Thursday, August 31, 2017

Boeing Order Summary August Chart Tests

The final numbers are not in for Boeing's August Order and net numbers. An attempt is made by Winging It, formatting a break out for YTD tracking especially zeroing in on the NG/Max single aisle counts. This chart's intent was to isolate how many 737 NG's are booked as compared with the 737 Max and what customer has contributed to that total. 

Boeing does not break-out single aisle transaction in a clear method where it will only list gross orders in its order book for all types but net adjustments are lost when it updates its website each week or update cycle. However it does show a netting number for both the NG and Max when an update does occur. 

The below chart is an attempt to fill in using a journal type approach for all its orders and adjustments from July 31, 2017 only. The data from January 1, until July 31, does not have a break-out of individual changes to its books from gross to net numbers of aircraft ordered. It does not break out current year or prior year adjustments as a subset but it includes all adjustments applied to current year orders.

 

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Logistics Will Sell the 747-8F

Logistic was a word foreign to me way back in 1990’s, then a working partner introduced the word logistics to my lexicon. What in the heck was Logistics? A quick reach for Merriam Webster dictionary made it clear, that is what we do. A trucking conglomerate uses logistics for managing its fleet at the right time and at the right place with the minimal amount of resources used to make it happen. The next layers keep piling up when considering equipment maintenance, human resource availability or even fueling stops. Before you know it, you have to hire more computers, dispatchers, and customers for continuing for it to work smoothly.

Fed-Ex was a pioneer in the concept of just-in time package processing while using airline hub and route synchronizations. Then another giant UPS went from ground to air sorting scheme in a big way.
Originally, somewhere somebody did a college research project on what logistics can do for you. A belief is that the originator of efficient logistics came to the Fed-Ex business model.

This comes back to a point of why the 747-8F may hang onto having a future. The freight companies must learn how to logistically work outs its kinks before buying a 747-8F. It has to pay for one from its own operation’s cash before placing an order which somehow connects to the word “Logistic”.

Are you ready for the online definition from Merriam Webster?
logistics

noun, plural in form but singular or plural in construction  lo·gis·tics \lō-ˈji-stiks, lə-\

Definition of logistics
1:  the aspect of military science dealing with the procurement, maintenance, and transportation of military matériel, facilities, and personnel
2:  the handling of the details of an operation the logistics of a political campaign

Now, that really clears it up for those trying to find their way to a 747-8F. Another question is why an A-380 could not sell its passenger version as a freighter? The answer is a many fold response so big it had a limited freight airport availability. Airbus did not or could not successfully design an efficient A-380 cargo hold for multi-dimensional cargo loads. It had no front door like the 747-8F.

The list could on, but the idea is that the A-380 is a flying whale where the cheaper 747-8F was already fit for the job from its 747-400F roots. The threshold of payload weight was not much different for the 747-8F than what the A-380 was capable doing. After-all the 747 carried America’s space shuttle on its back. Another point, is freight haulers are not a dime a dozen commodity and has a low ceiling for customer potential for its air frame purchases.

Boeing stole the march against the A-380 from having a better experience while building 747-400-F. The logistics for having an A-380 where too enormous for any freight company. 

Another way of analyzing the A-380; business risks could not make a solid case for any Freight Company, from above in the previous paragraphs suggests.  There are a plethora of technical concerns and other statistical data supporting not buying the A-380 for freight. Hence, the 747-8F stole the slim market away from Airbus at the big end of the freight market. 

The companion 777-F also complimented the 747-8F in a family of large freighters. The final straw was the lucrative 767-F market would not be matched by the A-330-F having a lower purchase costs and right sized capacity. Boeing had a suite of aircraft for any freight haulers logistical nightmares and Airbus has proposed alterations for its commercial passenger aircraft when going into freighter configurations.  

Continued logistical efficiency will increase the probability of more 747-8F’s sales in the future. As the few freight companies learn how to manage the business better by steps in inches, the heavy freight business becomes more active over time. The A-380F can’t wait since it is no longer evolving for its nonexistent customers. The 747-8F is in the logistical cross hairs. The question from the market place is how can “we” stuff more freight through the nose of a 747-8F? Every-other metric is in place from the frame’s operation. It’s down to several freight business factors:

  • Demand for its package delivery timing
  • Demand from aircraft availability and reliability
  • Demand for having operational constants known (experience)

This opens the door for specialty crops from Asia, bulldozers from John Deere and airplane structures from Boeing, just to name a few. The market is a just-in-time logistical nightmare where the floating freight container ships are for those who ship a large quantity anytime for some future trade tied to a seasonal schedule.

