The Boeing Manufacturing Spider Is Growing More Legs For The 777X

Just a few days ago it was noted on how Boeing will quickly implement its NW footprint for the manufacturer of its Legacy 777-X in the upcoming few years. Going over seas could take added time for a manufacturing role out and a delegation of inside capabilities for new technology could be lost to supplying  partners. The risk of out sourcing proprietary design for outside build partners is high.  At some point one may ask if Boeing can indeed build an aircraft any longer in a stand alone effort  in the Pacific Northwest.  That ship has sailed, but maintaining the ability of having major parts and pieces keeps Boeing building aircraft from engineering clear through the role out of an aircraft without it wondering how an overseas calamity breaking out in different parts of the world. Sinking the whole project into oblivion.

Boeing is entertaining the idea of expanding its footprint at home in Everett, and the north  end of the I-5 corridor. An article by the HeraldNet.com has echoed a recent blog on LiftnDrag by reporting how the local Government are greasing the wheels for Boeing, by fast tracking the permit process for building facilities on, around, and adjacent to Paine Field. This can be done in a few weeks rather than a few years. The County  of Snohomish  isn't doing this on its own councils idea of good neighbors to Boeing. But are doing it as a proposal from Boeing, of what could the county and State do in assisting Boeing in fast tracking a significant project in the next year. The County has identified significant property for Boeing that can be fast tracked into a building project. Similar to what was done in Charleston, building its giant factory in 10 months down in the low country. Snohomish County may experience a new wing factory and automated systems that will flow to the Paine area in a gigantic scale, so the lines of supply are shortened and management becomes more efficient, escorting the process to fruition.  No more avoidable snags and incompetent decision making on the 777-X. Boeing is just not building the best, but they are doing it with lessons learned from the 787 project. The short source will quickly build the infrastructure to do the job right it cannot experience 10 years of delay.

• Shorten the supply line.
• Control the manufacture base.
• Make efficient the resources that are available. Location Property and Human resource.
• Leverage what already works well
• All Efforts Relate to Time reductions and Controls.
• Outsources are localized as possible.

These are just a few items that should be considered when the 777X is given the ATO. After making these few observations please read this article and see if these concepts enumerated above hold any substance.



Fast Permits Signal Snohomish  County Is A 777X player

Boeing 787 Is Growing Up Right Before Your Eyes

Boeing is moving forward with its 787. The three phases of success is moving forward as witnessed.

Phase 1: Lame

From the very first Boeing, wrestled with its untried management concept by writing on napkins or note pads, and then outsourcing everything down to the wing nuts. A new way to build quality and safety. "Let the other guy do it", and firmly rubber stamp  "Boeing With Pride" on its vertical tail assembly.  The lame began to percolate through, by establishing a central parts tracking and outsourcing center of hundreds of people managing the "Just In Time "snags, snares and stumbles. This center watched in awe the fastener problems, delamination and errant supplier innovation.
This is the big picture of the Lame, a central center to watch the spectacle and correct it if can. "We (Boeing) track every item out-sourced, and know when its going to fail when it fails"! I say, "What"?


Phase 2: Blame

The phase Boeing is growing out of,  late in its initial delivery years, by proclaiming. "Yes those crimped wires on the location beacon was the supplier's mistake and it didn't happen on my watch, no way". Question, By the way, why did those batteries explode? Boeing doesn't know but they offer a blanket wrapped around those pesky batteries.  Boeing is forced to get overtly aggressive with its competitor, Airbus, as they try to quip and snip at Boeing from the CRFP ditch found in France. Boeing people are rapidly not taking it anymore. Beware supplier, its your turn and Boeing is upset. A whole cadre of suit types are in position with personal hand held smart phones in one hand and a TV microphone in the other hand, while having the supplier of the week in its cross hairs. You know, that group of suppliers carefully chosen from its napkin renderings way back in 2003, during a time when the "Outsource" mantra was king of the planet. This phase is rapidly coming to a close because enough Blame has gone around.

Phase 3: Same

Personal Responsibility will fly in this phase as the 787 and will soar to new heights making the "I told you so crowd"  come out in full force clear from those Big Boeing Barn doors from the Washington State and Paine Field county seat, Buildings 40-24 to 40-26, clear to Charleston's shinning shores.  Notice: First heard in print, or "The Blogworks" right here, "The 787 is a grand slam home run of epic proportion".

