Sir Isaac Newton's Third Symphony Plays on

It’s down to a techno leap for the jet engine before passenger service breaks its deadlock between Airbus and Boeing. The gold rush is on for going out of the Jet engine box with something no one saw ten years ago from jet propulsion. Maybe it’s not conventional jet power and it’s something different. After-all the jet engine builders are tweaking jet power with ceramic, and carbon fiber fan blades. 

This becomes like using new shoe laces on a sports shoe or a new ground breaking new sole for better performance. It’s still a shoe giving the athlete a micro advantage over another competitor. That is where the marvel of the jet engine resides and where airline competes like an athlete.

A jet engine needs movement ahead of a centuries old idea of propelling a balloon across the room in a gasp of air through its mouth piece. The whole time since WII, jet engines came from the idea people have been wrestling with the “next step”. Rockets were reserved for moon shots and the stars. Jet engines were reserved with making a basic concept for every action there is an opposite reaction.

Newton’s three laws came from: The three laws of motion were first compiled by Isaac Newton in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687.

The jet engine came from the Newtonian principles. The best engine is down to composites, ceramics and designs within that law. 

Newton’s 3^rd law remains after all these centuries of trial and error.

The next great airplane will use Newton’s 3^rd principle, but it will come from the action side of the equation. Propulsion will indeed need a new format not necessarily labeled as a jet. Carbon fiber fan blades will carry Jet engine efficiency only so far.

The source of action must change from a carbon fuel source such as “Jet A” fuel or kerosene as most in the industry know it. There is only so much energy stored in a 100 pounds of “Jet A”. The jet principle must change beyond efficiency within its current configuration of burn and push out. The lack of finding a new source of power has limited jet power improvement to its internal workings. 

The source of power will form around its delivery system which is called an engine. Even though the word engine become a simple understanding for most, it is perhaps a lynch pin and the most complicated part of using a source power for its propulsion. 

Perhaps the word propulsion is the proverbial brick wall. The answer may come from a new manipulation of the universe’s mystery of energy or power. The simple magnet exercise from childhood comes to mind where opposing magnets try break away from each other’s polarity when opposite to the other magnet. This may not be a pathway to pursue but is definitely a compass bearing towards finding an answer.

The earth is the world’s biggest magnet (hah word play!). 

The modern jet engine is running out of development room much the same as a hand pump. Most pumps today are electrical and move mountainous amounts of water. However, the energy source for its electrical operation is found with having massive bulk of acres of solar panels to dams on huge rivers. Airplanes thrive on light weight appliances. Nuclear and electrical sourcing can weigh no more than its current fuel load. The lighter weight source allows for expansion from other technologies assisting travel and flight.

The obvious pathway comes from looking at the universe and how it functions. Then scaling that down to an aircraft “engine”. The most readily available source comes from nuclear energy. The first of many red flags to strike up, environmental impact from radiation exposure, extensive cost prohibit a nuclear path, and an uncertain solution would extend its timeline to service maybe by centuries.

Walt Disney was on to something when he made the movie “Flubber” he possibly acknowledged a need for a quantum leap from the jet engine. Once again harnessing an opposite and equal reaction in forms other than spewing gasses from the jet engine is the sticking point. A jet engine costs millions of dollars where its replacement may cost trillions of dollars for each one delivered. That is why so many engineers are looking at jet engine parts and its internal designs rather than a whole new concept for Newton’s third law.

Boeing Patent EP 2591996 A1, Could This Be The 797?

Here is the not so secret Boeing Patent

 EP 2591996 A1 ...

The now, and  much speculated flying oval. Could this be the enigmatic 797 (unannounced)? Here are some quick points of interests found in the patent papers.

Publication number	US20130119198 A1
Publication type	Application
Application number	US 13/293,958
Publication date	May 16, 2013
Filing date	Nov 10, 2011
Priority date	Nov 10, 2011
Also published as	EP2591996A1, EP2591996B1, US8608109
Inventors	Lowell B. Campbell
Original Assignee	The Boeing Company
Export Citation	BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (19), Referenced by (4), Classifications (7),Legal Events (2)
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet

Okay some attention points are made above

.

A Point of interest: the above sketch is 10 across seating.

Didn't see this one coming a "Flying Egg" above?

The design suggest a shorten body length is the big sketch takeaway. Expect a streching in length and some narrowing of body when configuring for a 797. Instead of ten across, I'm staying with 7 seats across with dual aisle within the elyptical shape at the passenger level, The ceiling and under passenger areas will probably gain some inches for obvious reason's.

