First up was the 737 -7 Max with only 58 orders then the consummate Max 8 everyone thinks would game change the A320 NEO series except there looms the arch-rival A-321 NEO always just out of reach, hence the penultimate 737-9 Max for those 737 loyalists who had too just because! Boeing peoples' collective scratching heads barely made headway with its single-aisle order book as opposed to the Airbus single-aisle order book that it trailed.
One more time Boeing huddled its team asking for a "Hail Marry" from off the bench and someone offered a 737-10 and up pops 416 orders and commitments just for Boeing. The team met again and surmised, "we (737) are under appreciated!"
An analyst offered, "it isn't the product, it's the customers who want an option but not necessarily an NEO. The 737-10 guy was asked again what he thought since he had obtained 416 737-10's ordered with "firm" deals.
He then blurted out, "a New Medium Airplane of course and you will get ten times more than that compared with the 737-10's orders and commitments, and that's before I can even wear out my 1987 CAD screen"!
The other guys including the 737-9 guy spilled coffee at the "suggestion". The 737-9 guy had only 109 orders with the dash 9.
The admin piped up offering an acronym, "Is that an NMA or a MoM?"
The president, aka Dennis Muilenburg, interrupted,
"it's not a 757 for God's sake, let's break for some golf and discuss the NMA acronym a bit."
Then the "Idea Guy" from the back of the room shouted out, "I looked at the numbers and "797" has not been claimed yet"!!
Dennis quipped "that's 19th hole stuff, go get us some bagels and the rest of you clean up your coffee".
Thus the 797 was born and Airbus didn't have an answer it only had crepes with Muenster cheese spread and it was also full of Boeing grace.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Sunday, March 25, 2018
The 787-10 Brings Synergy To Its Customers
Or why have the 787-10 when it does not fly as far as the 787-9? The old movie line comes to mind, "you complete me". A carpenter has more than one screwdriver type in its toolbox. A carpenter has more than one hammer too. The 787-10 is that special hammer or also called a "finishing" hammer. Most noted for pounding skinny little nails into wood molding when finishing a home. The 787-10 completes the family and is not a framing hammer for 16 penny nails. The 787-10 carries about 330 passengers as designed and it also flies 80% of the world's population connections with its dampened range of about 7,000 miles vs the 787-9's 9,000 miles, depending on passenger configurations and wind.
The 787-10 finishes the 787 families of aircraft for an airline's toolbox enticing passengers with competitive pricing. It's the finishing hammer making symmetry out of a home before the carpet is laid down and after the wallpaper goes on. Boeing has completed itself with the 787-10. Who would buy the 787-10?
The question was posed to its current customers and Emirates responded with an order for 40 787-10's, that's who! There was some magic in the numbers that have appealed to Singapore Airlines. A seven thousand mile circle was drawn around Singapore and "Viola" it was Singapore's core market. There were billions of people within Singapore's reach. The 787-10 could pack in people and move them where it wanted within its world. They could load a margin of the people on long range excursion to America or Europe on another Boeing 787-9 type going long. That "other" 787 was 95% like the 787-10 while making it a natural companion in the fleet. Singapore had already bought a slew of A-350-900 before the 787-10's concept arrived, but buying 49 787-10's was a remarkable tip of the hat towards Boeing's family plan. Its own airline offshoot, Scoot, bought the 787-8 and 787-9 for its fleet expansion and replacement in its budding aspirations. Emirates committing to 40 787-10 was a remarkable order as well, and a trend was established that the 787-10 completed the 787 concepts.
The synergy of it all, the 787-10 made the 787 family a stronger team than what its competition could offer, and it is beginning to take over the widebody market without a doubt. One pilot to another can fly all three with minimal training when transferring from one to another of the 787 types. That is Boeing's overarching plan of establishing a high bar of excellence defining the industry with its 787.
The 787-10 finishes the 787 families of aircraft for an airline's toolbox enticing passengers with competitive pricing. It's the finishing hammer making symmetry out of a home before the carpet is laid down and after the wallpaper goes on. Boeing has completed itself with the 787-10. Who would buy the 787-10?
The question was posed to its current customers and Emirates responded with an order for 40 787-10's, that's who! There was some magic in the numbers that have appealed to Singapore Airlines. A seven thousand mile circle was drawn around Singapore and "Viola" it was Singapore's core market. There were billions of people within Singapore's reach. The 787-10 could pack in people and move them where it wanted within its world. They could load a margin of the people on long range excursion to America or Europe on another Boeing 787-9 type going long. That "other" 787 was 95% like the 787-10 while making it a natural companion in the fleet. Singapore had already bought a slew of A-350-900 before the 787-10's concept arrived, but buying 49 787-10's was a remarkable tip of the hat towards Boeing's family plan. Its own airline offshoot, Scoot, bought the 787-8 and 787-9 for its fleet expansion and replacement in its budding aspirations. Emirates committing to 40 787-10 was a remarkable order as well, and a trend was established that the 787-10 completed the 787 concepts.
The synergy of it all, the 787-10 made the 787 family a stronger team than what its competition could offer, and it is beginning to take over the widebody market without a doubt. One pilot to another can fly all three with minimal training when transferring from one to another of the 787 types. That is Boeing's overarching plan of establishing a high bar of excellence defining the industry with its 787.
Friday, March 23, 2018
American Cancels Airbus A-330 Order , Dominoing WB Market Into Boeing Hands
Airbus has lost two battles recently (Hawaiian, American) making anything Airbus sales says, a dubious comment thrown out to the press. Boeing stands to profit as American Airlines who already dismissed its Airbus A350-900 proposition has now dismissed its A330-900 considerations. Airbus is in panic mode at this time as the Dominoes begin to tumble around its own market effort for Widebody sales.