In spite of spring training held at the outsourced field of dreams.   The "Same" is that quality you would expect from Boeing. That same is catching-up to the blame game in a hurry. If the 787 where to collapse as a viable next best thing since sliced bread, it would have done so by 2011.  So the Same,  is the last phase of success, doing what you do best, building great airplanes with unabashed bravado. Not letting others control its destiny through its lame ideas or correcting problems with a cacophony of blaming statements. Boeing is well positioned for doing the same, making the world's best innovative and advance airplanes for the next 30 years. Bring on the Same and win this competition.

The Boeing Manufacturing Spider

Boeing maybe shifting  its manufacturing footprint for the 777-X. What if it links the Puget Sound area with short rail leads to Everett, for all large parts transit points that are within a day's ride to the Everett super factory. A continuity plan that undercuts using long shipping flights or shipping of large parts on container ship. A wing plant here and a body plant there could supply the Northwest for its legacy 777-X. Think about the possibilities with Moses lake to the East, and the secret project that is going on, just North in Anacortes, Wa. Could this new super plan show like a rail spider within the Northwest, or using docks on protected Puget Sound, eliminating  exposed transworld risks. Boeing could be containing major 777-X operations to the contiguous NW!   I know this sounds far fetched but it takes fuel, transport availability, and the world-wide mitigation of risk for making the 787 fly. This maybe an inhouse move to curb that outsource appetite on its proven 777 winner.

A eye opening article opens this discussion with this Headline:

Boeing secretly testing new automation for 777X

"Inside a boat warehouse in Anacortes, Boeing is quietly setting up tests of new advanced automation methods for building its soon-to-be-launched 777X jet. Everett has a detailed plan to build the entire jet. Another option being studied is to have sections built in Japan."

The "other study" is a plan B of transporting parts in from around the  world. Boeing wants it legacy 777 to evolve in the NW as to what it can do. Shortened lines of concept development and production capacity by anchoring in the NW. Bring subcontractors closer to home in the North West and control your secrets better, than if innovation occurs over seas. Every time an advancement happens for Boeing by others they contract with, those strides may matriculate to Airbus and others when your production model is splayed out over the world." The spin-off opportunities are hard to contain with its suppliers. Boeing would like to control only what it can control in the North West

Step one: Build a better infrastructure in the North West with its spider like connections to Everett. Wings, Bodies and other flight services could converge on the Everett super factory. Small engineered appliances and parts may airfreight throughout the world to Everett. Keep controlling the big stuff from R&D to assemblies, in a steady inflow stream from the NW region. Lesson learned almost dictate this for Boeing's business model on the 777-X. Control best what you can control by bringing it home, and leave the small stuff for you supply partners and Boeing's own flexibility. 

This legacy aircraft will stay a legacy by adhering to this mind set. The 777-X is too precious to farm out as it seeks to surprise and live up to established character as the Giant killer for the A380. "Buy two for the price of..."  well anyways buy two, and carry 800 passengers before the A380 can load its 500 passengers and fly somewhere to unload for awhile. Where two 777-X's have already taken-off with another 800 passengers going somewhere. Airbus, may think that is really annoying having these 777 passenger ships, pick its profit pockets right  front and center of the public, at the terminal near you. Getting on and off on an A-380 is so congested in its specialized 550+ passenger Jetway extension. This is not new to the A-380 frequent flyer. You know them as the "been There, seen it, done it cluster". Now lets get on the 777-X and move further around the world without thinking about what it looks like for the snobs sitting above your head. "Jack", just lay back and enjoy the "Giant Killer Ride" on the 7777-X.

If Looks Could Kill Then Buy an F-35

This old war was fought and lost by the F-32 proposal of its ungainly and non traditional looking war bird. The Generals remarked, "How can that fly, it doesn't even  look like a war fighter. Its STOVL hasn't finished landing and take-offs for the Marines. Go with the Lockheed its looks like a 20th century fighter". Wait a minute we are in the 21st century looking for George Jetson.  The $200 billion aircraft is now ranked at $700 billion to succeed its mission without any guarantees of doing what the Generals thought it would do. Let's not dwell on fishing and just cut bait on this 20th century flying parts bin. What did the generals pass on in their war bird beauty pageant?