A wheels up will need some design modifications as well see below.

Note: Below the engines ride high on the stabilizers, as a lower ground clearance would make wing mounts unattainable in this design. Under wing engine mounts will take some more design effort unless the old style tail engines are once again in favor.

The above diagram shows an eliptical effect to the extreme. Boeing would go somewhere between this extreme design and the traditional straight body design.

An airplane  body experience will change how people look at the current classic tube for five hours versus having a room feel with the same trip duration flying in the big "E". It will take getting used to, but after the adjustment, it could become a preferred way to travel. This elyptical design would be a baby step towards a giant flying wing body.

Below are sketches showing little nuances such as a sloping floor near the bow.

Possibilities for an eliptical frame would include window pacements, especially in the wing area. A 797 would take advantage of a a taller floor to ceiling and narrower across section making window placements an interesting outcome. The design is pushing possibilities with these sketches. and would not represent a 220 passenger version.

A final passenger cross view for the seat area sans overhead bins and seats.

The design is specifically calling out extensive CFRP materials in its construction. Below is the note list refering the use of CFRP material throughout.

Remember this is just a patent for cornering all airplane elyptical designs allowing for unlimited possibilities within the patent sketchings.

The Immense Electrical Power Could Tune In HAARP

Many conspiracy theorist  have long piped about the  High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program or commonly know as HAARP. Jesse Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota gave internet streaming to the subject. He exploited the Alaska HAARP base as a cause of the world's earthquakes. There was even a tie to the mega earth Quake in Haiti as a HAARP event. China had major earthquakes at that time as well. HAARP was a suggested cause for those quakes. 

The common denominator to all this conspiracy theory is electrical power. The USS Zumwalt could light a small town with its power source. The secret weapon of the Zumwalt could be a HAARP generator stationed off some coast line waiting for the next hurricane or earth quake to happen.

An off-mainstream website has this to say about HAARP:

"The military says the HAARP system could:

• Give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986)
• Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology
• Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system
• Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military's own communications systems working
• Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements
• Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area
• Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete

Further reading at HAARP  .Net will fill in more details of what the HAARP generation has for power needs to generate trouble and mischief. 

Wikipedia makes a "power" point: "Lyndon B. Johnson, the last Zumwalt, is being considered for the installation of a railgun in place of one of the 155 mm naval guns after the ship is built. This is due to the installed Rolls-Royce turbine generators being capable of producing 78 megawatts (105,000 hp), enough to power the electromagnetic weapon."

The HAARP case with the Zumwalt class Destroyers become a no-brainer when considering what it has already achieved with its built-in power generation capability.

A small example of the Zumwalt possibilities: 

"The class has a low radar cross-section; an integrated power system that can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons," 

The Zumwalt could light up 2,500 homes but it won't, its built for war.

Airshow Mania Announces 797 At Farnborough 2020

It is hard to forecast the "Perfect Storm", especially with the Boeing company. Boeing has over the last three years stalled, climbed and looped over announcing a New Medium Aircraft (NMA). First there was the let it slip off the lips mode, then...

Photo Depiction of a 797 from Leehamnews.com

 

• "We will build if we find perfect customers". 
• The customers came forward with a solid "like" that idea response. 
• Then came Boeing PR speaking through Mr. Toad, "We will build it if we find the perfect design." 
• The Toad then said, "We will build when market data determines the perfect time."
• Mr Toad then says, "We are sinking with the 787-10, Max and 777X programs all at once.

Boeing PR Spokes-Toad Full Resume Video

What Boeing is really saying is... we don't know what we are doing until we do it! Or is it waiting for the perfect 797 storm before putting out to sea? The storm started to form when customers said that's a great idea. Winds picked-up after the market data forecaster said there was a system moving in and no company will step up or fill-in as a low pressure system is standing at a 5,000 unit forecast. 

A second and third storm systems came in from the Northwest from Seattle and from the Southeast's Charleston, SC. The 737 Max and 787-10 had to have its entry into the market place before a perfect storm could be managed. The 777X is undergoing design modifications while processes are being built in Everett, WA. A whole new wing plant is completed before final scratches are complete on Boeing's giant Etch-O-Sketch found in engineering. The book keeper reports the Max is flying off the shelf as if in some sort of pre-hurricane water bottle frenzy at Walmart. 