First, there was the Hawaiian airline conversion from its A330 NEO order switching for ten 787-9's instead. Now American Airlines is canceling its A330NEO order talks. There are only a few Airbus A330 Big ticket customers as listed below and no longer ay A330-800's booked.
The airline already has a fleet of 787's (-8's and -9's) in service with seven more 787-9 yet to be delivered from its original orders from the past. It is evident American Airlines is satisfied with 787 performance and it could not improve its fleet with an Airbus' offering of A330 NEO's or A350's.
Airbus Orders A330 NEO orders in question as of today:
- Air AsiaX 66 on Order while talking to Boeing
- Iran Air 28 on Order and watched by US political sanctions.
Total in Jepordy: 94
Remaining Orders booked A330 NEO:
ALC 27
Arikia Israeli Airlines 2
Avalon 15
BOC 2
CIT Group 15
Delta 25
Garuda Indonesia 14
TAP Air Portugal 10
Undisclosed 2
Total: 112
Grand Total: 208
(American's cancellation does not show in this listing.)
The questions for A330 NEO's is for Air AsiaX because they are now talking with Boeing about its 787's and Iran is good at being just Iran having no certain airplane future. If and only if Boeing snags away orders from Air AsiaX then Airbus is clinging to its A330 NEO program. “If” Iran then goes off in another direction and Boeing then would not be an option while Airbus struggles to justify the A330 NEO program with its stockholders.
Airbus claims at this time, hundred's of A330 NEO orders are potentially a part of Airbus talks. Sounds like a "never surrender cry" when everything blows ups in its face.
Another thought, perhaps American Airline is supporting Boeing's NMA concept which would eliminate the need of an A330 NEO and the deal-making is down to how many 787-9's and 797's does American want or whether it wants to be a 797 launch customer?
Another thought, perhaps American Airline is supporting Boeing's NMA concept which would eliminate the need of an A330 NEO and the deal-making is down to how many 787-9's and 797's does American want or whether it wants to be a 797 launch customer?
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The F-35 Chatter Is Reaching Fever Pitch
So many complaints and so few facts permeate the atmosphere as if the F-35 is unable to even take-off. China has better cropdusters in its J-10, J-20, J-31 family of box kites. The main complaint is its engines don't always work as expected. The Russian Su-57 can outmaneuver the F-35 in a dogfight. It is also quipped "what dogfight?" The F-35 will have long disposed of the Su-57 before it can even do airshow like maneuver, oohing and awe-ing the fairground audiences who do love watching vectoring antics going awry.
The F-35 is close to fruition, so much so, the USS Wasp took 6 F-35B's on deck during actual Pacific patrols near China. That doesn't sound like a testing mission and upgrade load to me. The test, in this case, is beyond visual range coming from North Korea or China.
The adversarial scramble is for harvesting F-35 performance data using its defensive systems. Albeit satellites monitor the region by the US and it downloads that information onto the Wasp for its F-35's. If a conflict brews it will be in the US Congress who knows as much about the F-35 as the Chinese do. All the F-35 needs is an actual conflict to prove its worth. All this posing round about this fighter. War is a horrible condition for all people, but it's nice to know if the F-35 will do the job.
Some call the F-35 junk and others a money pit. The beauty of it all no one really knows until its way too late in a battle. So far the Red Flag score is 20 to 1 in favor of the F-35. That was way last year. Having the F-35B on the USS Wasp makes the Orient a nervous boiling pot suggesting there may be truth coming out of the tests conducted by the F-35. This latest deployment is a "Damn the torpedos and full jets ahead" for the F-35B. Go ahead someone and send up a Guinea pig and see what will happen. The billions spent on it can be flushed in one golden bullet shot.
The F-35 is close to fruition, so much so, the USS Wasp took 6 F-35B's on deck during actual Pacific patrols near China. That doesn't sound like a testing mission and upgrade load to me. The test, in this case, is beyond visual range coming from North Korea or China.
The adversarial scramble is for harvesting F-35 performance data using its defensive systems. Albeit satellites monitor the region by the US and it downloads that information onto the Wasp for its F-35's. If a conflict brews it will be in the US Congress who knows as much about the F-35 as the Chinese do. All the F-35 needs is an actual conflict to prove its worth. All this posing round about this fighter. War is a horrible condition for all people, but it's nice to know if the F-35 will do the job.
Some call the F-35 junk and others a money pit. The beauty of it all no one really knows until its way too late in a battle. So far the Red Flag score is 20 to 1 in favor of the F-35. That was way last year. Having the F-35B on the USS Wasp makes the Orient a nervous boiling pot suggesting there may be truth coming out of the tests conducted by the F-35. This latest deployment is a "Damn the torpedos and full jets ahead" for the F-35B. Go ahead someone and send up a Guinea pig and see what will happen. The billions spent on it can be flushed in one golden bullet shot.
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
The Boeing 797 Is No Big Technology Push, But ...?
After "Flightglobal" announces "no big technology push" for the Boeing 797, the point becomes it's not about "Moonshot" technology installed in an unknown quality/quantity; but how Boeing will shape this aircraft, and how much it will weigh, or what engines it will use?