The person who studied for a Fed-Ex solution, had a key cog in its wheel. It was air freight. The 747-8F has to stay alive long enough until the market catches-up through learning its how logistics makes it possible.


Saturday, August 26, 2017

Computer Box 101 and the F-35

The F-35 critique must start with "it's no more than a computer box". Also known as the thing that sits on floor plugged into a monitor at your work station. So for future reference, let's call the F-35 the Flying Computer Box or FCB-35.

A 1990's computer box mounted by a screen with a keyboard at its foot pads. 

Image result for personal computer box 1990


Having cleared up how computers have advanced let's look at a 2017 computer Box

Image result for personal computer box 2017

Critiques weigh in, once again it has six sides as did in 1990 so it is a complete fraud and a flop as a operating box.

It is time to look at a 2006 Flying Computer Box, affectionately known as the FCB-35. It can't dogfight, it cost too much and the future adversary has sexier and meaner looking fighters in its development. Its been 11 years since it first flew as shown below.

F-35A off the coast of Northwest Florida.

Not only does it not have a six sided box look, its has six cameras for its pilot virtual reality(distributed aperture if you must look-up). The important lesson submitted is that in 1990 a computer box was just a a computer box without losing its box configuration. While in 2017 the "Box" has become a super computer. It defies logic how a six sided box can change the world during 27 years since 1990.

F-35A off the coast of Northwest Florida.

Below is the year 2044 showing the latest FCB-35 but it has a 10-F upgrade with a new suite of weapons. However, the six eyed beast is one that combatants fear the most.

Its a 2044 flying six eyed monster.
F-35A off the coast of Northwest Florida.

What Changed? The answer came starting with installation 3-F software this September. It can do a full combat suite of bad stuff. What will software version 10-F do? Anything it wants to do as the 2017 entertainment "box" pictured at the top of the page suggests.

Thursday, August 24, 2017

Winging It Recaps Boeing's Summary Orders

The chart below starts with data at end of July 31, 2017 at the masthead


 An order was placed during August updated this day August 24, 2017. August has seen 24 737 ordered by several carriers over-all. The bottom two rows mirror the Boeing recap found on its web site, Boeing .com.

The latest customer for ten Max were ordered by Japan Investment Adviser Co. Ltd as reported by Boeing's website. 

The detail between the 737 NG and Max units is interpolated from Boeing data when backing into a breakout of NG orders vs Max orders which is not provided on Boeing's summary in an out right fashion. Using YTD Boeing information from a model by model gross order count and then applying any reported changes from Boeing reaches a net number by type.

In other words, it becomes a detective like pursuit to find out how many net NG's or Net Max are on order when using Boeing publicized minimal data concurrently with any changes to its order book summary.
 

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

The Great Boeing 787 Pause.



Early on after announcing the 787 Boeing Program, it booked hundreds of 787 numbers. In fact it has booked about 1,278 mid wide body aircraft since first announcing the 787 offering. It then established itself as the leading widebody manufacturer with its 787 production. The important number at this time is the number of delivered 787 and its place in the airline industry market. Below is a summary recap supporting this contribution of entering into a Market pause for medium wide body aircraft during 2017.

Boeing 787 Program Summary August 23, 2017

Boeing is nearing a 50-50 split of 787 Booked to  undelivered in backlog as the above chart reveals a 46% delivered and 54% undelivered. More importantly there are almost 600 787 flying in the airline market today and Boeing should reach that mark by the first part of October 2017. The 582 flying represents a market dominance for this type of aircraft when Airbus just reached the 100 A-350's delivered.

A second point of interest is the backlog for both makers of this class of airplane. The class must meet this criteria: 
  • Mostly composite, 
  • Mostly new technology and 
  • Mostly exclusive engine progress for that type...
 for which both the 787 and A-350 meet these arbitrary points in common.

The A-330 NEO is not part of this recap since it is not composite nor has started significant delivery.

Airbus has booked 848 A-350's and has delivered 100 thus making a backlog for 748 of its medium wide body aircraft. Boeing 's backlog has slipped under the Airbus count by about 50 units in this comparison.

