Boeing couldn't build the 787-300 before it built the 787-800. Its common sense, establishing the benchmark first before defining a cross-over model. A 787-300 had nothing to hold it up like a book-end. No need for a cross-over in 2005. When considering an off-road vehicle or a rugged extra wide cab ranch pickup truck while first building a crossover wouldn't make any sense. How can you make a crossover for suburbia without a trail rated jeep coming first?
Boeing is building a single-aisle 737-900 NG-Max for the urban sensibilities until the ultimate interurban transporter is made. It must look and act like the 787, while becoming the 757 Super Utility Modality known as SUM, and act like a compliant business tool. It’s the SUM of all its parts from Boeing that is what's missing! The venerable 757 is going to the scrap heap in a workmanlike manner. Boeing accidentally tapped the inter-urban SUM market a long time ago and it misidentified the big opportunity by canceling the 757 in 2005. Now it’s faced with a European knock-off jet in the likes of an A321. Boeing, having no articulation on the subject other than "we're good with the 737 and current 787 line-up".
I give Boeing three slaps in the forehead, and three consecutive expletives of "Come On" awarded in a row with its 757 public sentiments. Outstanding, missing how the much loved the 757 is and was! Boeing doesn't need another 757 for its replacement. It needs the abandoned 787-3 remade. A twin aisle replicator for passengers who are dependent on business and pleasure rewards. The airplane crossover concept is a brilliant reminder of soccer moms and grocery getting in the ground world. Big enough to haul the neighbors to school and awesome enough to go on vacation, looking somewhat like the newly Iconic looking 787-9.
Crossing over from single-aisle two duo aisle isn't hard to do, "Neil Sedaka". Boeing needs this gap filler taking off from medium-sized airports going all the way to San Jose while queuing the music along the way. South West Airlines are you listening? It could take you all the way to South West of Hawaii.
The assigned spot is 220 seats, the assigned range is 6,000 miles. It’s a crossover from single to dual aisle. It has the quaintness of single-aisle gawking and the room of seven across for urban sensibilities. It hangs 100 million on the airline customer for each replication it purchases. It crosses-over everything good about Boeing's manufacturing conceptualization even though it is not as wide as the 787-8 or its counterpart. It’s very roomy for the number of seats, and it makes money for everyone even the passengers having sensibly priced tickets for the same commonalities with the 787 family.
Having it bigger than the 737-9, doesn't mean the 737-9 extra-long single aisle is dead. Nor does it threaten the 787-800. The 787-3 has the 787 aggressive design signature for long haul, yet providing the inter-urban frivolity for city hopping, in high density 1-5 thousand mile routes. This crossover is what an airline makes of it, as it defines the low cost of operation.
“It was once stated the 737 single aisle would not benefit from the lighter weight frame of plastics for the offset of development cost compared with the efficiencies gained from new technological advances on metal frames. It was also observed at the time, the 787 was still an unproven concept, and the risk was too high to go with all plastic airplane models top to bottom. Wise people thought the 787 must matriculate to its completeness and demonstrate performance maximums, before proceeding to the next model. This is witnessed with both metal 737 Max and Partial metal 777X models. Boeing's approach is cautious on technology implementation since its "787 Moon Shot". They have the Golden Fleece in hand with the 787 and will not go hunting for another overhaul of design and airplane evolution in my own lifetime.
A 787-3 “new version” for medium body design will have added manufacturing tooling cost for both the supplier and Boeing. But it's not groundbreaking, thus less expensive than doing a 787-3 in 2005. It has all the carryforwards from both the MAX, 787 and 777X programs. It has all the designs lessons learned from the last 10 years. They have the opportunity of repaying already sunk cost on advance technology needing repayment. Boeing could use a crossover program development accessing paid for technology, which it installed in the 787. Engine technology keeps getting better every day. A downsized 787-8 and upsized Max-9 has a 1,000 airplane sales target which would turn a profit for Boeing and compliment both models. All Boeing has to do is find charter customers from China to San Jose within in the Pacific Rim to make it so.
It becomes a financial shim wedged in, securing both new models from the Airbus nitpicking on the edges. It's why they call it, the 757 the Gap filler for so long. Now that the 767 has stopped commercial passenger production and the 787 replaces it. The Gap must be addressed before further market erosion occurs. Go ahead, call it a "Gap Filler", cannon fodder, or a lost production leader. The gap must be filled! It’s just as important as the front line players when churning out numbers. My own opinion within is just an "I told you so" effort for Boeing, and having said so, I can sleep better tonight. A 787-3 is an investment for selling all models of aircraft at a higher rate, rather than compartmentalizing a 787-3 as a no-go because it doesn't stand on its own. This is a false assumption because Boeing is a SUM of all its parts! A 787-3 revised model then becomes the SUM of all Boeing's parts making the corporation more successful. But make it a mid-body, two-aisle interurban, and hub-busting mover. Ryanair’s expansion is a plan solved with the 787-3.
No comments:
Post a Comment