The customers will drive the body dynamics and Boeing's design team will mold the carbon fiber aircraft for optimal customer appeal. The carbon fiber, wings, and interior appointments will also drive Boeing's design team. This makes the obvious 797 changes adhere to filling its body to a dual aisle seven-eight across seating alignment for customer appeal ranging from 230 to 270 seats. A slight oval shaped body will follow as Boeing hinted. The already established carbon fiber frame is established by the 787 families of aircraft. The "Carbon Wings" may come from Everett's wing plant. However, the engines are from the techno mystery "booth", where both CFN and GE have a dog in Boeing's 797 engine fight.
Technology will borrow from all the lesson's learned on the 787 program. Big windows, lower elevation cabin pressured (6,000 ft), and lighting cues will dominate the passenger area. The goal for Boeing is not building a wide body like the 787 nor narrow body like the 737 Max, but a Goldilocks body somewhere in between holding the desired passenger count Boeing and its customers require and will follow from the Boeing design team.
Simple math suggests the 737 equals 180 inches and the 787 equals 216 inches,
and the Middle of the Market dimension is 180"+216"= 396" 's by further factoring 396/2 = 198 inches or a 16'.5" for a Goldilock's NMA body width.
Note:
This is Winging It's AP/Math worksheet.
So the 797 could be about 16' wide with Seven across or eight across seating depending on the passenger load wanted by a Boeing customer.
A passenger law should govern airline seating for a passenger's comfort and health safety based on distance/time duration traveled and seat space provided. Thus not allowing configurations of cabins in a high-density fashion for distances traveled.
Perhaps going 5,000 miles with 270 passengers would constrain airlines to only 240 passengers and seven across seating period! It would cause a level playing field among framers for selling aircraft and stop the passenger cramming insanity.
The body width on the NMA is an oval design tweak, which has to allow a comfortable cabin while sufficiently allowing cargo options having a nominal capacity. The goal of this aircraft is about the passenger getting there in comfort and not so much as a double duty passenger and freight hauler.
The customers will drive the body dynamics and Boeing's design team will mold the carbon fiber aircraft for optimal customer appeal. The carbon fiber, wings, and interior appointments will also drive Boeing's design team. This makes the obvious 797 changes adhere to filling its body to a dual aisle seven-eight across seating alignment for customer appeal ranging from 230 to 270 seats. A slight oval shaped body will follow as Boeing hinted. The already established carbon fiber frame is established by the 787 families of aircraft. The "Carbon Wings" may come from Everett's wing plant. However, the engines are from the techno mystery "booth", where both CFN and GE have a dog in Boeing's 797 engine fight.
Technology will borrow from all the lesson's learned on the 787 program. Big windows, lower elevation cabin pressured (6,000 ft), and lighting cues will dominate the passenger area. The goal for Boeing is not building a wide body like the 787 nor narrow body like the 737 Max, but a Goldilocks body somewhere in between holding the desired passenger count Boeing and its customers require and will follow from the Boeing design team.
- The 767 model offers the biggest clue of a 15'6" (feet)wide body
- The 737 Max Body at six across is 11'7" (feet)
- The 787 Body at nine across is 18' (feet).
Simple math suggests the 737 equals 180 inches and the 787 equals 216 inches,
and the Middle of the Market dimension is 180"+216"= 396" 's by further factoring 396/2 = 198 inches or a 16'.5" for a Goldilock's NMA body width.
Note:
This is Winging It's AP/Math worksheet.
So the 797 could be about 16' wide with Seven across or eight across seating depending on the passenger load wanted by a Boeing customer.
A passenger law should govern airline seating for a passenger's comfort and health safety based on distance/time duration traveled and seat space provided. Thus not allowing configurations of cabins in a high-density fashion for distances traveled.
Perhaps going 5,000 miles with 270 passengers would constrain airlines to only 240 passengers and seven across seating period! It would cause a level playing field among framers for selling aircraft and stop the passenger cramming insanity.
The body width on the NMA is an oval design tweak, which has to allow a comfortable cabin while sufficiently allowing cargo options having a nominal capacity. The goal of this aircraft is about the passenger getting there in comfort and not so much as a double duty passenger and freight hauler.
Sunday, March 18, 2018
GE 9X Flying For the 777 9X program
This is the real deal of over 100,000 lbs thrust on a 747 GE testbed. 11' 2" opening sucks more air than a big buildings air conditioning system.
A man standing inside the front engine cowling may only stand as tall as the engine's halfway point in the opening. He would most certainly touch the top rim of the 747 standard engine pictured on the outboard wing.
Imagine the wing weight on the port side causing the 747 to tilt towards its port during its lift-off. So GE engineers had to compensate the aircraft for a level take-off. Much like, in the old days, fuel tanks had to stay in the balance of the aircraft's centerline by often switching fuel tanks stored its wings while keeping the aircraft in the balance as the fuel volume depletes. Today's fuel volume weight is balanced by computers. I imagine this GE 9X equipped 747 has starboard ballast tanks to compensate for the extra 9X engine weight on the port side. It's that big!
This test program has just completed its first flight in four hours. All went smoothly checking off the first flight test points with complete satisfaction. The 777X program has achieved a critical milestone with this success. More GE tests will continue until all checkpoints conclude the initial engine operations tests later this year. When Boeing completes its 777-9X body these GE-9X's will be mounted for ground tests late 2018 and first flight later in 2019.
Digital Trends Photo
A man standing inside the front engine cowling may only stand as tall as the engine's halfway point in the opening. He would most certainly touch the top rim of the 747 standard engine pictured on the outboard wing.
