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.
i like to code when i am high, now i can do that without going to my local dealer..
The lunatic is in my head
Now people can fill out their "Mile High Club" membership forms before landing...
Sorry, not interested in browering during a plane trip, but as soon as they install a brewery I'll be the first to buy a ticket!
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
In other words, the planes will be flying cubical farms!
www.eFax.com are spammers
Boeing has to come with something new. This year will probably be the first year that Airbus will sell more planes than Boeing.
Well, maybe it is. When you read the article you will see that one of the plane's selling points is greater fuel efficiency/lower operating costs. It 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.
This post is dedicated to all of those
Here is the link to the 7E7 site on boeing webpage. It has a few mock-ups so you can see what it looks like.
Great Linux Site
You think they'll make a special "Fly along with your captain." version of MS Flight Simulator?
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
The Sonic Cruiser idea was to take a bunch of process and technology improvements that Boeing have developed and at the SAME cost of operations, create a bigger/better/faster plane.
Same Money, More Zing!
But nobody wanted to buy it...
SO! This NEW plane, takes the same new developments, and essentially creates a plane that fits in a current purchasing slot and (MAIN POINT HERE) costs 25% less to run.
Airlines will buy this plane in droves because it will be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper to run, saving a fortune in jet fuel. 25% decrease in costs means a realistic chance of getting your profits back, which given the current world situation, is a big selling point.
The plane will sell itself. Stuff the internal features. That's just fluff.
Enjoy
--sig fault--
Boeing moved from Seattle to Chicago in 2000.
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?
There is almost nothing new with this airplane. Its baiscally a modernized 757/767 with more fuel-efficient engines and light-weight material. Similar materials are used on the Airbus A380. I am not an airbus fan, but something like the A380 is just way more spectacular than this. Even the new 747-800 that was just announced is a way cooler airplane.
E for e-enabled? Come on! Conexxion by Boeing can be put into pretty much every Boeing and probably most other major aircraft as well. I had a lot of fun on Lufthansa LH418 surfing the net 30000 feet above Iceland and I would really like to see this on every long-haul flight. But there's no need for a new airplane to offer this, its already there. Lufthansa will soon offer this on most of their trans-atlantic flights.
They rely on marketing to make this plane look like something so spectacular that it deserves a "real" name (not sticking to the 7x7 tradition). But the technology is plain boring. I can understand their decision, given the current market situation, but trying to sell this as something extraordinary is prettty dumb.
This company is annoucing plans for a product that does not exist. I'm guessing they're doing this so that other airlines don't order from Airbus in the next few years before this plane is ready. This sounds like the game some technology companies played and lost big. Think Osborne.
Since a lot of companies are moving away from hub and spoke systems, it's going to be tough for Boeing until they have more offerings outside the long haul market.
"Cut codes" is an appropriate phrase to describe the Muncing (now there's a good slang) I do to remove the unnecessary complexity often found in "noobs" coding (and often the source of the bugs). "Simplicity is Elegance"
Not that it was quite a brewery, but the now defunct Swissair did roll a barrell of beer into the first - and business class cabin on a flight to Chicago.
Not that I really needed a beer at that time, but the concept was so intriguing, that I er! topped off my slightly intoxicated state.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
How can anything solve Boeing's sales problem when there's whole fleets of aircraft sitting idle in the desert?
I'd have thought the airlines will bring those back into service before they start buying new planes.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
You're dreaming.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
'cut codes'? You mean 'write computer programs'?
Am I getting old? Or have you just been reading wayyy too many cyberpunk novels?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
According to the current issue of the Economist, it's not what you build, it's how you bribe.
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
#include "/plane_stuff/fly-by-wire/777.h"
I think Boeing has identified the following rationales for the 7E7 design:
1. A lot of older widebody twin-engine airliners are going to have to be replaced before 2010. The older Airbus A300B2/B4 models are starting to be phased out from airline fleets, as are the older production 767's dating from the early to mid 1980's.
2. The plane's very modern use of aerospace materials will mean relatively low weight of the plane carrying 200-250 passengers, lowering the fuel burn on a seat-mile basis. This means lower fuel costs on routes anywhere between 2,000 to 7,500 nautical miles.
3. Because the 7E7 will use contemporary aerodynamic research, the plane could actually fly faster than the 747-400, if the right engine design can be found. This means the possibility of Mach 0.89 to 0.90 cruise speed, which offers most of the benefits of the Sonic Cruiser with far technical risk in terms of new technology needed.
4. The plane will offer Boeing's Connexion broadband Internet access system as standard on the longer-range models. Imagine being able to access the Internet at minimum one megabits per second download speed in flight.
