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/

The 787-10 Is Not About The A-350, Its About Check Mate

The 787-10 move on aviation's chess  board is about check mating the regional and high density route potential, cornering the market. It is known as -10 to followers of aviation's progressions. This -10  will serve all the potential high density regions of the world such as China, Malaysia, and India. The aircraft will pack in customers Like South West Airlines does in the United States cross country routes but only with a larger scale than what Southwest offers. Instead of 160 seats on the 737 Max, serving 320 million US citizens from coast to coast. Boeing intends to send over the most efficient, high capacity capacity aircraft it can to 1.4 billion people from coast to the Himalayas. I see the relevant correlation plainly as a scale-like enhancement in the planet`s most densely populated  areas of the world.

The -10 will move 340 passengers with work-man like efficiency, better than any other aircraft in the world. Plus seat them in unparalleled comfort and passenger advantages on the market serving those high density regions of the world. The up scaled efficiency is marked with MTOW tonnage adjusted to maximizing range with the right fuel weight for achieved range of flight within a customer's own airlines internal network of routes, like in the China market potential.

The -10 stretched is the -9, but with more length, and the fuel capacity of the -9. Therefore, it will fly 7,000 miles, and not the 8,500 miles of the -9. Since the -10 is a revenue hauler for higher density markets, it has a long legged range in most of the two isle world (this range covers 90% of the twin isle routes), instead of the all world -9.

What are those revenue markers? Markers are the designs for 323 passengers in three classes, where the -9 is designed for 290 in three classes, an airline exec will note, "we can fill more than 323 on a -10 for daily routes transcending China, and further out regions!

The 787-8, with Thompson Air, currently hauls 291 passenger across the ocean on its 787-8, that is generally rated for 240 passengers in 3 classes. However, it uses a two class model of Premium economy and Plus Economy with respective room of 45" (inch), and  38" seat pitch dynamics. Most airlines today are lucky to have 34" seat pitch dynamics in economy class as found on a conventional single isle aircraft.

Using the Thompson Airline Model for China or a Singapore Airline on a -10, that will fly 7,000 miles, is easy to seat passengers in a high density array with about 340 tickets punched at the gate. The -10 now becomes a super craft which is immensely up scaled from how a Max will be used in the 4,000 mile range markets, where the Max carries only about half the passenger seats that a China or Singapore customer requires. The -10 will face off with the A-350 9,s and 10's. How will that play out? Since neither aircraft has reached the market yet, there  is plenty of back room design tweaking going on at this stage. But, the big issue that will affect the customer market, is how much added weight is put on the A-350 for fuel storage cells, and fuel dead weight as its weight penalty? The A-350 wants to pack on the fuel in a competition of long legged routes and will try to push the fuel economy envelop at the same time, in order to meet or exceed the Boeing product for the 787 family of aircraft.

Meeting or equaling 787 economics, retains loyal customers for Airbus. Beating Boeing with higher fuel economy per seat, will steal from Boeing's base of customers. On the other hand if Boeing holds the line on operational efficiency it will win the day with its 787 campaign. The unknown Knight riding the gallant stead has yet to appear in this "B" movie classic. That is the 777-X! We have all heard about this knight in shinning armor, but we will not know if it can win the joust that will change the airplane wars. It will though do just that, if it lives up to expectations, and squash the whole Airbus scheme of world dominance as an air framer. Putting the airline wars in a quasi fantasy and realistic point as in a "metaphor speak", is very appropriate dimension of reality.

The unknown night will joust this fall on the Arabian peninsula. The reality, can Boeing pull off a victory and unlock  the 787 from Airbus' hold over Europe? The answer is in the final chapter of the 787 saga. The ending has not been disclosed, so I will leave any reader with this thought. If boasting counts in the game of Horse Shoes and Grenades, meaning getting close to a ringer with its verbal grenades, Boeing will win the game of Horseshoes. In summary, the 777-X is just as important to the 787 program as its execution of the the 787 build plans. If it all comes together as spoken by Boeing (boasts), then Airbus will have made an "in vain" attempt in knocking that "Knight" off the horse, and will not or cannot stop the 787 checkmate.