Imagine the wing weight on the port side causing the 747 to tilt towards its port during its lift-off. So GE engineers had to compensate the aircraft for a level take-off. Much like, in the old days, fuel tanks had to stay in the balance of the aircraft's centerline by often switching fuel tanks stored its wings while keeping the aircraft in the balance as the fuel volume depletes. Today's fuel volume weight is balanced by computers. I imagine this GE 9X equipped 747 has starboard ballast tanks to compensate for the extra 9X engine weight on the port side. It's that big!
This test program has just completed its first flight in four hours. All went smoothly checking off the first flight test points with complete satisfaction. The 777X program has achieved a critical milestone with this success. More GE tests will continue until all checkpoints conclude the initial engine operations tests later this year. When Boeing completes its 777-9X body these GE-9X's will be mounted for ground tests late 2018 and first flight later in 2019.
Friday, March 16, 2018
Perth To London Or Singapore To Osaka Japan
... Is a study with two different strategic projects for commercial airlines both predicated on the costs of airline fuel. The first goes 9,000 miles with 234 passengers on a 787-9 and the second carrier will go 3,00 miles with 330 passengers on a 787-10. The strategies use a combination of ticket prices and fuel efficiency for its respective bottom lines.
Boeing proposes a name your proposition with the 787-10 and Singapore Airlines proposes 49 787-10's for traversing Asia or Africa with one take-off from Singapore. If going far on a 787-9 with 234 passengers the ticket will go North of $2,000 per seat. If going near-by with 330 seats on a 787-10 the ticket price may go South of $500. Multiply those seat prices at estimated ticket value times the seats and a revenue flight will look like these results. 234 Seats x's $2,200 = $234,000 and 330 seats x's $500 seats = $165,000.
The seat mile 787-9 revenue factor would look like this: 234/9,000= .106 and the seat/mile 787-10 revenue factor would be 330/3000 = .111. As you see both have a similar revenue factors but the 787-10 to Osaka burns significantly less fuel and will gain a larger profit potential with this strategy.
Singapore Airlines has ordered 49 787-10's for its fleet. Draw a 5,000 mile circle around Singapore and see the high density city pairings found with its higher performing seat/mile machine.
Over half of Earth's population is within range of Singapore's' 787-10 fleet and that's a big number. This includes India, China and even into Africa. The 5,000 mile circle is immense and that is why Singapore bought the 787-10 in a large quantity. The 787-10 can fly another 1,500 miles than the 5,000 miles in this example. The world is watching to see what happens when Singapore launches its 787-10's, especially the middle eastern air force of Emirates, Qatar and Etihad. Why buy a 787-9 Singapore? when they could buy Boeing in ten years flying its 787-10's flying over half the world's people.
Boeing proposes a name your proposition with the 787-10 and Singapore Airlines proposes 49 787-10's for traversing Asia or Africa with one take-off from Singapore. If going far on a 787-9 with 234 passengers the ticket will go North of $2,000 per seat. If going near-by with 330 seats on a 787-10 the ticket price may go South of $500. Multiply those seat prices at estimated ticket value times the seats and a revenue flight will look like these results. 234 Seats x's $2,200 = $234,000 and 330 seats x's $500 seats = $165,000.
The seat mile 787-9 revenue factor would look like this: 234/9,000= .106 and the seat/mile 787-10 revenue factor would be 330/3000 = .111. As you see both have a similar revenue factors but the 787-10 to Osaka burns significantly less fuel and will gain a larger profit potential with this strategy.
Singapore Airlines has ordered 49 787-10's for its fleet. Draw a 5,000 mile circle around Singapore and see the high density city pairings found with its higher performing seat/mile machine.
Over half of Earth's population is within range of Singapore's' 787-10 fleet and that's a big number. This includes India, China and even into Africa. The 5,000 mile circle is immense and that is why Singapore bought the 787-10 in a large quantity. The 787-10 can fly another 1,500 miles than the 5,000 miles in this example. The world is watching to see what happens when Singapore launches its 787-10's, especially the middle eastern air force of Emirates, Qatar and Etihad. Why buy a 787-9 Singapore? when they could buy Boeing in ten years flying its 787-10's flying over half the world's people.
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
Boeing Post 1,300 Since September 2012 Jon Ostrower
I never thought I'd reach 1,300 posts back in 2012. Never thought I would live so long either. It’s good to see Jon Ostrower blogging again since he is my inspiration from the beginning. He held a supremely well insightful Blog on the 787, back in the heady days of announced miracles in manufacturing as Boeing stumbled its way towards its 787 Moonshot. He showed how it would come together as it happened. This blog is a feeble attempt of mimicking his own pursuit of the elusive 787 program. The inside information obtained during those days reflected Jon's own talent for piecing together this airplane. Now that the 787 program sees the financial light at the end of the tunnel, Jon has returned to his roots of blogging for I am guessing, "a little while". He has graced the Wall Street Journal with his insight and most recently CNN at it has turned its big business eye towards its own purpose and left Jon aside but as he indicated his love for aviation and big ideas is close by. The Blog Site link is Jon Ostrower.com.
Jon Ostrower
Whether he reads this tribute is not important as we are ships passing in the night sky with asymmetrical blinking from wing tips flying by each other. The important point is to follow his blog because his valued lessons learned in the aviation business transcends all continents at the head of the aviation pack. He refers to Mary Kirby at "Runway Girl" as one who supported his trajectory as he aspired in the aviation news industry. When someone has that "it" factor you know it. For this 1,300th blog, I will dedicate this simple contribution to his budding family and his care for them. I can't wait to hear from him as the 777X program unfolds and the 797 takes off. Of course, the 737 will be remade after the 797 sells another 2,000 units to happy customers. I may not be around for those events, but I am counting on Jon Ostrower to lead the way for all other dreamers who dare to dream skyward.
