(Update) Boeing's All Electric Problem Generates More Smoke

First there was fire in the 787 control panels, back on its last runs, during test completion of the long delayed project. Then there was a United Aircraft reporting a generator fault and diversion flight because the number six generator failed, and Qatar's number 6 generator shut down on its 3rd Aircraft delivery flight. In total a test copy, two United aircraft and a Qatar unit all experiencing "all electric problems", when flying the 787. What does this hold for Boeing's aspirations in selling this Bird to the whole world? Let us quickly refine the inference.

Redundancy, due diligence, and extensive test process have won the day so far. Without it,  would be told a different story. I believe these lessons are not lost on Airbus. Had Boeing rushed through three years of delays and did not conduct a copious amount of work on an all new technology aircraft, I would not want to think how it would magnify the risk.

Is it the generator, or the a newly designed power panels? That is the question before Boeing. So far they have endured the angst of Akbar Al Baker from Qatar, and the disappointment from United's management. But to the Boeing Company's relief, they have been manageable progressions of teething its new aircraft, that is so different than anything before flown.  The 787 looks likes a metal aircraft until its wings lift skyward, has the same isles to walk down, and even the seats are close enough together to make money and remind passengers its an airplane after-all. Faking passengers into thinking, "Nothing new here, just newer and more convenient passenger gimmicks in play".

The 2010 panel fire established the importance of doing it right the first time. A redesign of the area forces out the opportunity of sloppy mistakes causing a fire, or other problems in the most critical area of the "all electric architecture" design.

Generator Fault events 2-4 (recent in the news for United and Qatar) are the reporting errors (faults), causing to shut down the aircraft's generator #6,  because something wrong is detected, and therefore # 6 ceases operation. This is a built-in safety mode after detection of fault.  Boeing and everybody else would like to know what happened from the control panel to the generator.  Software, switching, or firmware glitch? Installation problems, inferior parts, or design problem? These are all the questions needing answers, and goes beyond just the basics. Redundancy saves the day, but it also could be a redundancy tuning problem.  That is just one example of what engineers are asking of its programs, controlling all electrical flows with continuous back-up systems. Having this preventative redundancy system, protects from catastrophic failures, is done through its sequencing through various check-offs of its systems, and may cause a minor blip shutting down a generator in an irregular manner.  What you don't want is a cycling of that type of problem that will shut down other generators in succession over time during a flight. Once again Boeing and its partners have a lot to test, even after its 3 years of delays. This problem sounds glitchy and can be solved with some extra testing, workings and implementation.

Qatar's concern is a underlying challenge of Boeing, for an aircraft performing as advertised. The CEO, Al Baker does give recognition for the aircraft's performance and general nature of a fine aircraft. His own fire is not for the electric control panel but for principals of having a 100% working copy of the 787 for its customers.  Boeing is doing its job of extinguishing that fire with its hat-in-hand extinguishers, by continuing forward with Quality Management (QM) of continuous improvement through the birthing stages of a new technology.  Continuous Improvement works and is found in the leading manufacturers in the world. The built-in safety measures allows Boeing to continue on this path. Risk are mitigated and solutions are found, refined and implemented.  This is what Boeing is saying, when it states in a dismissive manner to a problem, that any new project has these types of problems during the start-up, and "we" will deal with them immediately, even after three years of delay. A strong downplay is too much by Boeing, as is a strong overplay by a customer.

Those close to the situation, probably know what happened already, but need to validate that assumption with a real replication of the incidents. I would not be surprise to see "a in storage test 787" flying again soon, focus on some customer concerns, and electrical testing issues. Boeing will validate the problem and certify the fix.  Right now "All Things 787"  has its score card at 0 Non Customer Flights. That may change soon.


Update 12/22/12:

ZA005 is now on the flight schedule! Do not know if this is related to electrical issues for testing. It is in the Non-Customer Flight Category. I can assume ZA005 is rolled out for flight testing for any new issues that Boeing is going to resolve. Note that ZA005 is a GE, and United/Qatars are GE's. So far the Rolls equipped aircraft have not shown an electrical issue like the recent GE powered ships.  Boeing could be testing systems on ZA005 comparing to the faulted systems on the delivered GE powered aircraft, in order to determine what is different on delivered aircraft with its test model. Definitely checklist items for problem solving is on board the ZA005 along with any other new upgrades for testing.

(Updated II Post Fire Brief) Boeing CEO says: 787 Problems Normal For A New Plane

Then: December 14, 2012

Jim McNerney, CEO of the Boeing Co., echos this company position from the top of the mountain.  on Friday said, "that the problems the company is having with its 787 Dreamliner are to be expected, given that the aircraft is still new to the market."

Qatar Airways, CEO, Akbar Al Baker, bluntly doesn't like it at all.  Al Baker's words are important, because he stands for an unforgiving march towards excellence, and takes no prisoners in this quest. His demands may sound unreasonable at times, even over-the-top, for all the attention given his aircraft.  

“These problems are unacceptable because this aircraft has been flying for the last 14 months,” Al Baker said in an interview, referring to the Dreamliner, which entered commercial service late last year. “They have to get their act together very fast because we at Qatar Airways will not accept any more defects.”

My Boeing Note Pad: Immerse Boeing Vision and Mission Statement into Qatar's and every other customer's Vision and Mission. The customer is your Vision and your mission is to see that they reach that vision with your product. Therefore, partner with your customer's quest in achieving that Vision and completing your mission with excellence.  Share in customer dissatisfaction as if it happened to your own vision, because it just did! 