In total the market has about 700 of this type of medium widebody aircraft flying the world routes. This would not include the 767,777 or the A-330's currently flying in this comparison, but does affect the market saturation for this class of medium wide body. 

To further count a number for older medium wide body would enforce the concept that the market has reached somewhat a saturation for medium wide body class of airplane until the airline business plans change or market expansion occurs. The other point is higher fuel prices will install demand for the medium widebody types. The price of fuel has just started a small climb in price, causing airline customer's to carefully watch this indices with its own airline growth.

The chart above suggest a market filling with Boeing's 787's where airbus cannot not compete with airplanes in service at this time. Airbus may "max" out at 10 A-350's built a month within three years where while Boeing can sustain building 12 a per month for its 787 production pace, unless it books greater numbers during the remainder of 2017. It has already booked a net 78 of its 787 this year with more orders hanging.

This brings the comment to the famous book to bill ratio of "1". A definition of book to bill is for every 787 purchased one 787 is delivered in the same accounting period of a year.  However, a moving analysis at this moment has a slight delivery edge (82) over Boeing's 787 booked (78) during 2017. The snapshot book to bill ratio is .95 YTD.  An almost perfect 1 for infinity and beyond. 

As the year comes to a close that ratio will likely dip into the .7's as orders are predicted to be a hit and miss proposition at this time. There are only four more months in 2017 to obtain enough orders (50 needed) to keep pace with its production delivery pace. Boeing would like but will not obtain a "1" book to bill ratio by years end.

This pursuit of a book to bill of "1"  for the 787's also saturates the market place with more 787's by year's end. In two years at this pace of about 140 units a year delivered, Boeing will reach the lofty heights of 850 units flying in the 787 market place, which would be currently equivalent to the the A-350 orders for its A-350 family of aircraft.

When the 787-10 starts delivery, the whole dynamic changes as it will fill a segment where the 787-8 and 787-9 does not occupy. Airbus has its A-350-1000 entering the market stream for which the 777 already occupies. The A-350-1000 goes on long legged routes which is a thin market at this time. When the 777X enters the work place, the A-350-1000 will be so yesterday, even when done in plastic. The 777X is not a 787-10 market replacement. 

The 777X family has out sold the A-350-1000 as Airbus has only booked 212 of its type, and the Boeing 777X has 326 on order from its customers. Boeing neatly bracketed Airbus with its combination of long haul or high density aircraft. The 787-9 shades its performance over the A-350-900 and the 787-10 undercuts the A-350-1000 with its short segment capability. While the 777X has an over-arching flight plan hovering in a strike formation on the A-350 family of aircraft going over its top end.

The above chart goes back to the 1 to 1 book to bill rate with another slant. Look at deliveries to date and then look at the total backlog to date. The backlog is 1.17 over the delivery total exceeding a book to bill ratio of "1". This will erode to a under "1" ratio in time. Boeing will need more sales as the market evolves. It has positioned itself well with that evolution of the market. It has opportunity with rising fuel prices and fleet renewal, as the cheaper classic wide body age out in operation. 

Expansions of fleet will depend on an airline business model taking advantage of new wide body efficiency. In the near term, the driving force for buying wide body would be a fleet replacement need. Sales have slowed for both makers as airlines are doing just fine with classic airplanes flying on lower fuel and air frame prices.


Monday, August 21, 2017

United's Small Body Strategy

United has a plan, but it needs a validation from researching its regional market. Initially it had ordered 65 737-700's in a market filling move. Then it decided that move would be parleyed into a Max Order. United had moved towards new technology at the expense of right sizing its own passenger demand constraints. It is currently reviewing the 100 seat market as its 737 back-order mix consist of airplanes much larger than a 100 seats. United's resources are limited and it can not purchase every line of aircraft when filling its vast market place. 

United's current fleet dichotomy:

Plane spotter's 



Notice the absence of 100 seat aircraft in the above chart. United will have to reconfigure its operation over its whole fleet costing millions/ Billion's?

It needs every kind of aircraft currently offered by every manufacturer selling aircraft. The would include Embraer's, 737 family and Bombardier's using every seat category from 50 to 200 seats. 