The 777X program is the lynch pin for Boeing's perfect storm. Its entry into service is scheduled for the end of 2019 or early 2020 as aviation forecasters predict. The 787-10 is for the first half of 2018 with that program running slightly ahead of schedule. Expect a 2018 springtime 787-10 entry into service.

The airplane program fronts are converging towards the first half of 2020 with the Max at full production by that time, 787-10 entering service since 2018 and the 777X  is having its opus entry by early 2020. The data guys are weary with checking it twice in some sort of yuletide mania. Then up comes Farnborough Airshow, Great Britain's answer to Paris. The storm should hit in a show stopping sort of way. 

The show will open July, 2020 and Boeing will have orders in hand by that time. It will take about 150 orders for the 797 having any significant show impact and orders may go to a "higher count". A maniacal forecast is for 300-797 orders at the show.

Leading candidates for this order venture would include the main European airlines such as British Airways, Norwegian and Air France to name a few. Ryan Air could convert some of its single aisle order backlog depending on price, efficiency and range variables for the 797. The North American carriers would swap order backlog for new 797's. 

The wild part of the storm could be an Asiatic emphasis where anywhere from India to China could boost the book by another hundred units. Boeing would expect a 797 entry into service by 2025. It has the resources and technology in place for a clean sheet program rush-to-service. Neither the 787-10 or 777X is an actual clean sheet effort. The 797 is already in the engineering works.

A general concern is whether the NMA will take away from other program types such as the 737 or 787. It will of course nip around both types edges, but the core of the NMA concept will establish new business models for its customers which will be unrivaled. The emergence of Boeing's new NMA will come from "The Perfect Airline Storm". 

The perfect storm arrives as:

• Boeing has checked-off its prior programs completeness
• Customers are willing and able for NMA
• Boeing has immense technical and facility resources in place only awaiting the 797-NMA modifications
• An announcement venue is at the right moment (Farnborough 2020)

Boeing 747 Order Update 2-Unidentified

Boeing, listed today, it had sold two of its 747 to unidentified customers on August 31, 2017. No details about model type or whether it is tied to prior references of Qatar or Turkish Airline as mentioned by Winging It contributions. It was a good time to roll out the Winging It version of Boeing's own website chart.

See links below: 

Did someone say 747 Freighter? (Qatar information update)

The 747-8i Is Putting Up A Good Fight To Stay Alive

Boeing Updated orders 2017

United Knows How To Go Long With Its 787-9's

United Airline will open the Sydney Australia to Houston Texas long route January 2018, going 8,576 miles on a 787-9.

There is more than just fuel and passengers that go into a long range flight. Often called the "Long Thin Routes".  In comparison is the meaty end of flying with the single aisle going from one mega city to another at around 500 miles. Los Angeles to San Francisco is an example. It could be called a commuter flight leaving one air terminal in fifteen minute increments during morning hours, and returning later in the afternoon at the same pace every fifteen minutes, until evening closes. Those are South West or Alaska Airlines territory. 

However, United Airline will soon have eight of the ten  longest flying routes for US carriers such Delta and American airlines, who have not mastered the art of going long as well as United has accomplished.

So what is United Airlines secret for making a long thin route successful?  

• The first  metric up is hard work with its crew working seventeen demanding hours with its passengers.
• Next is right sizing the passenger load for the market, fuel requirements for long range flights. 
• United made the 787-9 seat limit at 252 seats optimally matching its long thin routes.
• Ticket Price must be competitive but having a profit margin. It must sell all its seats to work!
• The route/market must be developed at destinations. It must have a symbiotic travel pairing.
• Bottom line, airline reputation nurtured at both ends.

This is a starting point list and not end-all marketing for which United Airlines has developed. To be successful on a risky venture having a limited passenger opportunity, especially on long thin routes, increases the risks significantly for failure. United has tasked itself for understanding every phase of travel for profit. The crew must maintain a customer efficiency over a 17 hour journey. It too gets tired and exhausted on long work shifts so it must have crew who will  relay in and out during a long trip. This will achieve several goals. Having the smallest number of crew members doing more on the journey with its passengers. It may rotate the ships compliment in and out service during four hour segments. It also may rotate  crew members in a layered approach. Every hour  up to two crew members may retire for a four hour rest period. The layering effect would achieve a goal of less crew giving better service.