The Boeing's X-32

I say give the Marines and Navy the   X-32 it fits the Jar head image of toughness and capability, no doubt the beauty pageant ends and the war begins. The F-35 is suited for the pretty fly-boys of the Colorado Mountains.

Boeing's Joint Fighter Blues   Supporting Link

Supporting Article:


"Hindsight is ceiling and visibility unlimited. As patience with the F-35 Lightning II continues to wear thin among almost everyone except those closest to the program — who point out that the jets are ripping through test points, in spite of all the bad headlines — Boeing engineers are griping that if DoD had picked their airplane, we wouldn’t have had all these problems. So writes Steve Wilhelm in the Puget Sound Biz Journal, who reports that hometown Boeing types say their jet,the X-32, should have won the Joint Strike Fighter competition, especially because of how well they said it handled short takeoffs and vertical landings.

The X-32 used a Harrier-style system of directed thrust nozzles for its STOVL variant, which advocates said was simpler and more reliable than Lockheed’s system. The Marines’ F-35B needs to “transform,” like a Decepticon, for takeoff and landing: Its engine nozzle rotates down, a unique lift fan behind the pilot starts up, and all manner of doors and ports and hatches need to open. All this complexity has made it tricky to get Lockheed’s concept into action as a production aircraft — although, again, service officials say they’re going at it like gangbusters — and Secretary Gates has put the F-35B on probation. If the Marines can’t get it right after two years… well… they’ll get a stern talking to. There is no alternative for the B, service officials concede, unless the Pentagon or Congressional lawmakers want to cancel it and take away the Marines’ ability to fly fast jets off big-deck amphibious ships. That’s not gonna happen.

In the meantime, Boeing’s fighter advocates can say they told us all so, even though there’s every chance the company would have had its own problems making its X-prototypes into flyable, production F-models. During the competition, Boeing never demonstrated the full capabilities of its STOVL jet in a real-world scenario — each time its B-version flew, it had been modified for safety or test reasons, operating without certain doors and panels or with its landing gear down. Lockheed, meanwhile, made aviation history by showing its F-35B could make a short takeoff, fly supersonic, and then land vertically.

We’ll never know what 10 years of development and hundreds of billions of dollars could’ve done for the X-32 — maybe it could be flying in Marine squadrons off Navy amphibious ships today. (Doubtful.) The real lesson is that even when the Defense Department sets up a program designed to save money and be efficient by using the same basic aircraft for three services… it won’t. Instead it produced a very expensive “joint” program in which only one of the participants — the Air Force — seems truly pleased with the result. And if it did produce the perfect plane for the Marines, the nature of the competition also meant that DoD couldn’t buy it.

It’s funny, though: If this contest were happening today, DoD might buy F-35As and Cs from Lockheed for the Air Force and Navy, but F-32Bs from Boeing for the Marines, given today’s strategy of spreading work around to placate defense giants and their surrogates in Congress. As it stands, Boeing will have to be satisfied with daydreaming about the one that got away."

History Is Found In The Heart Of Boeing, Everett

Boeing History Link via Boeing.com

Peruse on over to to the official link above, and read about Everett Washington and Boeing History.  You get a sense of purpose, dedication, and innovation for the last 60 years from the Everett Boeing works.  You may want to examine this article as a reflective message for the future.  What has Boeing wrought from the past, and what it is capable of doing in the future with its roots.  I only can say abandonment of Everett is not in its future. It is the, "do it right" spirit that can and will mold Boeing's future. History lessons point to adjustments and refinement of good things experienced. If it ain't broke don't fix Everett. Then play the encore Everett, with this admonition, "you didn't know you had a good thing when you had it". Everett is not just a label, its a way of expectation and exceptional-ism at aviation's roots. The string of 747,757,767,777 and 787 points to a complete portfolio of exceptional advances from Everett. Charleston becomes a needed annex within Everett's view, because the land it needs is probably under water in Puget Sound, so Charleston is that land extending the Everett purpose to the East  Coast. Charleston will become exceptional due to Everett's DNA imbued into Charleston's buildings and flight line.