Thank Akbar Al Baker for keeping your Vision in focus and don't refer to it "as a new airplane on the market problem".

Boeing wanted to show off its Aircraft at Farnborough last summer in Great Britain.  Lots of people walked on the Qatar 787 carpet while dropping stuff, dirt and travel sweat onto the aircraft. "Hey look, I scratched the mahogany arm rest with my purse buckle crowd." Boeing knew in advance they needed to deliver a pristine example to Qatar.  It even needed 4 months more of work on it before final delivery.  When you pay 150-230 million for an aircraft, Al Baker isn't just exited or giddy to get the aircraft. He is immensely focused on getting exactly what he paid for, "a perfect example of the 787". He wants no excuses of its new highly advance aircraft, with first time start-up cliches. That will not work on the Mr. Akbar Al Baker of Qatar. I respect both Boeing's and Qatar's plight, However when you purchase something more expensive than the Hope Diamond you don't expect it to arrive with finger prints, cracks found in the many facets and the stone setting having workman like glitches. 

Qatar Airways, CEO, Akbar Al Baker

This brings us to the generator problem, and McNerney's quipping the problems saying, "are to be expected given its still new in the Market". He is talking to the "giddy and happy I've got a 787 crowd."  Air India is excluded from this conversation, since they are still operating in Train Wreck Mode.  United got a bad generator (electric control panel) problem, so does Qatar have a similar problem during its delivery flight.  I am thankful for Generator (control panel) redundancy in the aircraft. However, there seems to be be a statistically significant problem, that goes deeper than an anomaly. Whether it is a programming issue for electrical flow control, or hardware fault, those remains to be determine.  McNerney is right in saying its a new aircraft glitch, but it makes me wonder with all the thousands of hours flown by the 787 that it showed up on two brand new aircraft for United and Qatar, just months/days apart. Something changed in quality control for either the assembly on the 787, with its installation, manufacturing, or materials found in the electrical system. This is a serious crack for the Hope Diamond, which can and will be fixed, and should be found in the McNerney's right answers book. 

Right Answer Page One:

"Mr  Akbar Al Baker, we will make it right immediately and understand the importance of your concern. I will not downplay this in the press, as typical new airplane start-up problems. Boeing will do everything to make your $180 million diamond right."

Maybe this type of conversation has already happened, but Boeing should fall on its sword, rather than soft play the incident making Akbar Al Baker look dis-in-genuine by framing the problem as typical. 

Check out newly (updated/additional) information on the electrical glitch in the "FLY On, 787" Link Below:

United says, "its a electrical control panel problem causing a fault reading. Citing the generator as the problem, while the generator is not the item faulting". The control panel has a problem. So Qatar shoots first and asks questions later method of PR,  is same as the guy loudly exclaiming to the crowd, "it wasn't me", on a stinky elevator going up a hundred floors.

The "Now" started just three  weeks later after this posting. With the Battery Fires and Smoke in Boston on January 7, 2013.

June 5, 2013 LiftnDrag:

Boeing has gone through the battery gauntlet with the FAA, Customers and suppliers; and as of June 5, 2013 is back on track. What kind of Akbar Al Baker  anger still exist, is justified, as he had fired out this warning back in December of 2012, and then was grounded for four more months, until a fix was completed on the "New Battery Problem". Mr. Akbar Al Baker, you were right, as much as Boeing has tried to smooth relations via the press. I can't imagine what Boeing has told you in private. But I'm sure its a sword swallowing event of great proportions. Boeing is fully gutted in the PR world for its 787. I now know why you won't be a 787-10X launch customer. However, I can see you later on as a -10 customer, once you see how the aircraft performs, after a year in service. This is the price to pay for new technology, and sometimes quantum leaps are just that quantum leaps. You will order about a year out on the order book, after first delivery is determined. By then, the -10's landing's will have stop hurting, because the leap is so strong. Avoiding the  -10 experimental year, will be a temporary solution, since you have many other -8's coming forward. The -10, inspite of Boeing's sales dogma, will be a great airplane. Being launch customer for the -10 is not necessary at this time, because you made your point well last December 12, 2012.

Fly On, 787.  


==========================================================================

Boeing 787 not profitable for another 9 years?

I said prior in a prior posting, that I believe Boeing will reach Break-even when 150 787-10's are sold or delivered.  I don't know when that will happen but, I believe this can be done well before 2021, but not by 2015. Boeing will have to exhaust a significant portion of its order backlog through deliveries by 2015 to meet that goal. However, by 2015 Boeing will have all risks retired, and certainty of "when it will exactly meet, the profitability barrier beyond 2015".  A 2015 forecast for the year 2017 from Boeing, is a better forecast than this year’s 2012 forecast for 2015. Two years from now a solid view to the future will excite the investor, and I believe Boeing will state it will make money by 2017, not 2021. A financial cushion of time would lean towards 2018. Boeing will make money on the 787 project as a whole surging past its breakeven point late 2017 or early 2018.