Charleston Is Late To The Manufacturing Date

By now most people recognize one thing. Like a kids at the candy store, they can't move fast or they will drop the candy before they reach the store door door. Everett has it down after five years. They got figured out how to get out the jaw breakers from bouncing off the factory floor. The Puget Sound Business Journal, has brought to the attention of the Northwest region that Jobs are still a pretty good bet if you work in aviation.  The Charleston plant can't cut it when they need to push candy out the door.

Will Boeing reach 60 787's this year? That is the multi-billion dollar question!  The answer is in some production meeting somewhere between August and September. The airplane marketing gurus will tell anyone anything just to reassure VP's and Airline CEO's.  Charleston will grow up and punch out the 787-8,-9-10 at some time. Or they or they will genuflect to the Max. However, the main thing is to reach 100 and above  units of 787 flying around the world by the end of the year.

Those following the 787 saga should take into consideration projections are hopeful thoughts that would make a perfect Boeing World, and not to bet the farm on hopeful thoughts even through a Certified Balance Sheet or Audit which they gladly paste onto its purchased prospectus. Boeing can't control the weather yet, but can issue raincoats in large abundance. The real focus is not on graphs, slopes and tendency. It is on those pesky gum-balls rolling across the factory floor as they head towards the delivery door. The kids in the candy store, don't think they are being watched by anyone and the big-shots pretend to not notice and  keep on talking to anyone who will listen at social gatherings and press conferences.

However, therefore and so forth.... The children of the store are very mature  and will put Charleston on Aviation's Map. After-all this is Charleston's third year (third grade) at this and Everett has had its graduation ceremony with the 787. Proud parents that gloat over its progeny often overstate performance of a little league budding star as if he were in the majors. Consistently exposing a belief that this Charleston kid is going to pitch a twenty game win streak next year during his fourth grade season. This will eventually become a true fact, but has to suffer some reality checks along the way.  This Boeing Parent will upgrade its own video cameras each year as Charleston continue towards a full ride scholarship into the majors. That will happen as more money is applied to its development in Charleston. The Everett child need not worry yet as it will not have to give up its bedroom and move out for this Charleston little brother upstart. Payton Manning had a similar little brother perception problem, but he eventually moved to Denver and is checking his Hall of Fame digs as he consistently lets it fly a mile high.

No Matter What, The 787 Battery Has Become A Non Issue

I almost want, another 787 battery to act up in commercial operations. As grizzly or harsh that statement may sound, it is not a wish for passengers or airlines that it would want to experience such an event. It is my sincerest hope this does not happen on a commercial flight. "I almost", is best experienced on a test aircraft and not on an airline in service. Boeing needs to fly its test copy as often as possible with the fix. Especially from Japan to Boston, over and over again until it gets a "Run Away Battery Event" during the life of a battery under operation. Fly it from Japan to Boston with Wi Fi blaring tunes, and ovens cooking up a storm and Airport ground crews filling-er up on Jet-A, over and over again for a year. Take company people for a ride and let them do what passengers do on long trips, play with stuff on board. Take new flight crews in-training that will serve the ever curious test passengers on their quest to push new buttons on the aircraft and have luggage gorillas stow the luggage as some kind of football event. Make that battery system work through its paces in hopes that it will light-up when at rest or even in flight.

If Boeing can get or replicate the "runaway event", then it will answer many and more questions, because the system they have built should recover that battery before it destroys itself resting at the Jetway. Boeing may remove that battery with a mountain of lifetime data before it incinerates itself.