Retro Fitting The 737 NG vs. The Max

Scimitar Winglets are a Retrofit Of The Max's Advanced Winglets 

Awhile back a blog was presented quoting O'Leary, Ryan Air's sentiment relating to purchasing the Max. One Man's Rubbish Is Another Man's Feast(updated).

Now a clearer picture emerges. Is it possible to retrofit an NG to come closer to the Max? The article link, at the top suggest this possibility. I am not naive to think you can make a silk purse purse out of, well... an NG. However, you can dress it up in white tie, old style, and take it to market.  The scimitar vs the Advanced winglets looks the part, but that is only the tip of the Iceberg, sorry I couldn't resist the metaphor. The Max has so much more after the wingtips, but the NG can cut the fuel margin in a meaningful way with those retro fitted scimitars.

Scimitar for NG

Advanced Winglets For Max

The after market retro-fits can bridge a small gap stretched out by the Max. However, that can only go so far. Boeing is striving for commonalities for its over-all family of aircraft; as customers like promoting it crews, maintenance and staff from model to model with little as possible retraining. They prefer to train operations as an upgrade process, rather than a do-over process. The do-overs situation currently exist with Boeing. The good news: the Max will look and feel like a 787 plane. The airline teams will have familiarity from the Max to the 747 line of aircraft as the 777 will fly like a 787 and the 737 Max will have orientation towards a 787, like its interface of controls, with picture perfect 787 like commonalities. The NG will remain an old school orientation of the 737.  Ryan only flies the 737 NG, and does not need those advanced commonalities added from model to up-sized models, so stick on those add-on scimitars, and gain the efficiency. "We don't need (no) stinking commonalities"! Ryan Air only flies the NG with better economics.  End of Business Plan!

I now see clearer what O'Leary plans are, Ryan Air is going to go the "upgrade route" with his NG and bridge the operational cost advantage of the Max with a lower upfront capital investment for its new NG's, and any new innovations that would enhance the NG's performance. Ryan Air will stay competitive for a long while with that strategy of not going all-in with new Max's. At some point when the teething woes of the Max works out, a fleet replacement order will be up for grabs between Airbus and Boeing, with Boeing having the inside tract for ordering Max. The low cost purchase advantage the NG has, should milk itself out in the next ten years where the production wait time for MAX will open spots for a Ryan Air to jump in. The clues are available concerning Ryan Air's secret strategy of using lower capital investments as part of its over-all cost of operations.

Instead of paying a smaller fuel bill by flying the Max, it will pay a smaller monthly interest cost on its capitalization of equipment, by buying the NG's at severe discounts. Instead of adding on benefits of technology with multi-model commonality (which increases purchase cost and monthly service interest), it does not need for its operations. It keeps its maintenance, training, and operations, leaned out. The NG will be viable and operationally competitive over the next 10-12 years by managing its bottom line through investment controls and depreciation rather than having lower fuel bills and technology changes affecting the bottom line through unknown risks. 

This is a very unique approach as is Mr. O'Leary is a unique CEO. The owners/competitors using the Max, must offset its incidences of teething risks free from its own operational mistakes with significantly improved operations costs that will pay for the increased capitalization cost of money when buying the Max.  Ryan Air avoids Max interest when buying the NG. Instead of the Max, Ryan Air strategy tries to avoid spending on things they don't need such as Boeing's commonality advancements for its family of aircraft. So O'Leary's rubbish are things he doesn't want or need at this time. He will buy the Max when its advancements costs are paid for by other customers. O'Leary then will pull the Max out of his Rubbish bin and fly on.

I guess I like O'Leary after-all, he makes me think and laugh at the same time.

