Tuesday, July 2, 2013

The Death Of The (Super) Jumbo

Kudos to Aspire Aviation Article, a must read:


Even though, a blog tries to make a thesis and go and support that thesis with whatever facts it can find, it sometimes loses its way with many bits and pieces. Aspire Aviation Article linked above,  has put out a nice effort on what I have tried to say these last months. Boeing has a strategy, and its not about beating the A380 or the A350,but offering a better way to do airline business. A just in time-like approach and mentality. That is to say give the customer exactly what it needs to succeed in a careful and precise approach in the right time. One manufacturer may want to design by pride, a bigger and bigger aircraft, but is that what the customers really needs or "wants"?  Boeing has tried the "need" approach for its models, over the want approach of its competitors. Rather than trying to rebuild the worlds airports, Boeing has suckered Airbus by tempting it with its own pride of building everything Boeing does, but bigger. Examples:

A350 bigger than the 787
A380 bigger than the 747
A340 bigger than the 777-200
A330 bigger than the 767. 

Is this * * momentum?

The PT Barnum approach will draw crowds at airshows but will have difficulty meeting the corporate need models. Aspires article makes a compelling case for Boeing's strategy. Now that Airbus planes and plans are locked into the manufacturing  frame, Boeing has come out with the X Factor consistent with its over-all and over-arching design approach.

If this were a prize fight, Airbus keeps throwing "hay makers" and missing, and Boeing keeps jabbing away with solid jabs and wearing down European factory space.  Going into the tenth round, the X punch is coming.  Go ahead Airbus sell more airplanes in your bigger model circus tent. Ethiopian Airlines likes the precision of landing a bag of money at "every" airport. The Boeing X punch is outlined in ASPIRES article.

Here is a sample of the X punch from Boeing by Aspires article:By Daniel Tsang

  • 787-10 to have better fuel burn per seat than A350-900
  • 320-seat 787-10′s economics unrivalled & unparalleled against a de-rated A350-900
  • 787 production ramp-up beyond 10/month “a foregone conclusion”
  • 777X EIS postponed to 2nd quarter 2020
  • 777X internal widening craves out frames between floor and overhead bins
  • 777X internal widening to feature reduced frame web height & thickness of insulation
  • 777X to have a small door immediately after Door 3 for servicing galleys
  • 777X small door necessitated by Door 3′s close proximity to trailing edge of the wing even with retracted flaps
  • GE9X engine to be the largest engine ever built by GE"
Okay, I have a bullet point addiction, am I'm in recovery with this article. It only has 9 points, but I could have gone for more by adding some.

"These moves are designed to contain the rise of the Airbus A350 XWB (extra widebody) aircraft family, whose successful 4 hours and 5 minutes first flight on 14 June and a second test flight 5 days later paved the way for its fly-by on 21 June, the last day of the Paris Air Show. Ironically, it is exactly the increasing momentum of the A350 programme, including the largest 350-seat A350-1000 variant which saw United Airlines converting its previous order for 25 -900s into the larger version plus another 10 new orders, that has put a renewed impetus for Boeing to launch the revamped 777 later this year.

However, once the 777X is launched, most likely at November’s Dubai Air Show, the competitive landscape in the widebody segment is poised to be altered as the final piece of the puzzle falls into place, with the 787-10 being the uncontested leader in the medium to long-haul A330-200, -300, A340 and 777-200ER (extended range) replacement market whereas the 407-seat 777-9X and 353-seat -8X will eclipse the A350 aircraft family by offering the perfect mix of growth opportunities, frequencies and cargo capacities at the former aircraft, as well as the latter providing an ultra long-haul range with a decent amount of payload that makes once economically unfeasible routes possible."
This has been my inner thought for awhile. Thank you Aspire for a piece that outlines this point so well.

When the European Giant's research team is done reading the Aspire article, they will understand that its own plane in the frame does not gain the fame.
(Sorry for my irrational behavior :( ...  : )