Why?  By then, Nines are long since airborne and are flying out the door. Eights are beyond halfway through the order Que, with refined models popping out the giant doors every three days without hesitation.  2015 is time to secure the market share, because they will know how well the A-350 will perform and also have a new 777-X in the offering.  It means that 2015 is not a 787's profitability year, but the year becomes a major change for the airline wars. It's easy to see Boeing mastering of plastics, to the extent that it will announce the building of a monumental plastic winged airplane by late 2015. A mini jumbo putting to bed the 747, and causing additional stress fractures on the psychic of the A380's design team.  A right sized mini jumbo would carry more towards the low end number of 400 or high end of 300 passengers, then fly 8,000 mile and fit in all metro airports with 9-10,000 feet of stopping and starting distances. Airport boards put your shovels away and bring out the water cannons when the 777-X mini jumbo comes to connect the world.

Logistics for building this type of model would be significantly different than found on the 787.  Large parts may go by ship from Japan in 10 days. Having a Boeing design, and spec built cargo ship enables landing cargo from Puget Sound and then rail parts a very short distance from the "Puget Drain" straight to Paine. Making the two miles from the north, wedge between the affluent and the foliage. Why ship just-in-time parts by air? Just to have those parts sit in in building 45-X or on a runway for six months, while mechanics and engineers argue about how to assemble and fly this beast. Parts by specially modified ships is better to shuttle in and out several deliveries a week.  This opens the door for fabrications to shop out of LA, Tokyo and San Diego.  Providing a safe transport of super large barrels, wings and things for an all plastic mini jumbo. I believe by delaying the 777-X announcement, a plan B is in the works. Boeing desires moving away from an all metal jumbo's and going for an all plastic mini jumbo. Boeing has collected enough data, suppliers and technologies to do this thing with style.  The 777 still has a remarkable shelf life, allowing time to get an plastic follow-on right, over the next few years, before a 2015 announcement for an all new 777X family of aircraft.

I like ships too!

This could be a Mini Jumbo Barrel, wing or other parts coming from a Boeing Boat landing near Mukilteo , WA.

787 Nuts and Bolts Report

Aviation Week Evaluates Boeing 787

By Fred George

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

Five pages of cyber Geeking on the 787 is worth the read. The Nuts and Bolts of it, really displays 787 complexity and development compared to an advanced 777 model. The 787 may operate and fly in a similar fashion to the 777, but under its skin its a very different world.  This is a link worth saving when comparing the upcoming A-350 break-out in 2014. Please direct yourself to this fine article, presenting what "we" know about this miraculous bird. Save it and use for future reference as an electronic scrapbook on the 787. Refer to it later as Airbus tries to emulate Boeing's efforts.

Separation Of Design And Makers At Boeing

In a key strategic move by Boeing's chiefs, a proposal of  separating the dreamers from the woodcarvers is going on. The dreamers are the designers and woodcarvers are boots on the ground.  Currently these Boeing subgroups awkwardly work through a plethora of change incorporation, design change and production schedules. Please( Link Crains Chicago Business) to this article announcing a change through a separation of divisions with its engineering and production.

There are several questions obviously already answered prior to Boeing's decision.

Synergy Found On The Factory Floor

• How will engineering changes integrate to the production floor?
• How will production innovation migrate back for improving engineering design? 
• How does engineer's concepts become a production reality?
• Will walls exist between production realities, engineers dreams and Bean Counter(accountants) boundaries?
• What does this do to the implementation process for new models from CAD to the floor?
• Is there an independent interface department between divisions responsible for transitioning concept to production?

At the time, these are just a few hurdles for consideration. I imagine engineering work stations will remain on the factory floor, assisting production during start up. I also assume that big logistics room also remains a player. Tracking all moving parts, reporting at any given moment; any part, any delivery time, or any change.

Engineer Work Stations On Factory Floor

Therefore, the separation of duties with engineering and production does not lose the continuity of efficiency gained on the 787 project, but rather separates resources for better management of project cost that formerly co-mingled with production. With so many concurrent projects going on, this is more about efficiency and cost accounting measures identifying those cost and resources on specific projects within a division, and less about the team effort going forward from engineering to the floor.

Logistics Center

Boeing will not drop the synergies found in the 787 project, but will rely more on those synergies for upcoming projects. However, identifying cost, work functions, and resources; is more important when managing 5 separate airplane building projects, and will keep Boeing away from the word "late" in the newspapers. Division management is most import when lines are clearly drawn for the direction given.

Boeing's No Rush, Rush Approach

Boeing is purported to say "we are not in a rush for the 787-10X and the 777X".

That being the Boeing statement of the week, I would like to indulge my thought on that plan or strategic topic for a moment!

1. The Boeing design team is working through lessons learned from the prior 787 debacle of ; overstated goals and delusional production hype has since been retired.

2. 787-10 is in the design bag and Boeing knows it can tweak configuration adjusting to market competition driven by Airbus' A-350.

3. A waiting game for Boeing has a two fold strategy:

• Wait for Airbus, since Boeing currently holds the high ground on new technology.
• Lay to rest all new aircraft development questions, enabling fast roll out of new products when the time comes. The time will be shortly before the first A-350 flies.

Launch announcement is the trump cards which Boeing holds, and will play it when several items have passed by and cannot be reversed. One thing yet to pass, is Airbus's first attempt on the plastic airplane. Once the A-350 flies, then Boeing needs to counter in short order with the 10-X and 777-X. Its more of a competition question of timing, than a launch question that are derived from sales from the new models. Airbus is trying to undercut Boeing with the A-350, while Boeing has the high ground during the successful launch of the 787-8 and -9.  Airbus has yet to clear the tower on its first flight.  Boeing learned so well that the devil is in the details when it comes to building an all new technology. Airbus is gleaning technology from Boeing's sub contractors with its now proven technology. I don't know what Boeing holds for proprietary rights in its technology arsenal, that doesn't come under the fog of war and corporate lawyers.

