Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Moves Towards New Planes
maliabu writes "Boeing has named its new plane DreamLiner with plans for its future, which is set to fly in 2008. It'll be interesting to see how 'internet-ready' this 7E7 is. It can be very entertaining for all ages as you can brower the net, check emails, weather, watch movies (on demand), listen to music (on demand) or even cut codes some 30,000 feet in the sky! These articles also stated that "The 200-seat 7E7 is meant to replace [a faster plane called] Sonic Cruiser as Boeing's next new major commercial initiative" " I think most people following the airplane builders knew the Sonic Cruiser was dead before birth; but I still don't see how this plane is going to solve Boeing's sales problems.
As someone working in the aerospace industry I cannot help but wonder: how do these guy expect to develop such a plane in such a very short time? Unless it is heavily based on an existing design. Usually it takes up to 10 years to bring a plane up to production.
Anybody some information about that?
I work for Qantas, and right now the forward bookings for the next six months are down approx. 60% compared to previous years (because of Terrorism, SARS, SLOPS (severe lack of perspective syndrome)). Not sure we'll be needing new planes anytime soon.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
is being aimed precisely at airlines that are being forced to become more efficient in order to stay afloat. And Boeing is expecting the first sales to be to Asian airlines anyway.
It's a gamble. Both Boeing and Airbus have realized that airlines want flexibility to cater to different passenger mixes on different routes. Airbus are going after the few-large-planes model: an A380 can sit 800 passengers in an all-economy configuration, or 550 in a mixed configuration that also includes entertainment facilites like shops (or casinos or bars or whatever). The stretch A380 will be able to seat 1000 in all-economy. It gives the airlines the ability to take advantages of economies of scale on busy routes for low fares, or to customize their aircraft into a premium service for people who are willing to pay. For example, when the economy picks up, it will be easy to attract investment bankers to fly from London to SF on a plane that has proper conference facilities (meeting rooms, comms, etc). Flat(ish) beds in business class are great for the redeye, but what if you could have showers too? And so forth...
Boeing are going after a different kind of flexibility, the many-small-planes model. The idea behind Sonic Cruiser was a premium for a faster service on mid-haul routes. The Dreamliner may be meeting a need that doesn't exist; certainly Asian airlines are huge fans of large airliners, they have the passenger numbers and distances that justify them. But the Dreamliner is in a bit of a funny niche. It has some of the facilities on board that business travellers would pay for - but without the amenities that allow the airlines to generate revenue actually in flight. If they all come kitted out with the fancy comms, how do you cater to budget travellers, especially on short haul routes where no-one really cares about entertainment anyway? You might be able to use them profitably on some business routes (i.e. London to Frankfurt) where everyone on board is a business traveller, but for a mixed load of business people and vacationers (say London to NYC) does Dreamliner cater to all those budgets?
I think that Airbus have the right idea, apart from the fact that the A380 standard - let alone the stretch - is so damn big that it will require upgrades to airport infrastructure to handle it. Everything from being able to board and deplane through existing terminals to just being able to park them in a hangar! But for mid to long haul routes, they're pretty compelling. I just don't see where Dreamliner fits in - too elaborate for short to mid, not elaborate enogh for mid to long and long.
Many of those older aircraft are too expensive to fly today. Factor in the cost of bringing those planes up to scratch, retrofitting them to comply with steadily tighter emissions and noise regulations, the higher fuel consumption, and the added costs for each plane type you have in service (you need pilots and mechanics current in each aircraft type, for instance). It turns out it's cheaper to buy new planes instead.
/Janne
Most of those aircraft will never fly again.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
The problem for Boeing is of course that the new Airbus models offer similar savings, and is substantially further along in orders and deployment. THe droves have so far failed to materialize.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
It seems to me that maybe Boeing is producing too little too late. As the Airbus representative said, "This is a market where we already have an airplane." And weâ(TM)re talking 5 YEARS away from rolling off the assembly line. They havenâ(TM)t even chose a site for manufacturing yet!
So it seems to me they have a few things to get ironed out if they have any chance of competingâ¦.
A) Tall people on 20-hour trans-Atlantic flights NEED MORE LEG ROOM! (Iâ(TM)m 6â(TM)3â or 195 cm) Iâ(TM)d WEEP FOR JOY and never ride in a competitorâ(TM)s plane again if I stepped aboard and found that I could comfortably plant my ass in a seat without having to put myself in uncomfortable positions to accommodate my long legs.
B) Some sort of ACTUAL reclining would be nice. Iâ(TM)m sure its possible to allow just as many people to board a flight and provide a little comfort without the fear that youâ(TM)re cramping the passenger behind you even more.
C) Iâ(TM)m sure all those 6 figure a year making brainy-boys out at Boeing could do a little tinkering and figure out SOME way of allowing passengers to use assorted electronic gadgetry on flights without causing nose-dives and fiery apocalyptic deaths for everyone on board. Perhaps some sort of array of jacks on the back of the seats that would allow all outgoing and incoming transmissions from said gadgetry to be channeled through a single antennae or array that could be monitored and checked against the data coming to the pilot in the cockpit, thereby avoiding disaster and making customers happier.