I think you'll be surprised how many airlines actually DO want a more efficient medium to long range 200-250 seat airliner with reasonably high cruise speeds. While the Airbus A330-200 has been a sale success, the plane is still too heavy and big for many airlines and its cruise speed still can't keep up with the Boeing 777-200ER's and 747-400's that dominate longer range flying today.
Because the 7E7 is Boeing's latest vaporware. Yes, vaporware exists in other industries, not just I.T.
I am not sure if Boeing is currently supplying anything major to the USAF, but there is probably still an internal conflict of interests.
To sell more commercial jets, they need world peace and real (not percieved) end to terrorism. They can pursue this by lobbying and puching the US administration in the direction of sanity.
However, if their military contracts bring more money, there is more profit in pushing in the opposite direction.
A320 A330 ranges etc.
The difference is that Airbus have been giving their customers what they are asking for and Boeing have been giving customers what they've got.
EasyJet are a prime example of a company switching to Airbus A319s over 737s because the operating costs are significantly lower.
http://www.easyjet.com/EN/about/aircraft.html
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
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.
Erm no it didn't; the tail was recovered in two pieces, the main structure of the tail and the rudder itself. What was unusual was that the rudder had cleanly separated from the tail.
The tail of that airliner passed all airworthiness checks and has been found to have exceeded its design requirements.
Flight 587 had flown into the wake turbulence of a JAL 747, the pilot followed normal procedures and tried to stabilise his aircraft using the ailerons, which is standard procedure.
When that failed, he used the tail rudder five times to add extra force to his corrections. These imposed enormous strains on the tail structure which was torn off of the aircraft.
Again, the tail did not fail because of any structural weakness, it failed because a load was imposed on the structure that lay outside of the design parameters. Such loads had never been anticipated during the design process, nor had they been experienced before this crash.
American Airlines and Airbus are still fighting over who is to blame. AA claim that Airbus withheld information about the upper limits of forces that can be applied to their airliners, Airbus say that AA did not train their crews correctly.
However, guidelines have been sent to all airlines and the operators of all types of airliner informing them of the possibility of failure of the tail during excessive rudder movements.
And remember that Airbus aren't alone in discovering unexpected behaviours in their airliners. The Boeing 737 seems to have suffered a number of crashes resulting from excessive or abberent rudder movements; notably United flight 585 in Colorado and US Air flight 427 in Pennsylvania.
Best wishes,
Mike.
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.
Airbuses glide too: link - landed at night as well.
There are no backups for multiple engine failure on any dual-engine airliner - one engine backs up the other, and that's it. Having a backup engine wouldn't help anyway if you've run out of fuel, which (believe it or not) is the main cause of all-engines-fail on big airliners (and it isn't considered near-impossible, there are many documented occurences).
I think one possibility is that Boeing may be pushing for sales of airplanes based on the 7E7 design to the USAF.
This means air-refuelling tankers, 2-3 VIP transports, a combination AWACS/JSTARS airborne radar platform and Electronic Intelligence/Signals Intelligence (ELINT/SIGINT) planes to replace the aging RC-135W/X fleet.
"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
The idea is to move into markets which aren't served by massive jumbos and couldn't fill one anyway.
Look at the Atlantic market. Used to be you had to go to NY or Boston to fly to the UK then into only London. Now 757s, 767s, and 777s leave from smaller US cities for smaller UK cities. (Phoenix to London anyone?)
Boeing is betting that the Asian market will start looking more like the Atlantic market in the late 90s than the superhub hub dominated Atlantic market of the 70s and 80s. They figure that the A380 will be more jet than these markets need or want.
Yes. It's a current model.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
re:Not only is Boeing trying to compete with what many consider is an inferior product...
IMO,
If you mean Boeing's products are inferior, I have to strongly disagree. I have flown both and find that on the issue of quality, Boeing has a significant advantage. Boeing also have a better approach to automation. However, Airbus are more afordable and cheaper to operate and maintain because they have achieved commonality (training, maintainence, parts) across models that Boeing have yet to achieve.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
I don't think it is different models, it is different market segments. There was a (probably) market for one new huge plane, but not two. Building two A380 class machines would have guaranteed huge losses for both. So Boeing and Airbus arm-wrestled for about eight years to decide who would do it. But actually, it was a one-way bet: Boeing would be cannibalising the market for its 747, whereas Airbus had nothing to fear. The only worry was that Boeing, bysouping up the 747 one more time, could take enough off the bottom of the A380 market that it would not make the break-even volumes. But eventually Airbus jumped, and Boeing backed down.