It placed its capitol towards the 737 family of aircraft early on its strategic move for small body single aisle. It then converted those 737-700's into a wide array of single aisle orders. Now it is looking at the 100 seat category where the 737-700 would be too large to manage in its small market places. Flying to Kalispell, Mt would be ideal for a hundred seat aircraft with a network of Spokane Wa. Billing's Mt and a Seattle Wa.  This example would mix small towns with large towns with ease and affordability for its customers which a 737 aircraft may not fit its regional footprint for an efficient operation.

United is concerned with fitting a 100 seat aircraft into its fleet mix while having an affordable operations cost.  Control over costs of a non-conforming fleet aircraft is a fundamental concern after having a Boeing main fleet composition. By including a small body Bombardier would wear on the cost efficiency for its operations crew including its maintenance parts, and servicing. This introduction of a small body division could jeopardize the efficiency gained from having fleet commonality.

The airline has to find its way through the maze of options from other manufacturers such as Embraer or Bombardier. This conundrum had bothered the likes of Delta airlines and others as well. A careful path from what the other airlines have etched is a way through the market swamp assisting United's small body aspirations. It only has to figure out how to pay for a non conforming fleet from start to finish within its operational constraints.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Operation Defending Nemo




Image result for nuclear bomb going off

Nuclear capability Classifications:

  • A class one nuclear capability could be structured as a combatant which has land, sea and air (space) capability to deliver a nuclear war head anywhere in the world at any time. It will also have the capability of a sustained attack mode where striking once is not its limit from its nuclear arsenal, while striking repeatedly is in its ability when having robust delivery capability. There are only a few nations who may have this level of nuclear delivery within the entire world scope. Retaliation between two in this class could lead to a planet killing result.


  • A class two nuclear capability, suggest some items are missing from a class one nuclear arsenal and has some limitation for an extensive duration of launch attacks. It also may be missing an element from land, sea or air (space) launches. However, a class two nuclear capability alarms every nation that a strike may exists anywhere in the world for maximum effect. Its sustaining of nuclear attack has a limited duration since retaliatory action would eliminate its ability for continuation of its nuclear delivery for very long.


  • A class three nuclear capability is where the world is teetering upon at this time when a rogue nation does not or has not established itself as a responsible member of the nuclear community. It has launch capability and demonstrates a desire for additional delivery capabilities through sea and air (space) but has not proven it can deliver in all phases of attack. The duration of a strike is limited to a first salvo with a contained effect where the expectation of a second salvo would not exist or can it occur from the lack of having a sustained supply or delivery systems for nuclear weapons. Additionally, a retaliation would be expected from a member of the nuclear nations affirmed by treaty or policy. Simply put, if attacking a non-nuclear nation with a nuclear weapon would also assure a catastrophic result for that attacking nation.


  • A class four nuclear capability comes from a terrorist group or a non-national entity who has no place in the governance of nuclear arms and does not want a participation in any nuclear agreement. These elements suggests no rules govern a nuclear group. It’s a one shot attack without accountability. There is no homeland or source in which to deal with its accountability. Delivery systems are primitive from a container ship to a semi-truck which could deliver a “bomb”. Retaliation would be difficult for any nation. A culture of neutralizing threats from terrorist would form and vindication would come from summarily eliminating “potential threats of persons” who may constitute the potential nuclear threat.


Nemo was a fish lost in the ocean searching for its friends and family, as Disney would want a following to accept in fun. However, things are very dangerous and goes beyond Nemo’s exploits. The point of this exercise is defining whose doing what to whom with some astonishing weapons of destruction. It could end life as we now enjoy. Nemo wouldn’t even know where Fukushima came from since a fish swims freely in a world of danger. We are all like Nemo swimming in a dangerous condition. North Korea has a bomb, and thus it can display an immature attitude at the expense of the whole planet. Launching four missiles simultaneously is an implied threat. Nations are using this demonstration in a dangerous game of leverage over another.

China is a North Korean partner. The US is a South Korean partner. The Philippines is a drift in the Chinese/Korean end of the Ocean as well as Japan. Somewhere in between lies US Guam who Kim Jung Um flaunts a missile launch towards. US Guam is threatened, by a "class three nuclear power". By the definitions above, the danger goes up as the classification level drops down, three is a very dangerous level of threat. The policy of mutual destruction does not apply to North Korea or the Terrorists for different reasons. So how can a solution be found?

Retaliation of any kind would involve a Chinese response. It would come out from China’s diplomatic corner it has placed itself into when considering face saving is a big part of what it does. The US can’t just invade, it can’t launch missiles for the sake of South Korea’s peace and there remains a potential escalation of war from a face saving Chinese response. 

