can spend over 11-13 hours on a plane going from Heathrow to Dulles. I do.
An A380 is a terrible idea. How many routes are going to be able to support this unless airlines stop offering more than one a day someplace? I mean look like if airlines do this then air travel will look more like steamships. Everyone will line up for half a day for the daily flight to who-knows-where.
Airbus and Boeing see the airline market evolving in different directions. Airbus says forecasts show airlines will be expanding the hub and spoke networks as they have been ever since the 747 introduced the idea of a huge airliner. Being sees more trend for direct flights, such as the cheap and profitable Southwest (USA) and Ryanair (Europe).
Hub and spoke requires big airliners to crowd ever more people into airports at the same time so they can make connections. Passengers like the connectivity but can't stand the cattle car planes and mammoth terminals and transfer problems; when airlines don't keep to their schedule, people miss connections.
Direct flights require more airplanes but smaller ones. People like the direct flights and smaller airplanes, but you can't get the same coverage as with hub and spoke. Direct flights skim the cream, sort of, and have been one of the reasons for the growth of regional airlines with small turboprop planes, which fill in the connectivity.
As for which will win out, my personal guess is that hub and spoke is reaching its limits, and bigger planes will be needed to keep them going. But these will only replacements for the current big planes, not new growth, because you can only get so many planes into one airport at the same time. True growth will be in direct connections, because these don't have to be prime time flights.
Also, business travel is the one that requires flights all around the clock, and especially the prime time flights, whereas tourists are more willing to take off peak flights and save money. Business travel is probably going to shrink as video conferencing, email, etc, takes the sting out of needing face to face meetings. Whereas tourism will only grow. I see this as favoring direct flights.
I believe, personally with not much facts, and not being in the industry, that Boeing has the right long term outlook, but things will change so slowly that the Airbus 380 will still sell well enough to pay for itself. It just won't have the impact of the 747. Airbus is following the old trend to its conclsuion, Boeing is going with the long term growth.
Infuriate left and right
There was an interesting article in a recent BusinessWeek magazine (sorry, online version requires subscription) that discussed the internal fighting going on about the future of Boeing's commercial aircraft division.
There is large support from some for the full development of a Blended Wing Body (BWB) airliner, and there are significant arguements for that development. The concept is over 50 years old (Northrop), the current design is at least 10 years old (acquired when Boeing bought McDonnell), and an implementation exists as the B-2 stealh bomber. There is very high interest from airlines and the military due to lower operating costs (more people, less fuel), increased payload, and ability to operate within current airports. Reportedly one airline has offered to pitch in $1 billion to develop the concept further, and the thought is that Boeing could get the US Government to grant at least several $billion more, since the plane has military applications.
The opposing side (unfortunately including the head of Boeing's commercial aircraft business) seems to really dislike the BWB, and favor(s/ed) the Sonic Cruiser. Tube and wings approach. The BWB isn't "sexy" enough. They claim that the downsides of the BWB are no windows for most passengers, and too much pitch in turns for the outside passengers (far from the roll axis). The first really is a silly reason to shelf a revolutionary idea, and computer simulations show that the second isn't really a problem if the pilot doens't act like he is flyinhg a fighter plane. Problem is, no one really WANTS the thing. It has increased fuel requirements (operating costs) for a small speed gain, and the airlines can't see the benefit to their bottom line.
The thrust of the article was that Boeing, or at least the pro-BWB faction inside Boeing, should keep up the research and development, keep pitching the idea upward (where *some* senior Boeing management seem to be keen on it - Phil Condit (CEO) for one).
Now that the Sonic Cruiser has been canned, it will be interesting to see if the other (r)evolutionary design, the BWB, gains traction and sees a greater chance of production.
Hmmm, lets see SouthWest, Blue, Rynair, Easy Jet profitable. Everybody else sick! SouthWest, Blue, Rynair, Easy Jet REALLY CHEAP tickets = profitable...
No I think the reason why the other airlines are on the edge is because they mismanaged their companies. They focused on the wrong things and result they are totally unprofitable....
9/11 may have taken some hits, but not as much as the airlines are whining about...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Boeing sure knows how to keep people excited about their products. Why, their new five year product will look exactly like a 767/757/707/Airbus but will get up to 15% better gas mileage. I can see all the little kids lining up to build models of that one to hang in their bedrooms.