So where now? They tried the "faser" route, and tha answer was a big yawn. So now they try the cheaper route. Their 757 and 767 are already being beaten up by Airbuses A330/340. It doesn't look as if they would have much market left for those in, say, five years time. I think they are expecting to get something like 20% better mileage-per-seat than the Airbus products - and over the lifetime of an aircraft, that is a lot of fuel.
The alternative, I suppose, would to have been to have gone down a size and replaced the 737 to compete with the Airbus A318/319/320/321 family. But I could believe that there is not so much economy to be screwed out of these short-hoppers by new technology. And if the killed the 737, they would risk losing the "single type" airlines such as Southwest to Airbus.
If they can deliver what they promise, and if Airbus don't manage to retrofit the same technological improvements onto their products, I can see it working for Boing. But the next few years are going to be "Interesting Times" for the company.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
One of the features of this aircraft (from other sources) is that the top half of the fusalage (passenger bit) is slightly bigger that the bottom half (cargo bit), rather than a perfect circle (777) or symmetrical double bubble (767). That gives you an inck more seat width per passeger - which, from a tall fat git, matters. Of course, they can also use those inches to give wide aisles for faster turnaround...
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
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.
The main problem Boeing is facing is that Airbus has the most efficient long haul carrier as of right now. The 7E7 is expected to be ~20% more efficient than Airbus' long hauler.
Several people here have asked a couple of questions that I think need to be addressed:
1) How is this going to solve Boeings sales problems?
Well, this is not expected to be a cure all for Boeing. Being 20% more efficient than Airbus' best long haul carrier will go a long way to making inroads for sales. Other things being done by Boeing include redesigning the 737 (a short range carrier) with winglets and new composite materials to reduce weight and creating new version of the 747 (the 400ER). The first 400ER was just delivered to Korean Airlines this week.
Internationally, there are other reasons Boeing has a hard time competing.
2) How can Boeing design a plane in such a short time?
I saw someone answer that large reuse of old designs, such as using the same general airframe and what not, made it possible. The problem is that the 7E7 does not use the standard 7x7 airframe. The standard is usually called a double bubble and if you look at any previous 7x7 you will see what I mean. The 7E7 will have a single bubble airframe. This is a new design for Boeing.
How will they develop the plane so fast? Two ways: First a large portion of the electronics and other interior assemblies are being contracted out to other companies. Boeing will act as a large system integrator. Second, Boeing learned how to overcome the prototype manufacturing problems that crop up when moving from paper to the "real thing" with the 777. Using Catia and some other CAD programs Boeing can assemble a plane on computer before assembling it in real life thus allowing them to fix all the pieces that do not properly fit before manufacture. This used to be a major factor in the time to market for planes.
3) How internet ready will it be?
Probably as internet ready as some of Boeings other planes.
Hey, this new aircraft is internet-enabled!
/* new headers for 7E7 */
So it will look like this:
#include "boeing/obsolete/777.h"
#undef FLIGHT_SECURITY
#include "windows.h"
re:Of course, if the personnel costs are too high (like United), nothing will help.
Have you looked at those costs lately. Have you looked at them throughout the century. Do more homework than just reading USA Today. Just so you know, I'll be working half again as many hours for 45% less money. I'm not complaining- just want you to know some facts. It seems common practice to bash (rightly sometimes) labor and ignore (wrongly most of the time) management's missteps. Can't think of any examples of management misdeeds? How 'bout a recent one: American's senior mngt greed got Carty fired about a month ago. Another one: Delta's CEO Leo Mulin was pretty well compensated for an unprofitable airline screaming about need of labor savings- even the politicians thought so. There's much more but I've most likely lost your attention. Do a Google search, but remember how slanted towards business the big media are.
Go here: http://www.alpa.org/ for a different perspective.
Lastly, be careful what you ask for. If you pay chump wages, you'll get chump product. This goes for software as well as pilots and mechanics. Do you really want the guy flying you somewhere to be a novice who quits for better pay just at the point where his experience becomes valuable to your safety? Flying is very safe, but its not because of management's drive to reduce costs and put pesky labor in its place!
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
" 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.
Good question. I would say the answer to that is the same as for a user of any product, be it an airplane or even a software application. Any user can be a judge of the quality of the product in question simply by using it. The relevance of their opinion can be assessed by their perspective, training and experience.
To elaborate on my previous comment, I was speaking not from the perspective of a pasesnger but from that of the pilot. I have flown (piloted and passengered) both Boeing (737,757,767,777) and Airbus(A319,A320) and I stand by my opinion that Boeing build aircraft of a higher quality, and furthermore, are less difficult to operate (pilot).
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?