However, Airbus needs to up its technological anti, not just just hide same stuff under its wings in innovative design tweaks. Boeing is now calling Airbus's hand in the high stakes game of monopoly. Boeing now holds the 787-10-X and 777-X in its hand as X cards. They will play those cards once Airbus goes beyond the point of no return for the A-350.

Airbus plays the "whatever Boeing does, we will build it 6 inches bigger game", and call it X-tra wide plastic body with extra fasteners and extra panel joins to boot.  We will trick out this pony with some fancy stuff for your travel experience, giving the traveler the allusion, that bigger is really better. Travelers just want to fly in the biggest boat in the sky like on the A-380. Airbus is laying its design towards marketing appeal, while Boeing is trying to do both technological advancement with market appeal. Now Airbus is trying to catch up technologically, since its now working so well for Boeing. However,  "copying is the sincerest form of flattery" concept is not lost on Boeing, for it holds two cards to lay on the Airbus's party. That is why there is a delay in the launch announcement for the 787-10-X and the 777-X.

The Hobbit Arrives In New Zealand

The Hobbit Arrives


Enjoy The Moment!

787-9, Behind The Cut And Paste News

The 787-9 is rapidly coming into fruition as reported by the Puget Sound Business Journal. Rather than paste this article here, go review it at its site.  Puget Sound Business Journal . Most press clippings on anything, write a one paragraph/sentence intro, and paste the news wire into its news page with a different headline. However,

Puget Sound Business Journal by Steve Wilhelm, Staff Writer Date: Monday, November 26, 2012, 2:47pm PST

provides some nuggets for consideration.

1. Boeing's lessons learned department is going forth with new efficiency not experienced in the program.

2.  Boeing is eager to move forward with the -9, because they have retired risks and originally... spoke out of both sides of its collective mouths, when selling a Dream. Because they did not have a clue on how long, long was, when talking to a consulting Geologist about epic periods of time.

3. Now Boeing is playing smug and cautious when comes to the -9. They have a winning poker hand, alluded to the Journal link above, and Boeing is showing its poker face.

4. Its really late into 2015 before Boeing moves the last of the sub 66 unit#'s, out of Everett. Behind the scenes a new unannounced strategy is going on there, where you have to talk to the Boeing customers affected, about what's the real story? Regarding  customers parked aircraft (for four years, 2011-2015), at Everett that is 60,000 dollar question.

5. Ahead of schedule means either its a typo or ahead of the latest schedule, not the first schedule!

Having, played the 787 saga to its inventive conclusion, Boeing is taking a long inhale followed by a great exhale of meeting its promise. Inhale the humility and exhale the brag and sales announcements.  Breathing clearly helps the company not choke to death over the large chunk of its trying to swallow early on bravado pie.  The burping is almost over and its time to party with the deserts.

That being said, 2013 will be Boeing's year, as Airbus fights for relevancy.

Almost In With The Ten

Boeing's 787-10 is on track for a Christmas announcement of a commitment to launch. There are several significant suitors chasing the -10 dream.  So far, I have seen BA, Singapore Airlines and Qatar express keen interest in a 300 passenger 6700 mile aircraft.  BA expresses an interest for 60 and are in close talks for a delivery commitment in that range. Qatar wants to be Launch customer for Boeing on the -10. Singapore has geographic and business opportunity positioning in South East Asia.  A perfect fit for Singapore's location and market.

In a earlier post I mention a low end break-even number for the Boeing 787 program over-all, is about 150 orders for the -10 added to what is already booked for the 787 -8-9's. A Launch number would be in that range.  I have a feeling that Boeing wants a big splash number above 300 units committed by airlines, before Boeing will use the advantage of strong sales announcement in duo with an official production announcement. Call me crazy, but Boeing already has the 150 to meet break-even point and will announce launch, adding to the total 787 project. The -10 will push 787's over to profitability.  A 300 unit bang in the market would give Boeing a panache in sales, if it gets closer to 300 MOU's for the -10 at Christmas. Where will the additional 150 come from by Christmas?  There are some dark horses everyone has forgotten about.  Here is my short list, (Checked Twice) of Crazy sales for the second group of 150 units from nice customers.

Qantas -(off the naughty list) canceled 35 units earlier, when they really wanted 10's to begin with.  35 is its new order

New Zealand- will by "In with 10", units.

In Japan- the original launch customers will go for about:

ANA 20 units, They are airline Juggernauts

JAL   15 units

LAN for 5 units

United, likes a Hawaiian Christmas and the Caribbean for 15 units to haul these location for Christmas.

Air Canada for 6 units for a Coast to Coast Canada, and a Caribbean Christmas.

Air France for 5, just because, you know Carnival....

UAE 5-10 because they can...

Ethiopian 5 because they need to....

Air India    (not yet) Organized is a big word and India is not hooked on phonics.

LOT 5 Game planning for success, and is the ultimate European dark horse.

The trend here is customers already flying the -8 want the capacity of the -10. Those not flying yet, because of Boeing's late deliver schedules, are anxiously pacing the Boeing halls near the Big Factory doors with cigars in-hand, will start expanding their respective family's upon delivery.