The whole stand-off can be broken by an internal regime change in North Korea. Kim Jung Um has place himself in a precarious position with high stakes in play. He must go. North Korea internally must assist as China won’t intervene. North Korea today is 10,000 times more repressive than China. It would be in China’s and the US best interest by filling any regime change vacuum created in North Korea and stop being difficult with one another out of spite. Korea is no longer a potential partner in the world arena of nations. It is just a horrendous example of a repressed people who have lived 60 years as an enslaved humanity. This nation has Stockholm Syndrome and many of its leaders love the repression foisted upon its people.

  • Therefore, a regime change is a dangerous proposition which is the best answer in a bad situation for all involved. 


  • China needs to “supervise” North Korea when the mad men are removed from power. 


  • The US must restrain, but defend the South Korean nation. 


It will take a whole generation of time to solve the damage already done within the North Korean nation. China is best positioned to act as the parent to North Korea’s tantrums. If China won’t act, then it becomes a mere problem child as well. The US needs to lead China through with an amiable solution without having China’s face slapped. China must save face and transform North Korea at the same time. Let the natural selection process of society work-off the insanity out of its culture.


A class three nuclear arsenal is more dangerous than China’s own aspirations as a nuclear nation. It’s time to unravel the yarn and knit together a nation in its place. Defending Nemo is the goal and not jerking on the hook too long is a solution.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Reaching A Quarter Million At The Aviation Renaissance

...was never my intention. Some blogs reach 10 million visits like the All Things 787 blog has, who I depend on for information from time to time. Writing topics has not been a problem to create cheeky compositions or alliteration in this case. Do I know anything? Sometimes I'm spot on and sometimes randomness strikes against my sensibility, but an attempt was made to contribute. The goal is to make a reader think about a Winging It idea when it occurs where each time it tries to make you laugh, cry and stare at what has been written. 

Blog hits are a tricky goal when you don't promote or organize a following. I am thankful for the 245,000 or so visits readers have made. I often think that ending this run is the appropriate thing to do, but then I go back and read some of the misspelled or grammatically incorrect text with lost leading ideas melting into something different than what it started. These are usually posts from 2012 through 2015. I will always have something to read as a living history of aviation's renaissance.

I tried to quit in January 2017 as sometimes I irritate those who are in my company, but fail to acknowledge their presence in the room. I'm possessed by aviation and I know it. The assignment was everything Boeing and not the DDG1000 Zumwalt or the F-35 but **it takes over when something is intriguing arises such a an inverted F-35 firing a missile. Boeing must wait until tomorrow for further Winging It patronizing. However, the original assignment must end, because I too have a shelf life and its rapidly coming to a point where a regular contribution becomes a secondary pursuit for when time becomes so short. A break will come forward as some unfinished Winging It business wraps up. I have charts and tracking that I would like to share and will limit contributions to Winging It leading in with those same charts and tracking just mentioned.



The original goal was to preserve my brain function after a massive heart attack in 2011. I started the blog shortly afterwards for mental therapy regimen having an anoxic brain injury in 2011, and it started before 2012. It will be six years this fall since I started, and its a good time to wind down and rejoin the family function without aviation wings hovering over my attention.

Expect fewer posts and more charts in the mix as a transition is taking place. I hope to greet 250,000 guests to the Aviation Renaissance. It will complete me, if this occurs. This goal should happen by the end of September if all keep reading the blog. Please do so as I reach a final approach and land at least near an airport.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

A Seeking Alpha Response Leads to This Chart

Recently, Seeking Alpha answered a "Winging It" question with a very valid question.

Question from Winging It: 

The netting order changes are hard to follow. Any Ideas on how its year's cancellations or conversions are found within the Boeing website in detail? Thanks again for your reports?



His Answer:

Thank you for reading, Andrew. Conversions are almost impossible to follow. You basically have to know what airline X ordered and one day you will see that the order from airline X has been changed. Boeing only shows the cancellations by type on its orders and deliveries page. If you want to find out the changes you will have to save each months sheet and look for the differences.

Winging It Follow-up:

After reading his brief appreciated response, Winging It Blog writing began to think of how this may be done. Below is a rough draft chart attempting this exercise on filling in month by month reporting holes created by limited information from Boeing's website.