Boeing Orders 2018 Including February
The additions include 14-787-8F's and 4-767 for UPS. There where another 10 737's of which two where Identified as TUI Travel. It appears unidentified customer(s) converted from NG to Max for 7 frames, In total, a net of 34 airplanes are booked YTD for Boeing Co.
Note: not included where the 25 firmed 787-9's ordered by Turkish Airlines this March.
Note: not included where the 25 firmed 787-9's ordered by Turkish Airlines this March.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Jon Ostrower's 797
When those in the "know
weigh-in it becomes time to speculate with some knowledgeable wisdom or just
some Wild A. Guessing. Winging IT talks about what Jon Ostrower surmises.
The 797 rendering is a logical procession in its advanced technology. Boeing will use what it uses best, its own stuff.
The 797 Renderings BY: Jon Ostrower on his welcome back blog. Please link to John's blog as he will soon become a valued contributor at another aviation site. This is a great opportunity for aviation fans following a knowledgeable contributor.
So, what might Boeing’s ‘Atlantic Fragmenter’ become?
Jon Ostrower's photo of:
Ostrower recognizes a 767 front snout and windows, a 787 like body composite and wings and a 737 tail cone. The oval is not dead! It is a plausible concept attracting all 767 fans and 787 aficionados.
Saturday, March 10, 2018
The 797 Cargo Conundrum
China wants cargo space when Boeing designed passenger space using an oval shape allowing a wide cabin for 250 passengers. China wants a Swiss Army knife style that hauls both passengers and freight at the same time. Boeing customers, such as Delta, want passengers for its 797. The China market is the fastest growing region of untapped commerce on the planet at this time. Both Delta and United are fickle for future airplane sales. Airbus is looking for a market stopping answer to Boeing's 797 proposals. If Boeing goes passenger in an oval shape then Airbus will go to a traditional body circle for its designs thus allowing both freight and passenger service for its potential customers in China.
The conundrum is for Boeing, not Airbus. Boeing could re-engine the 767 for freight and for its passengers hoping to snag a large Chinese order. That risk is too much for Boeing's canceled 767 passenger program. Boeing will not make two different 797 models, one for passengers only and another for passengers with a freight capacity. There is no solution for Boeing, in this case, it will build the passenger oval 797 hoping for at least two thousand orders while leaving the Asian market to an A-330 NEO like Airbus offering. Building a 787 light version for the 797 program is not advisable or should be considered unless copious numbers of orders exist for a 787 light version.
Boeing has the orders for a 797 start, but the number is way short of where it sees its financial targets before announcing. It probably has about 400 797 promises at this time but it would have to reach a thousand units committed before going all in on a 797 flying oval. It needs China in its battle with Airbus, Airbus needs China to save its widebody bottom end of the A-330/350 family. An A-360 or whatever is on the horizon from Airbus. The 797 was supposed to be a killer shot plugging the A-321 NEO. Instead, the game of aviation leapfrog will continue for both makers trading off model against the model for years to come.
A concluding sentiment is for Boeing. Build the 797 flying oval and well above its competition capability, Airbus. China does need to move passengers at this segment in time. The option for freight service by the 767 (i.e. FedEx, UPS) is well established.
China's freight needs will outgrow dual passenger level freight services almost immediately, and any other dual threat airplanes hauling both passengers and freight at the same time which will not serve its greater market but will only serve only in niche regions. The Gap airplane is not meant as a panacea for moving stuff but is meant for moving passengers up to 5,000 miles.
The conundrum is for Boeing, not Airbus. Boeing could re-engine the 767 for freight and for its passengers hoping to snag a large Chinese order. That risk is too much for Boeing's canceled 767 passenger program. Boeing will not make two different 797 models, one for passengers only and another for passengers with a freight capacity. There is no solution for Boeing, in this case, it will build the passenger oval 797 hoping for at least two thousand orders while leaving the Asian market to an A-330 NEO like Airbus offering. Building a 787 light version for the 797 program is not advisable or should be considered unless copious numbers of orders exist for a 787 light version.
Extreme Oval Design With Freight
Russia's version came before the 797 concepts: Pictured below.
Boeing has the orders for a 797 start, but the number is way short of where it sees its financial targets before announcing. It probably has about 400 797 promises at this time but it would have to reach a thousand units committed before going all in on a 797 flying oval. It needs China in its battle with Airbus, Airbus needs China to save its widebody bottom end of the A-330/350 family. An A-360 or whatever is on the horizon from Airbus. The 797 was supposed to be a killer shot plugging the A-321 NEO. Instead, the game of aviation leapfrog will continue for both makers trading off model against the model for years to come.
A concluding sentiment is for Boeing. Build the 797 flying oval and well above its competition capability, Airbus. China does need to move passengers at this segment in time. The option for freight service by the 767 (i.e. FedEx, UPS) is well established.
China's freight needs will outgrow dual passenger level freight services almost immediately, and any other dual threat airplanes hauling both passengers and freight at the same time which will not serve its greater market but will only serve only in niche regions. The Gap airplane is not meant as a panacea for moving stuff but is meant for moving passengers up to 5,000 miles.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
How Big Is Boeing's Hawaiian Airlines Ticket Announcement BIG!!
