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
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.
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.
...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
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
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.
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.