 Competition comes into play on this next item. A route must have revenue generated for its profits and a lower ticket price must be balanced against the seats available. Passengers are kilograms and weight kills any fight's duration. The luggage extended food service and extra crew can cut miles out of a targeted. The United goal is selling the most tickets at the lowest price going the farthest. A computer model may give United an optimal answer for a trip complexity. If a competing airline can do it on less ticket price it would certainly would like to how it can do it.

A target for United on its 787-9 is 252 seats going long. It optimized its airplane type for the task. The seat count draws a line in the sand for weight fuel and distance. The other factor is load. An oft used  term which assigns a metric for loading an airplane with passengers at both end of its routes. If an airline has two hundred and fifty-two seats going 8,500 miles it can do it comfortably when selling out every seat. The airline seeks a 100% load factor in its operation. When an airline only sells 210 seats in this case it is only a 83% of filled seats for what it can do. The load factor would be 83% over time if it averages 210 seats sold each time. United would have a metric on averaging what one passenger would weigh, luggage and supplies expended causing a fuel consumption of "X" amount per passenger going 8,500 miles during its seventeen hours of travel. The seat price is also determined by all these factors.

The fuel load would be reduced with a 83% load factor, thus reducing the fuel required for the flight. It becomes a very scientific measure when calculating wind and weather. Its harder to fly in hotter weather or with headwinds as it would burn more fuel. This becomes an inexact forecast as weather can change mid flight.

The ticket price takes all things into consideration and it becomes the make or break element in an airlines profitability. A whole separate discussion would not be enough as it would take a fat book explaining what it "all" entails.  Passengers seem to always seek the cheapest price for its own purpose. Going 8,500 miles will cost more per seat than just going 500 miles. Passengers understand that distance cost relationship. Competition drives prices downward, thus making airline margins as thin as a route. A thin route is considered a route where fewer potential customers exists for its segment. United in this case must fill an airplane's 252 seats reaching optimal profitability. If the performance of its business case measures a loss at a 85% load factor, then its margin for profit stops at 214 tickets sold with its the seat prices offered. It must generate customers at both ends with robust marketing and form a culture of United customers.

Patrick Quayle, United’s vice president of international network emphasizes the details of operating efficiency. 

It is important developing a destination common denominator half a world away. People in China have different expectations than people in Denver, Colorado. The plan is to cater to every culture associated with an origin or destination and this requires a ground force working within that cultural environment. A symbiotic relationship builds the route. Details with the respective cultures are what drives a successful effort at both ends. Making sure an airline is in tune with a culturally diverse population is the key to an airlines success and key to filling seats. 

The competition starts with an airlines reputation and that intrinsic value can erode away with one passenger tossed off an airplane in front of cameras A top to bottom training of its employees for dealing with its varied customers, is a difficult task. Every customer is an unknown on how they will react with the airline or its other traveling passengers. 

An investment on long thin routes has a little margin to mess it up with its diverse passenger base. A reputation of trust becomes an invaluable condition. Once an airline has established trust with its passengers it will be able to fill 252 seats each time.  

United's Order Shuffling Nets Airbus Out To 45 A350-900

United and Airbus reached a deal well sort of.  United had ordered 35 of its A-350-1000's a while back using a list price of 359 million in this example. It now turned that order into 45 A-350-900's increasing the Airbus book unit numbers by ten. The list price for each A350-900 is about 311 million.

By The Numbers: $ amounts are list prices

Prior order:        35 (A350-1000) X   $359 Million = 12.57 billion

Converted Order: 45 (A-350-900) X   $311 Million = 14.004 billion

Net Unit Increase =10
Net Value Increase =  $1.5 billion

Airbus gains about $1.5 billion at list prices when signing off with United Airlines on a new deal. Typically negotiated prices are significantly less than list prices as much as 50% less. The actual net value increase would be estimated as a sub $1 billion amount added to the Airbus book values. However, it is a significant win for Airbus as it steps into Boeing territory in a big way. Gone will be United's 777-200 as it reaches 25 years old by 2023. 

Not all is lost for Boeing as it has sold United 18 of its 777-300-ER's for 747 replacements. A consideration by United is the 777X model not yet built or tested. This will occur by 2020 and becomes late to the United's gate for any risks associated with new plane development. It also has a high list price as well. 

The 777-8X is listed  for $379 million and the 777-9X is listed at $409. Both are considerably higher priced models from its listed starting point than that of the A-350-900. If United would have gone the 777X direction, it would have increased costs and risks beyond what it could endure for its fleet renewal. The A-350-900 fits right into its fleet scheme of things for costs and capacity.  