Those who have not received its -8 or -9 yet want to evaluate first, after receiving its first load of 787-8's.

But you see, it wouldn't take very long for Boeing to get to 300, which is not the magic number. That number is when Boeing receives the first 150 batch of MOU's, from that group of three, the ones first mentioned at the top of the post.  Then Boeing will formally announce the 787-10 program for production and its Launch Customer, along with other premier customers. Pride is on the line for that honor of being the launch customer. Watch for BA, Singapore, and Qatar near the end of the year to be in the Christmas Package under Everett's Pine Trees.  Merry Christmas, Everyone and have a Happy New Year.

To Be Or Not To Be! The 787 Question

"To be, or not to be: that is the 787 question:

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

No more; and by a sleep to say we end

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come"

William H Shakespeare: Speaking About 9 Across Seating In Economy

Is this the theme that Boeing travails over when selling its Aircraft to airlines, who in return "sardines" its passengers in economy?  United has done that on its first 787-8 and the passengers have a say! "It's not any different than what we are flying on now because it lacks space." Nine across is too tight, and windows are too high", and so forth. It is sad to hear Boeing hand over its aircraft to any airline, and not take advantage of billions of dollars of Boeing's technological advances that were invested, while airlines cram customers together with a dream and a promise, using a similar line Boeing uses, but then those same airlines do not deliver on it, for the sake of extra revenue. They should buy a -9 and go 9 across adding more leg room. A dash 8 should have an 8 across in a plus section for discerning travelers, and then go nine in the cattle call economy section, with a warning on the overhead display, Warning: all passengers beyond this point sit like a 737 and fly like a 787 good luck".  Passengers will have a way getting what they pay for, and then complaints are no way!  Check your cheap ticket price and decide if you want to pay a little more for 787 style points.  After all, it's your choice no complaints, please.

ANA's Domestic Configuration Nine Across

Note narrower seats with 3-3-3, than eight across(2-4-2) shown below for the ANA International Configuration.  ANA tries to balance according to purpose. United Airlines maintains 3-3-3 in Economy Plus. However, stretching the legs and crimping the shoulders. I hope leg room moves forward on the -9 for all passengers.

Link to passengers unhappy with what United did to a Dream  

The "To Be" Part 

Boeing has a grand dream and airlines have a business model. Both need the dream and the business model to get on the same page, otherwise, passengers will blame Boeing for what the Airlines did to the aircraft as far as the intrinsic value, and reputation of the 787. "Its just not a great plane when packing it like a commuter plane on a milk run." To those who sit in back, upgrade to plus section for a better seat, Don't expect a premium experience in economy on a premium aircraft. Expectations by Boeing are set at the Business class level, they used it on potential airline customer during its sales pitch.  In reality, you are going for a ride on a great airplane in a cramped seat, while struggling to get your chin to the window, unless the plane goes into a steep bank after take-off. That is the "To Be Part" until carriers get it right, and use the aircraft as intended.

United Airlines' pleasure craft bridges sensibilities by a plus the legs theme, and not the shoulders. Pay a little more for stretching out better on long flights. Customers really need an understanding and gain better expectations before buying a ticket. Not every seat is first class just because its a Dream liner.

United's Play Book Below

The Not To Be Part

The unseen stuff such as breathing,  lower cost maintenance cost, and fuel economy is the feel-good psychological real element read in the brochure, where it makes you feel better emotionally, but that vision is blotted out of view in your cramp quarters of economy. Because you are stuffed in, then the "so what" attitude perks up, and you miss out on all the advantages, Boeing has worked so hard on, for so many years. That Dream becomes a Not To Be, a human sacrifice pitched on the corporate bottom line of more revenue seats.

ANA's Eight Across

No To Be Out West, But a Leader Showing The Way

As the poet says, "Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come"

WHS: footnote:

Nine Across is a missed opportunity for making customers dream, but stockholders pleased with their own wit.

787's 20 % Fuel Savings

The makers of the 787-8 proclaims a 20% fuel savings and on some operations as high as 21%+. I have no reason to doubt ANA or other Airlines numbers, and most of all Boeing's conservative estimates, it provides to its potential customers.

Not only has the number 20% savings been floated out for consumption, but so has a 30% savings on maintenance cost. However, for anyone to figure out what derives a maintenance number is harder to come by, unless you have statistical data from many operations, and over many years under various conditions of operation. It is a nebulous number to corner, and define coming from an outside analysts point of view, without having inside data from a broad scoping operation.

So one must trust Boeing's research number of 30% maintenance savings for the 787, over its other conventional suite of aircraft in operation. Compare operations costs with today's fleets in the airlines when buying a 787.

Now fuel costs are a more direct number one should consider when viewing the scope of advantages for the new 787 design. Flying from Japan to Germany is a substantial distance. It is 5,880 miles one way. A conventional Jet will burn x gallons to get to Frankfurt from Haneda Airport, Japan and then returning with using approximately the same amount of fuel. A 20% savings means not loading the airplane with not so many gallons for its weight,fuel and weather conditions it faces. The Airline will calculate passenger weight, and fuel weight when determining exactly how many gallons needed to safely carry the aircraft to its destination. As of November 2, 2012, jet fuel cost around $2.96.9 a gallon.  Even though the price per gallon has decreased a little, it still is a major cost risk for airlines. The 787 mitigates that risk over its competition with the 787. If older aircraft raises its ticket prices from needing to burn more expensive fuel, and compounds it further by carrying additional fuel weight on long hauls, then the 787 is a windfall for those airlines having the 787 fleet.