ROLLS HAS IT COVERED

The Rolls Royce engine: So much has the American press dedicated a more than generous reporting of the GE offering during the 787-8 introduction. No so much on the Rolls Royce. But customers are loving the engine just the same. I wondered what makes the Trent 1000 so special and how its made. Without divulging Rolls Royce engine secrets, a really informative article is offered from   "This Is Derby shire", on the link below. Please read the quoted article below or click over on the link the blog has inserted. A recommended read for those who are guessing at what is across the pond when comes to engine technology. The article suggest a very detailed process in making fuel efficient engines, as demonstrated, is not for the faint of heart for the captains of industry.  GE keeps pressure on with its "on-the- fly PIP (performance improvement package) process, squeezing more out each rendition of its own 1B or 2B 787 engines. They are competing by making sure it meets its original promise of performance, of which they have finally met during PIP 2. The question begged, "what has Rolls done during the GE's attempt to corner the market"? I say read on and judge for yourself.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/R-R-staff-proud-Dreamliner-soars-Derby/story-19638017-detail/story.html#axzz2bUS9fcGT

"FASCINATING FACTS ABOUT THE TRENT 1000 ENGINE

A SELECTION of fascinating facts about Rolls-Royce's Trent 1000 engine:

At take-off, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner's two Trent 1000s will deliver thrust equivalent to the power of 1,500 cars.

The engine sucks in 1.25 tons of air per second during take off (that's about the volume of a squash court every second).

The fan spins at over 2,700 rpm, with tip speeds over 900 mph, but the blades inside the engine spin at 13,500 rpm, with tip speeds topping 1,200 mph.

Air passing through the engine is squeezed to more than 700 lb per sq inch, which is 50 times normal air pressure.

The engine has about 30,000 individual components.

The Trent 1000 is expected to fly for 20,000 hours before its first overhaul. That's about 11 million miles or 450 times around the world.

The fuel in the engine combustion chamber burns at approximately half the temperature of the surface of the sun. 

The force on a fan blade at take-off is about 100 tons. That is like hanging a freight train off each blade. 

Boeing 787 at full power take-off is three decibels quieter than a Boeing 767, even though it is a third heavier.

Revolutionary engine is the product of our 'world-leading' city engineers

Rolls-Royce's staff in Derby have worked on the Trent 1000 engine programme over the course of almost a decade. Yesterday, they witnessed the fruits of their labours. Business editor Robin Johnson examines the technical brilliance of this revolutionary engine.

FROM a drawing on a piece of paper a decade ago to an engine that today powers one aircraft every 20 minutes across the world – the Trent 1000 is an example of British engineering at its very best. And it would not have been possible without the skill and talent of Rolls-Royce's Derby workforce. Several thousand have worked on the Trent 1000 engine programme – and each and every one of them, from the boffins in the design offices to the workers on the production line, have played an integral part. Air travel has almost become a matter of routine in the modern world.

Hundreds of passengers on an aircraft will expect their long-haul departure to lift off within minutes of the specified time. They sit in comfortable seats, eat nice food and maybe relax with a drink. During the flight they may work, sleep or watch the latest movies and TV programmes, all the time sitting in a comfortable shirt-sleeve environment. After thousands of miles, several hundred tonnes of aircraft lands safely within inches of its target and within minutes of its schedule.

Today, most people do not see flight as difficult to achieve – but there, at the heart of the process of flight, is engineering excellence.

Starting at the very centre of the engine, high pressure turbine blades are crucial to the success of the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines that powered yesterday's British Airways Boeing 787 Dreamliner fly-past over the Sinfin factory. This blade is grown as a single crystal of a Rolls-Royce alloy in a vacuum furnace. As it grows, it incorporates a complex series of air passages to cool the blade. Then it needs external cooling holes created by incredibly accurate laser drilling. And on top of all that is a thermal barrier coating that is more advanced than the tiles on the Space Shuttle. 

The blade works in the high-pressure turbine, where the gas temperature is at least 400F above the melting point of the blade's alloy.The blade sits in a disc that rotates at more than 10,000 rpm. This means the force on the blade root is the same as hanging a London double-decker bus from its tip. Every time the plane takes off, this single blade develops the same horsepower as a Formula 1 racing car, yet it can travel 10 million miles before it needs replacing. That performance, achieved under such extremes of heat and pressure, requires precise design and manufacture that is measured in microns – to the thickness of a human hair, and it has to be exactly right. Every time.

A single part is complex enough – but integrating all the parts into a complete engine is hugely more challenging. Each component inevitably influences many others.