A further note is the A-350-1000 order count now drops to 142 net orders down from 177 net orders. This now pushes the 787-10 orders ahead of the A-350-1000 by a margin of 27 units. The A-350-900 has surged ahead to a 718 count over Boeing's 787-9 order count of 685 units, which gives Airbus a head to head advantage for the model class by 33 units.

However, Boeing still remains far ahead of Airbus for total mid-widebody  advanced technology aircraft. Boeing has 1,278 787's ordered compared with Airbus' 868 A-350's ordered to date. 

The 747-8i Is Putting Up A Good Fight To Stay Alive

If Turkish Airline does agree to buy 8 747-8i for its fleet then Boeing will have outsold the A-380 over the last years. Since 2015 Airbus has netted 0 A-380-800's. It holds an over-all lead over Boeing with an order book count of 317 units sold. Boeing has only booked 132 of its freight and passenger 747-8's.

The recent Air Force One deal picked up a canceled order after a Russian airline abandoned its order due to bankruptcy. The White House talked to Boeing and secured two undelivered but complete flying copies of the 747-8i, taking the Russian airline purchase position after its bankruptcy.

The 747 doesn't have any more low hanging fruit for its sales team and are down to niche buyers and the freight business. A Turkish Airlines deal would be an emergency room Defibrillation jolt. Boeing is going to give them a "deal it can't refuse". Its just a matter of paperwork and financing before it is announced. Turkish Airline is negotiating at this time, and a deal will fall through if it is asking too much from Boeing.

The airline is trying to consolidate trip frequency going from three a day down to two a day frequency on some routes. The 747-8i would fill this slot well. Turkey would also inquire about 777 units but it may not best serve its niche as well as the 747-8i would.  Buying used 747-400's may require extensive renovations before bringing an aircraft up to a passenger standard and would not be as efficient as the 787-8i at all. Especially, if Boeing offers Turkish Airline a low ball number which is probably the case. The 747-8i may be a pound for pound better deal than buying a 777-300ER.

Article reference Link:

Turkish Airlines negotiates with Boeing for Super Jumbo Jets

Scale and Innovate Boeing Gets Squeamish

It starts at the top for any merger. United Technologies and Rockwell Collins are seeking common ground for a synergistic merger. It will roll two chief Boeing suppliers into one, thus possibly losing supplier competition with Boeing's supplier base.

“The combination gives us the ability to both scale and innovate,” Greg Hayes, chief executive officer of United Technologies, told analysts on a conference call Tuesday, a day after the deal was announced.

Examine what industrial product scaling means and the innovation component that could be lost with one less competitor than a merger will create. Boeing argues that a competitive nature will be lost halving the innovative component after a merger. 

The United Technology CEO, says it gives them the "ability", suggesting they don't have the ability at this time to scale and innovate. With that sentiment, United Technology is stating it can't compete without a merger. Scaling is a simple concept when considering a complicated merger. See article below by Josh Lowry

Scaling: 

This week, I was asked, “What does ‘scale’ the business mean?”  “Scale” is an often used in business and can have different meanings depending on the context.  Some common examples include: “Are we operating the business at scale?”  or “Are we taking advantage of the scale of our business?”  or “Can the product scale-up or scale–down depending on demand?” or “Does the business scale?”  or “We are currently scaling-out the team.”   Below is my attempt to put some structure around the term “scale” for these common scenarios.

Are We Operating the Business at Scale?

Operating the business at scale means allocating and optimizing resources to drive the greatest results and volume across market segments.  Are marketing and sales working together to generate demand and close business?  Are closed deals being transitioned to services/support to be nurtured?  Are partners being leveraged to multiply the company’s marketing, sales and services efforts to reach new customers and displace the competition?  Operating the business at scale is about optimization, not duplication, of efforts.

Are We Taking Advantage of the Scale of Our Business?”

Scale is another word for size. Companies can leverage their size by negotiating exclusive dealings, favorable terms and volume discounts with other organizations. Partnering with large businesses can also provide companies with access to national and world-wide markets to sell products and services. In addition, keeping costs low or unchanged while increasing sales volume provides companies with the opportunity to further decrease prices – new customers, more marketshare – without sacrificing margin (economies of scale).

Can the Product Scale-Up or Scale-Down Depending On Demand?”