That very concept is not even noticed by passengers as they sleep on a long haul flight. But attention will be made by a passenger when buying a ticket for $75.00 dollars less and seated on a newer aircraft.

The total fuel capacity for the 787-8 is 33,528 U.S.
gallons (126,917 liters). At 33,528 gallons a full load will cost $99, 544.00 at current fuel prices. However, ANA will not fill the 787 with a full load of fuel on this flight. Even when even loading the 787 with a full load of passengers, crew and luggage.

A-330 Maximum Range Fully Loaded is 10,830 km (5,850 nmi) fuel capacity is 97,530 L (25,760 US gal).

A-330 Maximum Range fully fueled is 12,040 km (6,500 nmi) with a light load.

What this means is that a fully loaded A-330 will not make the 5880 miles safely, even with a guarantee that no head winds will occur. They would have to lighten the load further with a carry-on luggage only configuration. The A-330 will have to segment the journey rather than non stop it. 

A 787-9 would do do just fine with 280 passengers. The 787-10 still needs further program refinements before actual numbers on fuel economy are factored. 

A final thought on this example would take the 25,760 gallons used on a full tank from the A-330, and place it into the 787 and see if would get there on the same fuel.  Even though Boeing claims increased performance over the 767 as a 20% improvement, it would also becomes an  over achiever against the A-330. Since it has the fuel capacity available to go even further for its destinations.

I will use a burn comparison between the 767 and the 787.
A fully loaded 767-300 travels a maximum of 4,260 nmi
(7,900 km). With a 20 % improvement for the 787 over the 767 performance, would mean the 767-300 full load of 16,700 gallons would push it only about 4,260 miles. Those same gallons in the 787-8 would take it almost to Frankfurt from Tokyo going 5,325 miles, just 550 miles short of the runway on the same fuel.  This means ANA only has to load an additional 2,000 gallons on the 787, to bring it up to about 18,700 gallon load on the 787 for this route.  The A-330 would need all of its 25,760 and then some to make the journey.  The difference in cost is now a  difference between (25,760 gals., for the A-330)- (19,000 gals, for the B-787) equaling 6760 gallons in fuel savings flying the Boeing aircraft.  6760 (gal) X $2.969 a gallon cost provides the airline with savings on one-way of about $20,000, and $40,000 round trip. 

There you have it from the 787 20% fuels savings advantage Boeing has over its own 767 model. You apply the fuel capacities an distances for the A-330 to the capabilities of the 787 has over its 767, which is causing Airbus to look at those gallons lost to the Boeing 787, and wondering how to bridge this problem.

Its Time For Airlines To Shine 787 Style

Move over Boeing, its our party now as Qatar loads its first passengers on a complimentary adventure and delivery flight from Seattle to Doha.

Eight Airlines have taken deliveries and are experiencing, the fun- end of the business, Qatar is putting on a party while making some money. The passengers are the ultimate benefactors of the 787.  The experience is like having the perfect bed to sleep in, while on the road. You enter the 787, sit down, and fly for 16 hours.  You get off in the same condition you got on, and remark, "that was no big deal of a flight, I didn't see many differences".  At that point you've been "had" without knowing it. You paid a ticket, arrive rested, and no big deal. Some new toys to play with on your Journey, so who cares. What did Boeing do to pull the wool over a travelers eyes?

787 News Update 11-16-12 Qatar's Stars Shines

However, it is the biggest deal going for a multitude of reasons. The airlines sold you a ticket on an Aircraft that flies smoother, quieter and gives your mind a psychological break by messaging your thoughts with a plethora of mood enhancing light shows.  No big deal, right? Not only that, you breath better without altitude sickness symptoms. "Okay if I haven't convinced you yet, just go ahead and stare out the window and keep staring until you land, and have a nice day without knowing why. Oh, I guess I mentioned windows once, never mind! If having a conversation without upping  your voice volume, so my seatmate can hear, then sleeping should be better with those quiet engines lulling you asleep."

In the old days, I took a flight on a DC-3 and listen to every pop, crackle and wing stretch coming from the engine area. I watched the wing flex in fear, rather than in admiration, as on the 787. The light show came from the engines as sparks flew off the engine cowling. You would think the engine was on fire, but it wasn't, it was doing what piston aircraft engines do, they pretend to be on fire. I chewed my gum the flight attendant gave me, to clear my ears from pressure build up. The aircraft had a cabin pressure of about 15,000 feet, coincidentally we were flying 15,000 feet. I counted the minutes we stayed aloft, since I was  a teenager going to football game, flying four hundred miles enabled time to work on math skills counting minutes through the new found fear method. Upon landing you really, really thank the airline crew from the bottom of your heart, because you are walking off the flight! This current generation does not even know the meaning of the thrill flying until you fly over the Rocky Mountains during a winter storm in a twin prop. I look out the port hole and see up close the rock formations as we clear the Rockies.  However, The 787, is no big deal!  Did we even cross the Rocky Mountains? I was too busy with the touch screen in front of me to notice. The flight attendants are oblige to say thank you for flying (whatever airline name insert here), and have a nice day.  No prayer of thanks needed, departing the 787, unlike the DC-3, just a brief mental acknowledgement of that was different than metal A-330 aircraft, once again no big deal.