Its only for 10 787-9's for $2.82 Billion
Currently:
"Hawaiian currently operates a mainline fleet of 54 aircraft: 24 Airbus A330-200 and 8 Boeing 767 wide-body aircraft, 2 A321neo and 20 717 narrow-body aircraft. The company selected the 787-9 as part of a competitive bid process that also included the Airbus A330-900. "
But:
Hawaiian has long held a preference for Airbus product over Boeing as it expanded its fleet with 24, A330 aircraft. They had a penchant for old equipment so the Max aircraft would be a natural replacement for its older narrow-bodied aircraft. The importance of the 787-9 order with Hawaiian makes this a BIG get for Boeing as the North American carrier blinked at a fleet opportunity change for Boeing product. Hawaiian has a history of holding onto equipment for a long time such as its 20 717 narrow body aircraft.
Expect some kind of heated competition for a narrow body order with both Airbus and Boeing bidding over the next few years. So far Airbus has 16 A-320 on order with Airbus. Hawaii is an American Iconic destination for world travelers and the advertising potential for an airplane product is almost limitless. Boeing has gained a significant toehold on this Island paradise with this widebody order. It only has to crack into Delta's fleet in a bigger way. This is a Big Boeing Bash for its 787 family of aircraft even though its order for 10 seems small compared with other airshow type orders.
Boeing 787-9 "Dreamliner" to Join Hawaiian Airlines Fleet
Currently:
"Hawaiian currently operates a mainline fleet of 54 aircraft: 24 Airbus A330-200 and 8 Boeing 767 wide-body aircraft, 2 A321neo and 20 717 narrow-body aircraft. The company selected the 787-9 as part of a competitive bid process that also included the Airbus A330-900. "
But:
Hawaiian has long held a preference for Airbus product over Boeing as it expanded its fleet with 24, A330 aircraft. They had a penchant for old equipment so the Max aircraft would be a natural replacement for its older narrow-bodied aircraft. The importance of the 787-9 order with Hawaiian makes this a BIG get for Boeing as the North American carrier blinked at a fleet opportunity change for Boeing product. Hawaiian has a history of holding onto equipment for a long time such as its 20 717 narrow body aircraft.
Expect some kind of heated competition for a narrow body order with both Airbus and Boeing bidding over the next few years. So far Airbus has 16 A-320 on order with Airbus. Hawaii is an American Iconic destination for world travelers and the advertising potential for an airplane product is almost limitless. Boeing has gained a significant toehold on this Island paradise with this widebody order. It only has to crack into Delta's fleet in a bigger way. This is a Big Boeing Bash for its 787 family of aircraft even though its order for 10 seems small compared with other airshow type orders.
Hawaiian Airlines 787 photo imagery
Monday, March 5, 2018
Three Horse Engine Race For The 797
The closer the 797 becomes a reality the closer an engine maker(s) emerge. The three top contenders will be a GE sponsored product (CFN), P&W redo from the A320-NEO world and finally Rolls Royce picking up where it left off with the 787 program competition. Boeing will not go the single-engine type route it did with its 737. The 797 airplane stance will allow any configured engine a maker could think of at this time. However, the matter could become a three-engine choice for customers.
CFN exclusively makes the 737 oval shaped engine because the low slung 737 wings only allows for a wedged in CFN from yonder days from the early 737 design screens. Other engine makers would not try for a Boeing 737 engine acceptance as it would cost them too much for an attempt at having no certain outcome. Boeing has now positioned itself to accept all attempts for an engine mounting just so its airplane buying customers are happy with superior engine performance. Boeing expects an initial order book of 2,000-4,000 797's and will bear the brunt of developing new airplane risks along the way.
The 787 program dug a 31 billion money pit as it trialed and error its way during the 2011-2015 787 time period. It will deliver a 787-10 this month with Singapore Airlines. Boeing may never or will probably retire the money pit by the 1400th model ordered. It now has an order book of 1,294 787's ordered which is short of the 1,400 unit block Boeing requires for extinguishing its deferred cost account. That account stands at or about 25 billion at this time. The deferred cost set aside allows Boeing a profit margin for each 787 delivered and thus reducing the deferred cost balance when delivering one 787. It thinks by unit 1,400 delivered. its 25 billion costs will evaporate. It will probably have to go farther in units delivered when it aspires for a zero balance.
The 797 is a big risk based on experience with the 787 program. However, Boeing became profit-addicted with its prior programs since the 737 through the 777. The 797 show a promise of profit and the high ground over its competitor. Airbus will answer Boeing's 797 attempts by various means such as its A-330 NEO or A321 NEO rendition. But history suggests those who are second to market never seem to capture the market high ground. Boeing can and will adjust later its 797 model according to how the market reacts. Otherwise, keeping the Boeing boot on the Airbus neck.
Back to engines and the 797. Its a big risk for the big three engine makers mentioned above. The question asked is how lucrative would a 4,000 engine market be split among the big three. The answer comes down to a big two answer where a European engine maker and a Western engine maker become the engine suppliers. Gear drove vs classic turbofan and so forth. The engines are the problem, not the 797 concepts. The latter is already finished. Boeing is waiting for big engine makers stepping forward with a reliable proposal for saving fuel for its Boeing's customers.
CFN exclusively makes the 737 oval shaped engine because the low slung 737 wings only allows for a wedged in CFN from yonder days from the early 737 design screens. Other engine makers would not try for a Boeing 737 engine acceptance as it would cost them too much for an attempt at having no certain outcome. Boeing has now positioned itself to accept all attempts for an engine mounting just so its airplane buying customers are happy with superior engine performance. Boeing expects an initial order book of 2,000-4,000 797's and will bear the brunt of developing new airplane risks along the way.