Please use this as a rough estimation on how the orders are documented as a running total until the end of the year. Since Boeing does not keep its notations longer than the next entry, Winging It must follow closely its entry as Boeing adds and reports them. 

Therefore, the chart below starts somewhere during the year and somewhere is July, 31 2017. A full year's tracking would be impossible at this time since Boeing owns its data and discloses pieces of the puzzle when an update to its website is made. 

Starting on August 15, Boeing's first notation for the chart is added.  The July 31, reporting is a net and gross number without detail of prior changes up and until that date. However, the first entry is from Boeing's August 15, 2017 data change reported from its website, which similar entries will be logged until the end of the year as posted by Boeing.

Take this report chart with the knowledge that all data has not been accounted for until the end of the year, since many transactions are in flux from customer preferences. However, is a close estimation going forward with an accurate gross and net totals provided by Boeing. The Chart is an attempt to interpret those those changes Boeing provides from week to week or when it chooses its report changes for its order book.

Fig. 1 Boeing Data Tracking Report:



Monday, August 14, 2017

Did someone say 747 Freighter? (Qatar information Update)


The latest hot topic is what in the heck Qatar is doing recruiting 747-8F crew members? The world wide spectrum is populated with 747-400 freighters. How does someone infer old 747-400F’s are what's for diner, when the 787-8F’s are so much newer than the world fleet of 747-400F’s?


Image result for 747-8 freighters

The story line is showing that Boeing marketing team is not sitting still. From space shuttle transportation to luxury cars flying about, the 747-400F has gotten old. Boeing has claimed the 747-8F has a future and it knows freight hauling by air is here to stay. The only problem is keeping the 747 production line going and fresh having only seventeen 747-8F’s on its backlog books and one 747-8i remaining to be built.




Qatar as an unidentified Boeing customer, ordered two 747-8F's in July, but it opens the door for more 747-8F's orders as it gears up its flying staff.

Qatar has dropped the “hiring” word for pilots of 747-8’s or other 747 types currently flying. It wants to hire and train for its operation for an unannounced 747-8F fleet expansion. It may be ready to compete in the freight business. A conservative estimation for a Qatar 747-8F order is for a baker’s dozen (including the two just ordered in July) could be coming during the Dubai airshow as it ramps up hiring and training 747-8F’s pilot and crews for its impending freight business.


From Qatar Website: http://www.qrcargo.com/ourfleet

Qatar is light on freight aircraft on order and only has four-777-F and two 747-8F  for a backlog order. It list one 747-F in its current fleet. The freight tools for Qatar consist of twelve 777-F's and eight A330-F's. Replacing and expanding its freight fleet is a move it may do as it will invest and then compete with other freight haulers in the world. 

Qatar has more Airbus product than Boeing product in its fleet, but the order book for Qatar favors Boeing at this time.

Hiring pilots and crews in the fall before the Dubai Airshow starts the conversation of what to expect in the startling announcements category during the Dubai Airshow. Emirates is holding its purchase cards close to its chest. The stirrings are evident something big will happen in November. This missing piece of this puzzle is, how long will it take Boeing to deliver a few 747-8F freighters for a newly formed Qatar crew just hired from its recent Job postings?

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Final Chapter Of Demand Number 10: A Summary Of Things To Come


What this booklet was to accomplish for addressing 10 thought provoking subject matters from a passenger perspective, and why the aviation industry straddles so many different customer types. The customer types have many opposing objectives as well as many common goals within its industry. A Boeing perspective has a clear vision of its commercial aircraft producing function and must compete in the field with its airline customers.

Image result for over cramped airline passenger

Mission/Vision provided from: 


Boeing Commercial Airplanes is committed to being the leader in commercial aviation by offering airplanes and services that deliver superior design, efficiency and value to our customers and a superior flying experience to their customers. Today, there are more than 10,000 Boeing commercial jetliners in service; airplanes that fly farther on less fuel, airplanes that reduce airport noise and emissions, airplanes that provide passenger-preferred comfort while delivering superior bottom-line performance to operators. Leadership for today and tomorrow. That's a better way to fly.

Judging briefly what this tells this presentation, Boeing is strongly in it with this statement,… 

while delivering superior bottom-line performance to operators. Leadership for today and tomorrow. That's a better way to fly.