No Jetway just a few steps up and in. I love the 787.

I was sitting near the curtain watching sparks and hearing all kinds on noises back in 1969. Notice no push button shades and no silent wing flex and check out the luggage bins overhead.  Note the cargo net separating the passenger area from the captain and co-pilot. My first flight was entertaining and more death-deflying than the circus.

I want everyone to pay attention to your ticket price for the airlines sake.  This same ticket purchased for a ride on the 787 goes to support these cost items, (sarcasm added below).

Fuel, 20% savings, no matter the price of fuel.
Maintenance 30% savings no matter where the hanger.
All Electric Architecture gives the 787 premium efficiencies.
Core Technology central throughout the aircraft manages operations.

Just ask ANA for those numbers.

Yet your ticket price didn't go down, and you shouldn't mind that at all. If it cost you the same to ride in an old Taxi cab compared to a luxury automobile. I would jump into a new Rolls Royce over an old Checker cab at the same price.  Value is something hard for most travelers to grasp at times. The 787 is the best value flying. Its all about the ride not airlines savings. Cheap tickets will align after the down payment is paid up through fuel and maintenance savings.

No, the 787, is not just another airplane, classifying it as no different than what you've been on before is just raw ignorance. It is the biggest change in travel since the Wright Brothers. If you think otherwise then your sensibilities need a review.

Closing this blog with this thought, If you didn't notice a difference on the 787, then Boeing did its job of eliminating the things people do notice when they travel.

The Next Big Wing

Something is cooking at Boeing/NASA, and is flying in the background, which may become the next big wing.

It is Boeing's X-48C Blended Wing Body (BWB).   A good link to the concept can be found at...  X-48C  through Aviation Week's online journal.  However, I will not repeat the article but will add wistful thoughts on this concept.

X-48C Video First Flight 

The scaled down model has flown about a hundred times by NASA, and does not currently have funding to upscale to a 737 sized model as of yet.  The main thing one can surmise from this, is that it works, and aligns with computer projections of how an all composite blended wing with two engines would behave.  A lot of concept tweaking is ongoing at this time before any attempt for additional funding is garnered.

The stage of this project places it right into  "Winging It" greedy arms, as my speculations and conceptualizations cuts from the keyboard.  This is going to be the next big winged aircraft from Boeing!  I also believe this could also be that next game changer; long after the platitudes have died down for the 787 program, during a period, where it starts cranking out 200 787 units a year for all of its sizes and configurations.  The Blended Wing Body aircraft is for cargo, passengers, and military. It also would be the second Sea Change from Boeing in the 21st century in the air-framer category.

Here is a short list of details Boeing will have on its plate, before offering such an aircraft as a formal production commitment in the Future.  The future maybe 25 years off before a freighter comes to the forefront via the military, or cargo companies.  At that time these entities would swoop up this concept for there own purposes. Here are some primary details to pound out for engineering minds in the meantime.

1. Determine how big a wing should go so it may land with today's airport layout.
2. Determine a commercial aircraft windowing for the air frame.
3. Determine what capacity and size for freight or passengers.
4. Define Military configurations that would go windowless for troop and cargo movement, and have various sizes for various mission's (i.e.paratroopers).  A dreaming example: Having drone escorts as a defensive shield controlled by on-board mission teams. The first Flying Military Operations and Deployment Center (FMODC)of its type.  Kind of like a flying flag battleship, controlling drones, troops, and  missiles during incursions and operational engagements. Providing a battalion sized unit delivered to the drop zone and then provide air-cover with drones and missiles.  
5. A commercial aircraft model would have to address the visual amenities during flying. Or have an auditorium type seating like a flying theater.
6. Military stealth configurations.

Looking at Boeing' s dance card for current new models takes on its devotion for the 777-X and the 787-10 for the following ten years of time. Then onto another series of upgrades for those future 777X and 787's models models that are sent through the engineering hopper of lessons learned one more time of next generation CRP aircraft.  Applying newest technology and engines leap to that family of aircraft for an additional 10 years, taking the Boeing journey until 2035 and beyond.  I would see a full production attempt for the BWB concept by 2040, with an initial offering for military, freight, and passenger types all dialed in during that time. It would only come sooner if some external events push the project. But Boeing is laying in the weeds, could pounce sooner than later, if the military needs arise. Boeing's flying large scale X-48C, now in testing is a proof of concept for a large military or cargo aircraft or offensive tactics.

Break Even Decision For The 787-10

The 787-10 finalization mode is going forth.  The BA Board does not want to see a presentation document until final checklist items are met.  Mainly, who will buy it, how many units, and when will ROI be met, or more clearly, by what point will production of a 787-10 start making a shareholder money. The 787-8 is a sunk cost retiring tremendous risk. However, the road has been cleared, but not yet paved, which enables an investor a calculation of when and how much should be made with a successful airframe.

The 787-9 has not finished testing or started production, those stages would enable a follow-on analysis from production, and a financial snapshot of how this will position Boeing, against its rivals.  The age-old accounting formula of break-even analysis must make its way through a forest of cost, even though many costs have now become retired in the 787-8  garbage bin of production, shortfalls, and mishaps. The 787- 9 should reap a strong and clear path to production bliss with a clearly identified financial methodology for Return On Investment.  Even though sales numbers for 787- 9 are slightly lower than the "eights" numbers,  a generally tepid market awaits to see what the other airlines are going to do, and what the "other" air-framer is going to do relating to the widebodies. The market won't expand on the 787-9 any further until all the wrinkles are out of Boeing's "Suits".