Many industries have periods during their calendar/fiscal year where they experience increased customer demand for products and services (e.g., retail industry during the holiday season).  Core infrastructure offerings from organizations like Amazon Web Services enable retailers to increase server capacity (scale-up) when customer demand is high without having to invest in new hardware. Retailers can then reduce server capacity (scale-down) during normal operating periods.  These types of offerings/products let companies pay for what they need, when they need it.

Does the Business Scale?

Companies that scale have operating leverage.  They can growth revenue with minimal or no increase in operating costs (e.g., administrative, sales, etc.).  To illustrate: In Year 1, company delivers $10M in revenue with $1M in operating costs.  In Year 2, company delivers $12M in revenue with $1M in operating costs.  Company scales because it grew revenue by $2M without increasing its operating costs.  This is common with software and other technology companies who develop IP at an early stage and subsequently monetize it at low marginal costs over time.

In contrast, if company’s operating costs increase by the same amount as its revenue, the business does not scale.  That is, if company requires its operating costs to increase by $2M in order to grow its revenue by $2M, the business is not scaling.  Consulting firms like Accenture and McKinsey & Company are prime examples of organizations that do not scale.  This is because there are a fixed number of billable hours in a day, so they have to add consultants on a one-to-one basis to grow revenue.

A common way companies scale is through channel partners. Companies multiply their marketing, sales and services efforts with partner resources in exchange for a percentage of the margin. For example, if company has ten direct sellers, it is limited by the reach of those ten sellers. However, if company partners with a reseller with 50 sellers, company has increased its sales force (in theory) by 500%. Sharing 30% of the margin is less expensive than the cost of hiring an additional 50 sellers.

Companies also use marketing to scale the business.  Marketing enables companies to effectively (results) and efficiently (cost and speed) communicate to customers with the right message at the right time.  Marketing also helps generate customer demand and drive pipeline velocity for sales, which reduces selling costs.  Driving customers and prospects to one-to-many events (e.g., product launches, solution roadmaps, etc.) is a common way to scale with marketing. For example, it is more efficient to sell to 500 CEOs at once than it is to sell to them separately.

We Are Currently Scaling-Out the Team

Once a company has developed a repeatable sales model, the next logical step is to invest in headcount to accelerate (and scale) the business. In software, this means adding sellers/territories within geographies to localize the business. For example, if company has developed a successful, repeated sales model in Seattle, WA, it can grow (scale) revenue by implementing the same sales model in San Francisco, CA. In the restaurant industry, it is the same theory for selling new franchises. In the retail industry, it is the same theory for opening new stores.

All contents copyright © 2012, Josh Lowry.  All rights reserved.

The bottom line for the argument is enhanced scaling goes with the merger and Boeing has reservations with both the innovation and scaling comment coming from United Technologies.

Innovation is the big item bothering Boeing. It believes competitive innovation makes for better choices for its best and lowest cost systems or parts offering from a variety of suppliers rather than one post merger mega supplier. Losing just one mega supplier to a merger hurts its future chances for having the best and lowest cost option for systems and parts.

In defense of the innovative function, Leonardo Da Vinci worked in a virtual vacuum when he drew up a flying machine. His innovation was off the charts without competition. However, Boeing argues having multiple helicopter makers makes Boeing compete for the best version for the lowest cost and that innovative function should scale down to its suppliers as well. 

Dissolving one company as a result of a merger will hurt the aviation industry as a whole as it would have only one innovator and not two supplying aviation's inventions.

There are two sides to every argument, United Technology and Rockwell Collins want to combine for financial and other stock value reasons, but both have reached a size issue in the world of aviation. There are only so few producers of aviation supplies with this scale in the world. Boeing can't simply go to a garage size innovator and then compete on the world market place using a DIY touch screen from a former techno-junky coming from a garage. 

It isn't scalable to bring these types of innovators up to speed for the size of Boeing's industrial output. In order to compete Boeing would have to hire 10,000 divergent techno-junkies and house them under one roof in hopes management can rope them into making a new avionics suite. 

Its a problem of scalability and innovation when the supplier source is so few and scalability becomes so large. Boeing will press forward making it difficult for a supplier merger of this scale. In other words, its a not so simple. A passenger seat delay can bring both the mega aviation manufacturers to its knees. Just ask Airbus how its production is going while waiting for new seats to be delivered from Zodiac. 

The supplier is over-whelmed and there is no other supplier option in site. Boeing is risk adverse and a merger will increase the supplier risk with rising costs and lower supply options when delivering for its own airline customers.