The 787 program dug a 31 billion money pit as it trialed and error its way during the 2011-2015 787 time period. It will deliver a 787-10 this month with Singapore Airlines. Boeing may never or will probably retire the money pit by the 1400th model ordered. It now has an order book of 1,294 787's ordered which is short of the 1,400 unit block Boeing requires for extinguishing its deferred cost account. That account stands at or about 25 billion at this time. The deferred cost set aside allows Boeing a profit margin for each 787 delivered and thus reducing the deferred cost balance when delivering one 787. It thinks by unit 1,400 delivered. its 25 billion costs will evaporate. It will probably have to go farther in units delivered when it aspires for a zero balance.
The 797 is a big risk based on experience with the 787 program. However, Boeing became profit-addicted with its prior programs since the 737 through the 777. The 797 show a promise of profit and the high ground over its competitor. Airbus will answer Boeing's 797 attempts by various means such as its A-330 NEO or A321 NEO rendition. But history suggests those who are second to market never seem to capture the market high ground. Boeing can and will adjust later its 797 model according to how the market reacts. Otherwise, keeping the Boeing boot on the Airbus neck.
Back to engines and the 797. Its a big risk for the big three engine makers mentioned above. The question asked is how lucrative would a 4,000 engine market be split among the big three. The answer comes down to a big two answer where a European engine maker and a Western engine maker become the engine suppliers. Gear drove vs classic turbofan and so forth. The engines are the problem, not the 797 concepts. The latter is already finished. Boeing is waiting for big engine makers stepping forward with a reliable proposal for saving fuel for its Boeing's customers.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
787-10 Is A Master Piece For Emirates
Below: is a copied article (excellent Boeing 101 class on the 787-10) which explains why the 787-10 beat the A-350 in a deal made with Boeing and Emirates late last year. It has yet to be booked by Boeing until all "deal" details are finalized. Probably during 2018.
November 15, 2017
Why did Emirates choose Boeing’s 787-10?
By Bjorn Fehrm
November 15, 2017, © Leeham Co.: Emirates Airlines (Emirates) has finally decided which aircraft shall complement their long-range Boeing 777 and Airbus A380. The decision coming at this year’s Dubai Air Show was more surprising than the choice, Boeing’s 787-10.
We have already written about the Emirates selection. Now we go through in more detail, why the choice should surprise no-one.
Boeing’s 787-10 compared to Airbus’ A350-900
Many write that the choice was about a medium-range aircraft versus a long-range model. This is part of the answer but it’s not the whole answer. The full answer is more involved. It’s equally about a more tightly packaged aircraft versus a more spacious one.
We will go through the key differences that decided which aircraft was the most suitable for Emirates need. In a second article tomorrow, we will quantify each difference and show how key choices for the aircraft series, many which had little to do with medium versus long range, finally add up to the differences in performance and economics that swung the choice.
Fuselage
At the base for the difference between the aircraft stands the choice of fuselage cross section. The fuselage cross-section decides the width of the cabin, but it also sets the weight and drag of the fuselage.
The weight of an airliner’s fuselage is dictated by the outer surface area of the fuselage. The reason is aircraft fuselages are “stressed skin” constructions since World War 2. “Stressed skin” construction means the fuselage skin carries the loads, stiffened to not buckle by vertical frames and horizontal longerons (the longitudinal profiles attached to the skin, also called stringers).
Weight
Aircraft certification rules result in, fuselages designed with the same technology and the same dimensions, end up weighing the same.
This means: more fuselage surface area, more weight.
If we now return to the 787-10 compared with the A350-900, we have a difference in fuselage dimensions. The 787-fuselage width is 5.77m with 5.97m height. The A350 fuselage has the dimensions 5.96m wide and 6.09m high.
This means the surface area of the 787 fuselage is 2.5% less for each unit length of the fuselage. One would think it would stay with this difference if both fuselages are of equal cabin length. It doesn’t.
If your fuselage diameter is larger, your nose and tail areas grow. For aerodynamic reasons you only taper your nose and tail at a certain rate. Larger diameter, therefore, means longer nose and tail. And this means more fuselage surface area. Airbus is now proposing to use the A350’s longer tail to house further cabin items.
Drag
Now onto the drag of the fuselage. A larger diameter fuselage has a higher drag. It’s not the drag that comes first to mind, the frontal area or pressure drag (which is insignificant for a modern airliner).
The dominant drag of an airliner at cruise is skin friction drag. Skin friction drag comes from the air rubbing the aircraft’s skin. So, more fuselage skin, more drag.
Observe that we have not yet talked about medium or long range. We just discuss the consequences of the A350 cabin being wider and therefore more comfortable for economy passengers. It results in differences, which are significant.
The rest of the aircraft
We now continue with the other components of the aircraft. If your fuselage weighs more, you need a larger wing and stronger engines for the same operational performance. A larger wing and engines, in turn, demands larger tail surfaces (with the same length fuselage).
The end effect is, the aircraft with the more spacious fuselage will, for the same passenger capacity, have a higher empty weight and higher drag.
This is true when everything else is equal. One could argue it’s not between the 787 and A350.
If we exclude the range difference, I would argue things are equal. The 787 and A350 are very similar in their build techniques.
Over my years of analyzing aircraft, I can find no difference between aircraft because one uses barrel based carbon composite fuselage sections and the other panel based sections.
And there seems to be a minimal operational difference between the more electrical system architecture of the 787 versus the conventional system architecture of the A350.
The builds of the wings are also similar. Both have high aspect ratio composite wings (their aspect ratios are within 1% of each other) with wing shape tailoring at cruise via movable spoilers/flaps. And both employ Fly-By-Wire load alleviation.