However, this brings us to the 787-10. The plane everyone would like to have, but, isn't ready to show its hand towards a purchase.  Boeing's board is asking the folks in the Boeing trenches, how many units do airlines want with initial orders, how fast can that be delivered, and what do customers want in a 787-10?

Its a fixed cost and variable cost balance sheet math question by unit produced. Basic formulation would require these components.

Fixed cost is the investments made as a percentage of total production cost, whether one produces an aircraft or not. it is a summarizing plant, facilities and engineering type investments/cost, whether or not a plane is sold.  However, each airplane sold makes an amount which contributes towards exceeding the fixed cost and that margin is weighed down by Variable cost factor of each unit produced, that are a sum of item costs associated with purchasing inventory items and providing labor when making one airplane reported as a factored variable unit cost.  How much does it cost to make, assemble and fly one aircraft out the door to a customer? A 200 million aircraft has all these component costs wrapped under its wing. The break-even occurs when Boeing sells and makes enough 787-10's meeting the total fixed cost of the 787-10 project and factors in a production to delivery cost for each airplane. So here is my crude Winging It without regard to actual numbers, but as an illustration for breakeven analysis.

Factors:

-#300 787-10 aircraft sold and delivered at 220 million each = Total Revenue of  66 Billion.

*   Formula : FC+ VC = BE

-   (Fixed Cost + Variable Unit  Cost) = Breakeven point.  Theoretical Question? How many units in sales to equal break even?

In this example If your Fixed cost equals 20 Billion for the 787-10 program and variable cost equals 150 million per unit, you have a 70 million contribution margin for each aircraft delivered from its 220 million sales price.  The BE point in this example, equals 133 units delivered for the 787-10. To have exact numbers from a (Reality Accounting Firm) is a chore. However, guesstimations can be used as a guide for a determination when Boeing will blink and go for the 787-10. If they line up a prospectus for 150 units, then they will announce the 787-10 project.

 -----------------------------------------------------------

Additional notes:

Allocations being applied during the 787-8 project will not look the same for the 787-10. Many R&D items disappear before considering cost on the 10.  The Board is really interested in bottom line numbers derived from the 787-10's Break Even Cost numbers. You need to know a very strong presales number, otherwise, Boeing needs to confirm MOU's in unit numbers from customers. 

To say "Okay" and let's move on it. With a limit on time, the folks in the trenches need to hit on a presales number by this year's end. Break-even goal is much shorter on the 787-10 than both the Eight and Nines, and many risks have long been retired. I'm just saying, a case of selling 300 units 787-10's, to customers with proven serious consideration, is enough to launch it. 100 units is possibly a pause until a broader scope is established. If Boeing announces soon, it means they have tangible numbers to support the 787-10 beyond the Break Even point, and more opportunity in contributing to project pay-off as a whole.

787-10 News Update 11-16-12

777-X-ERcise

Boeing is calling all hands on deck for a preliminary rendering, specifications, and application of its parts bin to create a new 777X that will bridge Boeing offering of a Mini Jumbo, which will exceed the Airbus 350-900/1000 models coming up in the next 2 to 3 years. What has been oozing out of Boeing's press reports are the considerations for composing an Aircraft, from state of the art working features, as examples on the list below of possibilities:

1. Composite wings on all flight surfaces and wing box, excluding core hull.
2. Core technology found in place on the 787 installed on 777. An all electric architecture.
3. Performance improvements for 777-X engine types.
4. New aluminum types on the hull. Increase use of titanium.
5. Extended stretch composite wings folding out  prior to take-offs so the 777 fits current airport configuration.

These items would use weight reduction technology and fuel economy engineering found on the 787.  Not having an all composite hull is offset by a composite, stretch, and folding wing; extending its range, payload, and economy.  The secret is in the sauce, and that will be an opus on wing building. Making it very saucy.

Does this compare to an all composite 787 in performance and economy? That is the tricky question.  It may not have to depending on the A-350's family, roll out, and performance numbers.

It may come in at a 10-15 % increase of performance over the current model. 12% would get Boeing notice in a big way.  Knowing what the 787 did with computer modeling vs. reality is a big technological advance. Boeing has confidence to configure a 777-X on the shop computer and fly it out the door knowing they hit the mark. Plus they could do this quickly which is more critical than dreaming over an eight year cycle. A three year cycle would use the engineering and technical parts bin from the 787 investment, and added value from that former project.  That is why a one year wait is not a problem, because what is already moving forward with its surrogate 787 program  benchmarks which can roll onto the 777X program.  Its not as simple as I make it sound, but lessons learned don't have to be learned over again, and that alone makes a huge difference in the program cycle.

A lot can be done in the meantime before the go ahead trigger is squeezed.  The 777X has a few surprises in its bag as Airbus goes its way cloning the 787 project, since they deemed that undo-able in the first place, now they find themselves spending a fortune to do the undo-able.  A bridge is being built from the 777-300 to the 777-X, where that bridge can handle a lot of traffic.

British Airways Announce Start Of First 787 Construction

All things 787: Boeing gets a break in the weather, send up 3 787s for flight tests Announcement OF BA 787 Start Of Construction