D) Do something about the food. Good lord you could excavate a TV dinner from the 1970s out of a landfill, heat it up and it would be more palatable than the garbage they serve on some flightsâ¦*cough cough* United *cough cough*
In my infinitely humble opinion, if Boeing would catch on to consumer demand and implement a few or all of these suggestions theyâ(TM)d be able to truly revolutionize the airline industry and make a few billion in the process and thus enhance shareholder confidence along with personal assets!
Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
The planes from both Airbus and Boeing have "economy", "standard" and "luxury" seating configurations. Guess which configuration gets used by the airlines most.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Why? Why? Why?
Simple. Boeing spent already paid for the new design software that allows them to build without prototypes in the 777 program. Yes, it seems like waste of money to go through the process to design an aircraft that, at the moment, most airlines aren't likely to use. Maybe it is, but it's a gamble, as an earlier poster pointed out.
Consider this. Your primary competition is subsidized by Europoean governments. They've been touting a 747-killer (the 4xx program) for a couple of years now. Believe it or not, the 747 was (and is, depending on the routes) an extremely profitable aircraft for the airlines. Most of your money comes from cargo on overseas routes. 777s and 767ERs can't match that, though they do have a lower per-seat operational cost.
You have to have a practical edge to sell to your customers, even when the market is bad. You own the small/midsize market around the world and even in Europe. Sure, the subsidized company takes a bite of your sales. What you can't have is Airbus eclipsing your technological superiority.
As an added issue, you can't wait until the market appears for the new aircraft. You have to gamble, because modern airliner programs take years to produce a big, soaring hard part. If you wait, Airbus will step in with a new, closer-to-production product, and the preliminary orders will go to them.
Could Boeing do a better job? Well, sure. Any company can. But don't forget that Boeing created the affordable jetliner era (707), the jumbo jet market (747) and the long-range Pacific-certified twin market (777). McDonnell Douglas gets the nod for the small jet market (DC-9), but they're now part of Boeing. So, they don't have an awful track record at picking markets. The added benefit is that Airbus tends to follow the Boeing lead, so they have to spend money on similar design programs in case Boeing hits paydirt.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Airbus is a fly-by-wire plane. Isn't the fly-by-wire computer supposed not to let the pilot perform actions that are outside the specifications for the airframe?
Well, let's see... airplanes are generally divided up into three main parts: airframe, propulsion, and controls. The 7E7 is an all new airframe (likely of primarily composite construction for the first time in a commercial aircraft), will use all new engines (significantly more efficient than any existing engines), and will be only the second Boeing aircraft to use fly-by-wire controls (previously used by Boeing only on the 777). In other words, in comparison to the 757 and 767 which it will be replacing, you could hardly be more wrong. It may not be a sexy or cool airplane to you, but airlines and aircraft manufacturers don't make money or stay in business by pursuing what geeks think is sexy or cool. Boeing's 7E7 makes very good business sense (or at least it would if the airlines weren't in such financial trouble) by being a significant, evolutionary improvement over existing aircraft in a well-defined and profitable niche.
In comparison, the Sonic Cruiser or Airbus' A380 are designs that can only succeed by creating a new market niche. If Airbus is lucky in that gamble, they'll do ok; but they are at high risk of falling on their faces -- even if you think their plane is cooler.
"I still don't see how this plane is going to solve Boeing's sales problems."
Consider that 800 737s are in the air worldwide at any given time. One 737 takes off every 6 seconds on average world-wide (per the NTSB). Its become the DC-3 of the latter quarter of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st.
Also consider that the 737 is coming to the end of its design lifecycle with the -700 series. And the 757 has been partially superseded by the 767, yet nothing quite fills its old niche (737 too small, 767 too big).
Airlines are looking for cheaper to operate, more fuel efficient aircraft that will lure back the business traveler, in the 180-210 passenger size (which probably constitutes a majority of the revenues for regional and US carriers).
The 7E7 fits that description quite well. So thats why they are spending the money - theres a market for this aircraft, the same market Boeing has dominated with the 737/757, and one that will be opening up by the time this aircraft becomes operational. The biggest gain is in operating efficiency (modular electronics, easier crew servicing of aircraft, etc) and fuel efficiency.
As an example, if United could drop its operating and fuel costs both by 10% annually, it would be profitable to the tune of several hundred million dollars, instead of in bankruptcy court.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Must be an Americanism, over here on the right-hand side of the Pond, Nimrod is the name of a Biblical hunter.
Best wishes,
Mike.
" it will be easy to attract investment bankers to fly from London to SF on a plane that has proper conference facilities (meeting rooms, comms, etc). "
;)
at whet point do tehy relize if they can conduct business while in the sky, why do they have to go at all?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The A300 isn't a fly-by-wire aircraft, the more modern A320 onwards would have prevented such an action.
Best wishes,
Mike.