• Boeing could prove to everyone, steps taken are excellent for preventing any unknown root cause.
• Boeing would demonstrate steps taken will control any catastrophic battery event like a total meltdown.
• If a test event arises, Boeing will find the root cause and make the electronic changes to the system as an official solution.
• Move staff back and forth on long routes, ensuring optimum exposure to traveling public, let the staff critic the experience.
• Pay the airlines to service the airplane.
• Pay the airlines, to staff a cabin crew for training.
• Commit to flying that test 787 everyday for a year.
• Hide your testing from the participating crew and passengers as you monitor normal operations in transit.
• This a proof on concept moment for any airline wishing to participate, and how they intend to operate this Boeing aircraft, While at no cost to customers participating. Make it a Win-Win proposition.
• Operate this aircraft as if it is running an airline and not just testing, testing, and testing.
• Having an event with daily operations may lead to the root cause and solve the problem.

Putting to rest the ever annoying press as it lamely limps lethargically, as did in the 7L87 days.

Starting each headline with unrelenting content. The Three Year Blah, Blah- Is Beating The Competition." 

Or, "The 7L87 Has Completed Two Years Of Service on Customer Flights"

Now We have: "An Engine Oil Filter Is Changed Out Because Of Indicator Light. This Is Not Battery Related"  Do I now have to say Duh!

Next year The Headlines will go as follows: "The 787-9 Carries Its First Passengers, Coffee Spilled Is Not Related To Last Year's Battery Explosions"

All headlines lead to calamity, making the 787 sound like the most fatal, most crashed aircraft in the history of Yellow Journalism.  European press will do a great job of ("covering" over) the A350 race to last place.

Now on to the Fake headlines:

Faulty Dimmer Switch Has Been Located In The Tail Section Of ANA 7L87 Not related To Last Year's Battery Explosions Conducted At Japanese Battery Manufacturer Of Car Batteries 

A Dimmer Switch Is Missing In This Tail Section of Another Aircraft Type and Airline

Even Though This is What A Tail Section Of A 7L87 Looks Like Floating In Water, It's not a 787 Tail Section, But It Could Be, and Could Be Near its 787 Battery Case Directly Below The Surface. But who knew, but I made you look, and think bad things about the 787 and its batteries being installed late on the 3 year late 787(required "late and battery reference on all news articles whether its related or not").

Kudos Aspire Aviation On Its Boeing Report

SPECIAL REPORT: THE “ONE BOEING” LEAN & MEAN PROFIT MACHINE

I cannot offer a better or more composite offering than what "Aspire" has done with the Boeing report for this years aviation Juggernaut, The Boeing Company.  Even though I am a big fan of the journal, it has done a substantial review on my favorite Manufacturing giant. Without further ado I will post a couple of teasers and this headline link above, concerning the Boeing Machinery of profit.

Aspire Aviation Teaser #1:

"

• 787-10 MTOW might be increased
• 777X next customer meeting in September
• 777X engine thrust may increase again
• Boeing should be more willing to offer discounts on 777X
• Boeing should outsource 777X CFRP wing to Japan to cut costs, retain customers
• Too much “breathing room” already given to Airbus A350-1000
  
• No door modification on 737 MAX
• Ryanair 737 MAX 8 could accommodate 199 passengers by “rearranging doors”
• 737 MAX orders on par with A320neo: 1,495 versus 1,579 in 23 months since launch
• easyJet order lost on lowball pricing in middle of US$30-40 million apiece by Airbus"

Teaser #2:

"The major achievement during the quarter at the defence unit was the beginning of assembly of the first KC-46A aerial refuelling tanker for the US Air Force (USAF), whose first wing spar was loaded on June 26. The loading of the 82 feet 5 inches long component symbolised the success of the “One Boeing” concept with the KC-46A tanker, based on the 767-200ER airframe, passing the critical design review (CDR) milestone in July, much earlier than its US$4.9 billion engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) contract stipulated, which calls for the deliveries of 18 KC-46As by 2017 with a first flight in early 2015 and the first delivery in 2017. This bodes well for Boeing to achieve profitability on the hard-won programme for 179 aerial refuelling tankers that saw Boeing lowballing its bid and making a loss early on in the programme which could amount to as much as US$700 million above the US$4.9 billion ceiling for the first 18 examples while relying on the remainder to make profits."