Below, is a recognition to its airline customer while it structures its mission towards for that customer while giving an inference to the travel passengers.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes is committed to being the leader in commercial aviation by offering airplanes and services that deliver superior design, efficiency and value to our customers and a superior flying experience to their customers.

The superior flying condition for its passenger customer is affected by an airline’s own goals in the service and capacity areas. Boeing provides an over-all superior environment and advanced technology for passengers. Where the airline controls the passenger configurations for its own profitability and business success. Once again the passenger controls very little demand on its aviation ride.

It is better observed where Boeing has constructed many options for an airline’s consideration. When the airline has a business plan, Boeing commercial airplane flexibility is a big tool box for it to purchase its product. The airline can simply buy seats, adjust colors and offer amenities for which a Boeing produce airplane can offer. Boeing would diminish its product selling capacity to an airline customer, if it controlled airline configuration for the sake of the passenger. Boeing only offers possibilities for future passengers of an airline. There is a separation from the manufacturer and passenger at this point. Boeing sells the ability to do many things for any perspective passenger, but leaves that decision to its airline customer.

Every time a passenger complains about a 787 experience because it was too cramped, it becomes an issue of the airline and not the Boeing 787. ANA, Boeing's first customer in delivery, used the 787-8 by only installing an 8 across configuration in the main cabin. ANA established a configuration for its 787-8 with 8 across economy seating for 180. The airplane capacity has about 222 seats in two classes. They were on to something as an airline customer to Boeing. The manufacturer always said the 787 was design for 8 across seating but had the ability for 9 across seating for which a preponderance of 787’s goes 9 across in the economy section.



The final say for the airline culture, if passengers demand cheap tickets, then it has lost its demand power. If airlines configures beyond the standard design constraints, it cannot blame Boeing. If Boeing provides so many options for idle hands, it has provided enough rope to hang itself.

What is coming is meat hook seating for cheap tickets that can fly 9,000 miles leaving a smaller carbon footprint.

The Culture Of Demand Chapter 9: The Powerless Passenger Can Demand?


The manufacturer and the airline controls ticket prices for what is provided, all the passenger can do is shop cheap airline tickets online. The limits of passenger demand is from what flight outbound has the cheapest seat and then it must suffer its outcome because trains and buses are pure torture and not convenient for world travel.

Premium Economy Class seats for former Business Class passengers.
Image result for premium economy seats

The passenger pushes an airline by not filling an airplane up on a particular route. If the airline can’t fill its seats regularly, it will eventually cancel the route offered, and the passenger then must find a plan “B” for its travel options. The airline is a groping monster looking for a way to make money for its stockholders. If it can’t cram passengers on-board, then it will cancel the offer entirely. Passengers remain glued to ticket price in the process, and has little to do in a product demand participation. 

Most airlines want to upgrade its business class at the expense of a first class section. So the wealthy passenger who may look at price for bragging rights within its own friends circle has lost its power of demand for a sensible ticket deal and has been downgraded to business class offering. Where the business class is downgraded and enticed into Premium Economy and so forth.

Once again passenger demand has little power in commercial aviation. Most manufacturing giants of aircraft brag about three metrics, flight range, customer capacity and fuel efficiency. Airbus has gone five inches wider than Boeing, and markets that point as the main reason to fly with an XWB Airbus. What does 5” really mean to the passengers? Start with dividing a 9 seat row and duo aisles by 5 inches. These eleven units mentioned are from the 9 seats and two aisles and can amount to an average of .45 inches in expansion width for each seat or aisle width for the equation. A 16.5 inch wide seat on a 787 could also be about 17 inches wide seat on an Airbus A-350. A 20 inch wide aisle on a 787 can also be a 20.45 inch wide aisle on an Airbus A350. It amounts to finger's width advantage for the Airbus for each passenger. Don’t even talk to Airbus about having 8 across seating. It about the number of passengers it loads on its “extra-wide-body” aircraft.

Boeing with the 787 dynamic went for efficiency improvement at every corner and remained resolute that it built the 787 for the passenger's travel senses when applying every technology it could muster. Electronic lights, dim-able large windows, and LED lights to name a few. They pioneered breathable air with a 6,000 foot cabin pressure rather than having a 8,000 foot cabin atmosphere. However, they had Airbus at every corner so Airbus went wider than Boeing in its medium wide body.