When assembled, they work together in the most extraordinary way. All the precisely dimensioned components in the engine expand and contract to different degrees. At its heart, the temperature can reach half that of the surface of the sun. Its pressure is the same as half a km down in the ocean. Having done all this, the engine has to create at least 70,000 pounds of uniform forward thrust – plus precisely the right amount of additional power to ensure a plane-load of passengers can breathe, eat, drink, work and watch movies and TV – not to mention power the cockpit and all the flight controls. 

At least six years before it enters service, Rolls-Royce will guarantee, among other things, how much the engine will weigh, how much noise it will make and how much fuel it will consume – to the nearest per cent. 

And, of course the firm also guarantees that it will be completely safe to carry 300-plus passengers for many years. The company then project-manages hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development expenditure. This involves 2,000 scientists and engineers, 300 test rigs and a development programme in which Rolls-Royce runs, tests, examines and, in some cases, deliberately destroys nine full engines over 18 months of frenetic activity. 

Gareth Jones, chief engineer for the Trent 1000 programme, said: "To successfully bring new products into service year after year requires a consistent strategy of investment, through good times and bad, a rigorously systematic process approach and, very importantly, excellent teams." They are made up of incredible people, world-leading in their fields, but the extraordinary technological improvement achieved consistently over the years is not the result of any one individual.  

"It is the result of thousands of man-years of effort working on each of the 18,000 engine parts, year after year after year, component by component, system by system." In the past 20 years, engines have improved by about 20% – which is worth more than $25 billion across the world fleet in fuel savings."

The job does not stop there. The average passenger is probably unaware that while they sit watching their movie, Rolls-Royce engineers are watching the engines on the aircraft, 24/7, every day, every flight. Aircraft in flight anywhere in the world automatically report back via satellite to the Rolls-Royce Service Operations Room in Derby, where the firm's team looks at, compares and reports on half a billion engine data reports every year. The data is analysed, trends extrapolated, anomalies detected and, often unknown to the pilot, preparations are made at the arrival airport to take remedial action and send the aircraft on its next leg with no delays. It is this use of extraordinary technology that enables Rolls-Royce powered flights to be ever more fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly and reliable both now and in the future.

Read more: http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/R-R-staff-proud-Dreamliner-soars-Derby/story-19638017-detail/story.html#ixzz2bUXaiXKC
Follow us: @DerbyshireNews on Twitter | thisisderbyshirenews on FacebookThis Is Derby ShireThis Is Derby Shire

777-X: Jack The Giant Killer, Fuel Burn, And Other Weighty Matters

The fuel burn complexity of the 777-X has many components under consideration for those who seek out its value.      If it reaches out and touches the world beyond 8,000 (sm), it will carry more dead weight in fuel at take-off to make the journey. Every aircraft made has the same problem. An exponential conundrum of fuel weight added for route mile required. The heavier the aircraft flies the more fuel weight it must store on-board in its flight travels.

Another formulation of this suggest an operations puzzle, and is as old as flight itself, even with the birds. The source of energy, fuel, is a penalty to flight duration. A fat bird needs its storage to fly further but will burn more because of the fat.  Kind of like a dog chasing its tail to get somewhere in the house.

Another component is fuel price per gallon for each seven lbs of fuel. Now add additional weight penalties such as 400 passengers, crew, luggage and supplies. Pretty soon an operator is about about to sink its ship.   Many a sailing ship back 300 years ago went to the bottom with too much gold during rough times. This analogy is appropriate to flying. Weight is the bane of airlines today as fuel prices spike, and can sink an airlines financials in just one month of operations. Advanced sales of tickets three months prior to departure could bankrupt a company unless they have sufficient safety margins installed on that ship.

The 777-X hopes to install those built in margins by building a feather that will haul a lot of passengers and fuel so it can fly farther on less fuel. Back to the conundrum, load more weight with fuel, so an airline can burn more fuel to carry its more fuel. Go dog go and chase that tail, and get your passengers to the other side of the world. Fuel weighs about 7+ lbs a gallon no matter what, and contains so much fat energy like the long flight Albatross birds. So where does the 777-X break this evil hold on long distance flight, since it has not come up with a light weight fuel alternative? The Albatross glides for miles and does not constantly beats its wing to save on energy. The new X air frames for Boeing seek that glide with its less thirsty engines. The three W's, Weight, Wings and a Whisper. Noise sounds just like drag should sound. Booming its ugly voice in flight while those engines are hard at work. Think how a little tiny humming bird sounds like with its non-aerodynamic structure. It buzzes like a bee with a large body in proportion of its wing size and doesn't whisper.