The differences from the fuselage packaging are by a wide margin more important than the differences in composite build or other techniques for the aircraft.
Medium range versus Long range
Up to this point, we have not discussed the consequences of designing an aircraft for medium range (we call 6,400nm medium range in this discussion) and another long range.
The difference is, the longer-range aircraft needs to take off with more fuel on board. So, if the aircraft carry the same payload, we have a higher empty weight (to hold the heavier fuel load) and higher Take-Off Weight (TOW, = empty weight + payload + fuel).
To get the higher TOW in the air on the same field length, the longer-range aircraft needs a larger wing and stronger engines.
In summary, the 8,000nm A350 has a larger fuselage, wing and engines. This all creates higher drag and therefore fuel burn when flying the same payload over a route.
It comes partly from the A350 being a longer range aircraft, but also from the A350 being less densely packaged.
Economic consequences
The consequences of a heavier and larger aircraft are not only a higher fuel burn.
Fuel was historically the dominant cost, the most important one when choosing aircraft. It’s still an important factor, but the importance is now shared with equal size crew and fee costs (fees paid to countries and airports for their air transport services).
Crew cost differences between aircraft like the 787 and A350 at equal size cabins, is dominated by the flight crew costs. For aircraft with equal capacity, maximum weight and range, flight crew costs are the same within an airline. If an aircraft type is more capable in any of these capacities, it means the flight crew is paid a higher wage.
Airport and airway use fees are based on the size of the aircraft. The parameter used to determine aircraft size is the Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW). A larger and longer-range aircraft will cost more in fees, as its MTOW will be higher.
The final part of the Cash Operational Costs (COC, meaning we exclude the capital costs of the aircraft) is the maintenance costs. Both the 787 and A350 are modern composite aircraft. Their airframe maintenance programs, and therefore costs, are similar.
The difference in aircraft size and capabilities means different size engines. The 787-10 engine Take-Off thrust is 76klbf versus 84klbf for the A350. The engine mass of the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB on the A350 is 2.3t higher than the Trent 1000 for the 787. Higher thrust and larger engines mean higher engine maintenance costs.
Summary
Emirates President Tim Clark said this week: “The Boeing 787-10 aircraft is the best choice for Emirates, it’s a good eight-hour aircraft.”
An eight-hour mission has a flying distance of 3,800nm. This is well below the advertised maximum range of the 787-10 (6,400nm) and certainly below the 8,000nm of the A350-900. The -900 can be “paper de-rated” to get the MTOW the same as the 787-10. But then the range is below the 787-10, at 5,900nm.
The costs being reduced are the flight crew costs, the fees and the engine maintenance costs (due to lower stress from lighter take-offs). But the fuel burn differences don’t change.
If Emirates are looking for the best eight-hour aircraft, the Boeing 787-10 is the best choice.
Friday, March 2, 2018
What Drives The 797 Idea Cost, Cost Costs
Starting any conversation concerning the 797 has to begin with How much will it cost Boeing to Build the 797? The cost driver will locate the assembly point, design points and its suppliers. All which seem to reside near or in the USA. A mature infrastructure with trained engineers are required. A intact supply chain is a must. The big three happen to be in the Northwest corner of the US. Labor is the wild card for this project as the "Union" has a grip in Washington State. If the Union(s) can agree they will lock up the 797 for years to come. Boeing is waiting not on its customers to pull the 797 trigger but all is massive costly lose ends.
Most of those lose ends are already resolved but a significant element is the labor quotient. Automation is labor's undoing. Boeing is automating the 777X and has dialed in the the work force component with the 787 program. Boeing is figuring out how many workers it will need and how many machines can be positioned for the manufacturer of said product. The Unions are here to stay in Washington state but the numbers can be mitigated by new processes. When 10,000 workers were needed during 1950 only a 1,000 are need today for the same production output. Boeing hopes to reduce that number into the hundreds as machines drill holes and place fasteners in the process. Human hands are needed for stuffing and airplane body of all its wires, insulation and mechanical applications. Only time will give a complete snap together body connecting the parts which works into one snap. It will take only a few workers to finish the work in that future.
However, the 797 would only be half way there for a complete low cost high tech solution having precision beyond what a human can do. It just a matter of time before that happens. The 797 finds itself closing that gap because Boeing insist it will need to build 797 excellent enough and cheap enough at the same time. It will close the cost gap with plant, design and supplier innovation but it will need just enough people to build the 797. That is holding Boeing back until it figures the 797 costs component of the program.
Most of those lose ends are already resolved but a significant element is the labor quotient. Automation is labor's undoing. Boeing is automating the 777X and has dialed in the the work force component with the 787 program. Boeing is figuring out how many workers it will need and how many machines can be positioned for the manufacturer of said product. The Unions are here to stay in Washington state but the numbers can be mitigated by new processes. When 10,000 workers were needed during 1950 only a 1,000 are need today for the same production output. Boeing hopes to reduce that number into the hundreds as machines drill holes and place fasteners in the process. Human hands are needed for stuffing and airplane body of all its wires, insulation and mechanical applications. Only time will give a complete snap together body connecting the parts which works into one snap. It will take only a few workers to finish the work in that future.
However, the 797 would only be half way there for a complete low cost high tech solution having precision beyond what a human can do. It just a matter of time before that happens. The 797 finds itself closing that gap because Boeing insist it will need to build 797 excellent enough and cheap enough at the same time. It will close the cost gap with plant, design and supplier innovation but it will need just enough people to build the 797. That is holding Boeing back until it figures the 797 costs component of the program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)