Back when Boeing was actually run by people who loved building airliners there were products designed for more than corporate accountants.
Let's look at the Boeing Commercial Jets and what made the cool from a consumer point of view. What got people caring about the planes they flew in. What made Boeing a household name.
707 - First Really Successful Jetliner!
727 - Three Engines! In the Tail! Rear Exit Ramp Built In! WhisperJet Quiet!
737 - Tiny! Landed at little airports where there'd never been jets! Had oval engines!
747 - Huge! Two stories with a spiral staircase! Had a humped body when every other plane was a boring tube!
757 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
767 - Boring. Looks like a 20 year old 707.
777 - Boring. Looks like a 30 year old 707.
747X - New look! Super-huge mega-jet! Killed
Sonic Cruiser - Radical new design! Canards! Higher speed! Killed
High Efficiency - Boring. Will look like a 45 year old 707 with winglets.
The lack of innovation started long ago and blaming it on short term downturns and 9/11 is bogus. American was excited enough about the Sonic Cruiser to pre-order the first two years production just to keep it out of the hands of their competitors. The airlines are desparate for some way to differentiate themselves. Boeing and Airbus, on the other hand, are desperate to prove they can build the same, identical, boring, generic products. Odd, how they're so risk averse when every risk they've taken paid off and every boring generic plane is in a tight fight against Airbus' boring generic planes.
Oh, and as for the efficiency increases, we've seen those in the 737 and 747 upgrades. Perhaps Boeing needs to look around to see why the 737 and 747 fleets are still out there. Perhaps its because those innovative planes actually did something new.
The article mentions flying at 20 feet above the ocean to exploit the effect which makes me wonder how they'll handle the odd rogue wave.
Innovative, exciting projects should never be cancelled.
Boeing used to make the inspiring projects that kids got excited about. And it worked as a business model. There isn't a plane that Boeing did that was risky and innovative that didn't pay off. The 707, 727, 737 and 747 were all radical for their day. And these innovations built Boeing and excited a generation of kids in the 1960s. And these risky designs were hugely successful against a huge number of competitors.
From 1970 on, though, Boeing became risk-averse and has built nothing but 707 look-alikes that have been marginally successful even when they only had one competitor in Airbus.
It's also worth noting that the lack of innovation happened first and the lack of competitors later. It wasn't a lack of competition that killed innovation. It was a lack of innovation that allowed the bean counters to drive each other out of a generic business.
The latest Aviation Leak has an article on some think tank out of Reston VA who have several interesting ideas to speed loading and unloading. First, a high wing transport with engines above rather than below the wing. This has two benefits: one, engine noise is reflected upwrds by the wing. Two, it can park parallel to the terminal instead of nose in, and the passenger terminal can be ground mounted instead of having to slide out over the wing. To facilitate this parallel parking, they propose castering steerable landing gear, like on a B-52, so the airline can move at least somewhat sideways, even if it still has a forward movement at the same time.
By parking parallel, every door on that side of the airplane coudl be used simultaneously, a tremendous speedup in getting people on and off. The terminals would also be smaller and simpler, and it would be easier to move planes in and out.
Infuriate left and right
Note that while Boeing disclaimed that the Sonic Cruiser design ever had any military applications in mind, observers were quick to point out that many of the features of the proposed design were clearly chosen with military applications in mind, such as the "stealthy" engine inlets.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Rule number one of business:
Don't fix what isn't broken.
Don't build radically new when what you have already works fine.
We don't see radical new car designs every year. Instead, we see minor improvments on last year's model. Or they take a truck and add a van frame and call it an SUV. Or they shorten a van and call it a minivan.
Or they take an existing model and make it cost 15% less to operate.
15% is big. Really big. Less fuel = less cost = cheaper tickets. Would you fly on a "cooler" airbus for 30% more? Perhaps, but probably not. Few people fly first/business class.
Airbus is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
Nope. That's the number one rule of failing businesses. No great business was built by refusing to innovate but a lot of businesses have disappeared by "Don't fix what isn't broken" thinking.
Feel free to show a business that's succeeded by catering to the beancounters while refusing to innovate for the end-user. Really. Good luck in finding one.