Boeing tries to build a super lightweight feather of an aircraft in its 777-X and load on the Jet-A and passengers. Below are the weight constants that remain unmovable:

• Passengers who pay for its own weight.
• Fuel that moves the weight from A to B
• Luggage because its luggage.
• Crew and supplies

The simple part is now factored in, while the price of fuel is running loose destroying financial dreams. Boeing proposes to move in the direction of deploying energy efficient Jet Engines that will require less gallons to fly the same distances of today's conventional aircraft. That is how they will make "lighter fuel" is through extremely efficient engines. Lighter passengers are found through interior advancements in its seats, overhead bins, and cargo areas. The lighter aircraft, can come from CRFP wings, wing box, and core architectures. Using advanced aluminum skin, lite fasteners and weight saving components gained from the 787 project. Weight loss won't come from those bullet point constants, but will come from the structure and efficiencies that supports those weight constants. Boeing's bridge to success is losing weight through indirect means by having a better aircraft that will fly farther on less gallons and weight. Paying attention to Boeing's 777-X MTOW is the key to how they will compete. Once the MTOW is locked in and design efficiencies are established, then analysis can be made on the affects towards more distance with less fuel weight can be made. Flying a heavy, is expensive to all airlines, Boeing wants to fly a heavy substantially lighter and fill the gaps with a more efficient  equipment.  That is the X Goal. I close with this thought, "The 747 will not kill the giant A-380, that remains for Jack The Giant Killer, the 777-X."

WSJ referring article:

Boeing and its customers try to put a price tag on fuel savings

Is Eight Enough? or Should You Go Decked To The 9's

Jet Star Is Out on the Boeing play-ground with its 335 seat 787-8. I thought Ryan Air was Brilliant with its 291 seat pleasure pusher last month, but "Holy lumbar support Batman", Robin screeches as Jet Star will load the cord wood and sardines in workman like order on the Jet Star 787. Did you know the -9 will hold forty more passengers than the -8. It makes me wonder what comparison Boeing is using, a 200 seat ANA to a 240 Seat ANA or a 335 seat seat Jet Star to a 375 seat -9 Jet Star or Qantas.

I believe then answer is in the Qantas strategy.  The -8 for Jet Star is a people mover and the Qantas-9 will be a destination aircraft that will stay configured for pleasure and business travel, making it the marquee way to see Australia.

The only Jet Star Seating Chart Available for its 335 passengers on the, "787-8-is-enough", is found on the chart below.

Boeing has spurred 787 wars much to is delight. Shots have been fired across the bow, among budding Airline stars like Jet Star, Ryan Air and Norwegian Air. You may say wait,, what? Just look at the cause and effect flow chart of perry and thrust antics of airlines.

Follow this logical sequence for a moment.  Jet Star is a value passenger carrier from point A to Point B for Qantas. The -8 is needed in this manner. Air India is coming to Australia with a lower density -8 than the Jet Star.  Qantas has a different business  model  than both Jet Star and Air India. So how will Qantas use its -8's? It won't, it will use its -9 with a customary high standard that Qantas will propose by expanding room for its travelers over the likes of its own Jet Star, Lion Air or any other value hauler in the region.

"All Jet Stars older A-330's" go to Qantas, because those A-330 can service the Qantas business model as a stand-in,  as a more compliant type for the Qantas mission until the arrival of the -9. However, when the -9's are ready, its a farewell for the A-330 one at a time.