Boeing also is offering the 777X by 2020. It will be wider than either the Boeing 787 or Airbus A350. The passenger reward for this feat could be 10 across seating by some airlines. The passenger will have no say with this airline demand, because both manufacturers are playing the customer card with the airlines, presenting a profit machine based on seats possible. It won’t be a manufacturer problem but an airline problem for how many seats it orders up for its delivery aircraft. Needing to go to Australia for the lowest cost is a passenger problem. The Airline has to pay for the airplane costing $350 million, so the passenger must pay for this large flying and seating arena. Once again if a passenger needs to get there, they will pay and that’s the airline’s demand. The manufacturer once again is in the business to sell a profit machine pleasing both the airline and its passengers. It falls on the airline to stuff how many seats in each aircraft delivered, and it’s the passenger who demands a low ticket price. 

The passenger surrenders its demand power in place of a low ticket price. An extra wide 5 inches in the cabin is pure marketing genius which the customer won’t analyze when looking at its ticket receipt. Airbus has done an excellent job of a knock-off of the 787 with its A350. When in fact both types are once again, just "profit machines" for stockholders. There is a point in this discussion passengers are just lemmings lured to the edge, with who has what for a travel pleasure at the lowest cost, and this idea trickles down into the single aisle market.


Saturday, August 12, 2017

The Culture Of Demand Chapter 8: Sit Right Here


Commercial aviation has become something as comfortable as a huge stadium bleacher with its seats. Sometimes over 100,000 fans cram their posteriors between two parallel lines with a row and number painted between the lines. The much vaunted mid field seats on the lower decks go for $100 a seat in any ordinary event going from left to right. The top row of the stadium with the same seat spacing may go for $50 since it is so far from the field of play. What fun everyone had standing the whole time length of the match. Sitting was not an option. The posterior may be only 14” wide when seated but the shoulders may go for 30” across. The stadium space goes for about 16” wide as if it creates a vertical space 16” wide. People may have to stand at an angle facing the field. Going to a game with your significant other fan can stand in a somewhat side-ways layering half the torso behind the person sitting next to you. Fans often fake turning and talking to someone behind them when in fact they are readjusting for the next play since the person(s) in front of them have suddenly blocked the view.


Stadium cushion - No dimension greater than  13.5" x 12" x 14.5"



Image result for bleacher seats

The culture accepts the twist and turns at a stadium event as if it was worth every penny being there at least to be seen either by others or on TV. The airlines have it all wrong in its seating scheme. They too need to go more than 16.5” wide for the posterior and then on three seat row allow the shoulders of the outside seats expand behind the middle seat passenger. A slight stagger in seating is needed much like the stadium twist or moving the arm around the person next to the fan to make more room in the 16” vertical space available.

Airlines think vertically. A 16.5” seat bottom should hold its 30”+ wide shoulders at the top of the seat, hence a stadium twist for the window seat passenger, and half a shoulder’s width sticking out on the other side into the aisle. The passenger seated in the middle just folds its arms in surrender until the snack cart flies by, then all he** breaks out including losing your nuts when trying to open the snack wrapper. Ever had a cola snort up your nose? If so, you have either been to a stadium event or flown on an airplane.

Body bloat may change from passenger to passenger but the smallest frame in a row may have the same horizontal dimension of a larger passenger. 16.5" wide seats is not a good linear solution. People have taken its stadium experience and boarded airplanes without the promise of entertainment. Standing on an airplane will be the final straw for passengers if airlines don’t stop the nonsense. Should the industry have a seat law?

One way to stop the seat silliness is through the manufacturer. It must build airplanes that can only have seat spacing for people who don’t like touching. The airline who tries to cram more in less space would violate the certification of the airplane. In this case example; a 787-8 would be certified for 240 seats and not exceed the limit. The 787-9 would be certified for 290 seats and no more. City safety inspectors do it to restaurants as I sat at a diner recently, a sign said, “maximum occupancy 78 persons”. I know it’s a fire code or something like that, but planes do catch on fire.  A certification process would have to set a standard from square footage of the seating area on an airline. Bring the social engineers, and medical people to determine the non-touching area needed and a pitch which prevents deep vein thrombosis on a long ride. Even though a passengers has a great time at a stadium event, airline travel in a tube smaller than the men’s room at the stadium, is inhumane. If narrow minded seats do not allow a person to open up a snack wrapper on a long trip, then I'm not going.