Jet Star's New Aircraft Comes Up A Dream

Europe has a similar war with moving pieces on the Airline game board. Lets focus on Norwegian and Ryan Air. Even though Ryan Air doesn't have the legs of the 787-8, its market is in jeopardy from Norwegian Air. Even though a long flight is in Norwegian capability, it can challenge Ryan's ever expanding market into Europe. However, Norwegian Achilles heel is to better utilizing the 787 for its long legs over having it make regional 3k-4k stops on the continent, as Ryan is currently positioned to do so.  Ryan will not Blink and buy 787's to counter this threat, but Norwegian has launched into orders for both the 787-8 and added  100 Max -800 units. So the regional concept of Ryan will now share the market and counter Norwegian with Boeing product. Norwegian has hedged its bets with an additional NEO order appeasing its European clientele .

Has Norwegian Long Haul LLC Upstaged Ryan Air?

Boeing's delight is that the paradigm has shifted towards it products as the airplane wars has shifted towards Boeing's family of aircraft battle field and are now in the mix or in the fight. Signs of Airplane Wars Strategic planning are as follows:

• Split Orders for Both The Max and Neo
• Movement of Inventory From one Subsidiary to Another
• Using Long legged aircraft in regional markets for efficiency and customer appeal
• Placing options until business model evolves, then change or lock order
• A continuous route expansion using old equipment
• Making alliances with multiple airlines 

Boeing smiles wide and broad across the Globe as Randy Tinseth boards one more flight to somewhere with a new Boeing aircraft application of the Max or 787 family of aircraft. The customer eagerly awaits the pitch so they may proceed to wage war on its competition. To the Ryan Air, Norwegian, Jet Star  and Air India's of the world, keep on keeping on. You make Boeing's day.

Boeing Likes Haggling A LOT

Boeing has a running dialogue with Poland's national carrier LOT Airlines for compensation for its four month grounding of the 787, during its earlier in the year 787 grounding. An action imposed on LOT at no fault to the operator.  It obviously cost them millions of US dollars for this disruption and the lost good faith, and other intrinsic values over the prior six months. LOT has a legitimated claim for compensation from the aircraft manufacturer. Boeing does not drive that compensation claim in a singular manner, by stating all customers claims have been resolved. It sounds like car insurance and a tree falling on your car.  You call your insurance agent explaining a tree crushed your car and they reply with a $500 dollar check and a Thank you very much, by saying all claims are settled.

Whoa, is the proper response from the claimant. "No one sat down with us and actually added up everything", is what LOT is saying. Lot's financial problem is not Boeing's financial problem, but a fair accounting of what Boeing's grounding imposed on Lot, is a Boeing's financial problem. That is what LOT is saying. However, Boeing does not acknowledge LOTS claim on Boeing and have legally brushed them off with a "everything is settled" argument.

But to be fair to Boeing they have indicated that in the next two weeks we will present a solution. Why would they announce that, if everything is settled with its customers? H'mmm, one would think two things are in play.
1. LOT never settled and...
2.Boeing paid out a standard "$500", to all customers without regard to the actual harm imposed on its airline customer.

An airline in financial straights would like to maximize the opportunity and enhance its claim as much as it can to bridge financial hole it finds itself in; partly due to the airline customers own business condition, and partly to the grounding.

Therefore, a legal process should be established that will sort out the mess. LOT requires compensation, sooner rather than later for its own financial predicament. Some of which is from 787 grounding, but not all. Boeing postures itself with a blanket settlement that suggest not everything is yet settled by LOT, who may have taken Boeing money as a down payment on its claim, pumping up its cash flow for operations during a period of financial failure. Hence we gain a statement from Boeing, "All customers have been compensated". Suggesting a truth, but not the whole truth. Its customers are still in the settlement phase, even though they may have received some Boeing compensation. Parsing through the words makes its difficult to unravel what is going on with Boeing and LOT at this time. In two weeks some additional details will spill out as both companies have indicated an important resolve is in the works.

The next stage of compensation will be announced at that time. Boeing will once again announce they have compensated everyone, but then a slight adjustment is being made to LOT as they have been made aware of LOT, during these valued customer discussions. LOT will respond, they are grateful for the opportunity for resolving Boeing related issues, even not all areas were addressed at this time. Like its own financial instability, it will move forward with excellent customer airline service. Boeing can't solve LOTS finances and LOT can't solve Boeing's negligence through  these compensation gestures.

Reference Article:

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/08/08/poland-asks-u-s-ambassador-for-help-to-refund-damages-from-boeing/