Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13752 posts, RR: 18 Posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Interesting. I don't think AMR will be the first one receiving the SC now. Poor them. I feel sorry for all the US airlines
Boeing's Sonic Cruiser Loses Airlines' Attention As Carriers Focus on Survival
Knight Ridder/Tribune - November 20, 2001
Nov. 17--Seven months ago, American Airlines was so hot for Boeing's Sonic Cruiser that chief executive Don Carty jokingly asked the head of Boeing Commercial Airplanes for exclusive dibs on the first three years of production.
But the Dallas-based carrier's ardor for the Sonic Cruiser was snuffed out by the Sept. 11 hijacking of two American jetliners and Monday's crash in New York of another American plane. With American bleeding up to $15 million a day -- and the airline industry preoccupied with survival -- the debut of Boeing's ultrafast plane likely won't come so quickly.
Some of the 15 or so major international airlines working with Boeing to define the proposed plane's characteristics suspended Sonic Cruiser meetings after the terror attacks and have been slow to return Boeing's marketing questionnaires.
Boeing had hoped to use the information to nail down the plane's basic configurations, such as flight range and seat number, by this time. Boeing now plans to firm up initial configurations by early 2002, said Randy Baseler, vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Reflecting the diminished urgency for new aircraft introductions, Boeing officially has decided to forgo derivative engines for the Sonic Cruiser and instead has asked three jet-engine makers for new designs.
The decision will raise the Sonic Cruiser's development costs and may lengthen the wait for its first passengers. Boeing said it would have the airliner ready for service between 2007 and 2008, with the latter entry date predicated on using the latest technologies.
Waiting for more advanced technologies should make the Sonic Cruiser more expensive to buy but cheaper to operate, said Rick Kennedy, a spokesman for GE Aircraft Engines in Cincinnati.
Lowering the Sonic Cruiser's operating costs is one of Boeing's chief engineering challenges. The plane is designed to cruise at Mach 0.95 to Mach 0.98, or 95 to 98 percent of the speed of sound. It would surpass the Boeing 747 as the fastest subsonic jetliner and would be the swiftest passenger jet behind the supersonic Concorde.
But pushing the plane near -- or just above -- the speed of sound burns fuel at a much higher rate. Boeing's goal is to make the Sonic Cruiser no more expensive to fly per mile than the Boeing model it's designed to replace, the 767.
It would accomplish this partly by building the Sonic Cruiser with almost all lightweight composite materials and titanium instead of the usual aluminum wings and fuselage.
But Boeing also is counting on offsetting the Sonic Cruiser's higher fuel burn with savings that are more variable, such as shaving labor costs for pilots and cabin crews with shorter trips and by squeezing more daily flights out of each aircraft because of the quicker turnaround.
Even as it postponed the target date for selecting initial configurations, Boeing has been narrowing the broad range of parameters it announced in March. The Sonic Cruiser originally was set to carry between 100 to 300 passengers, have a range between 6,000 and 10,000 nautical miles and be either single- or twin-aisle.
Boeing since has decided that the first version of the plane will have two aisles, stick close to the middle of the seat range and have a range of at least 7,000 nautical miles. The Sonic Cruiser's flight deck probably will look unlike any current Boeing jetliner models, which all have control yokes instead of side sticks found in Airbus planes.
By taking the additional time to incorporate the latest advances in engineering and other areas, Boeing will end up with "a much more state-of-the-art plane," said Paul Nisbet, an aerospace analyst with JSA Research.
Nisbet expects Boeing to formally launch the Sonic Cruiser program during the 2003 Paris Air Show.
Nisbet said Boeing tried to respond quickly to airlines' initial enthusiasm for the Sonic Cruiser by aiming for an earlier rollout. While that urgency has dissolved since September, Nisbet expects the plane to eventually rekindle longing when better times return to the airlines, including at American.
"Maybe in 2008, they'd still want the first three years' worth," Nisbet said.
To see more of The Seattle Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.seattletimes.com.
(c) 2001, The Seattle Times. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
Lubcha132 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2776 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1493 times:
maybe boeing could work on ways to overhaul older aircraft to increase their lifespan. i know this has been tried before but it may be a better solution than buying new aircraft, especially at a time like this. Hopefully all the money spent on research thus far will not be in vain.
TWA717_200 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
The Sonic Cruiser originally was set to carry between 100 to 300 passengers, have a range between 6,000 and 10,000 nautical miles and be either single- or twin-aisle. Okay....let's add this to: It was to be between 50 and 300 feet long, powered by somewhere between 2 and 8 engines, have at least 3 tires and 1 wing.
Jean Leloup From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 2116 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
Fishmeal, is that a reason not to build it? Personally, I didn't enjoy seing two 767's crash aimed at office buildings, either. So perhaps we should suspend production of them as well, and maybe 757's while we're at it. In fact, maybe we should cease production of any aircraft that has been or could be targeted by terrorists at any particular time.
Fishmeal From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1421 times:
TransSwede and Jean Leloup:
You are both correct, of course: the bigger and faster planes will be built becase in the end they make good business sense. The aviation world will be full of pitfalls, and incidents like Sept 11 will happen. It's just sad to think that such amazing technology can be used in these unintended ways.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1369 times:
Well, I agree, 600 passengers is too many to have on an airplane. Nothing against Airbus at all, I just think that's too many. With a 737 rudder hard-over, you lose mabe 170 people. With an A380 rudder... falling off a la A300... you lose... 600. Gee.
I don't know, maybe it's my humanitarian side hanging out.
Also, for those of you (TranSwede) who think it will be delayed just a short time, I think you're mistaken. With Lufthansa pulling out of the program completely, until further notice anyhow, that does not bode well. Other airlines- especially smaller ones- could follow. And who knows how many of those airlines will actually still be in the air by the time the aircraft makes it into production. We're losing more big names every week... Sabena, on and on... Not that Sabena ordered A380s, but you get the point.
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
>Well, I agree, 600 passengers is too many to have on
>an airplane. Nothing against Airbus at all, I just think
>that's too many. With a 737 rudder hard-over, you
>lose mabe 170 people. With an A380 rudder... falling
>off a la A300... you lose... 600. Gee.
Of course, being the unbiased observer that you are, you would find (or would have found) Boeing's 747X "too big"? And what about those JAL 747's with 550 pax?
And why isn't a 170 pax 737 too big when we all could fly small prop's with 4 passengers? Think about it, with a "rudder hard-over" you kill 170 instead of only 4...
I guess cruise ships ought to be limited to few passengers as well...
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8377 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (13 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
It's a question of what we're used to. In 20 years time we'll be saying, "Gee, isn't 1,200 pax too many to put on one airliner at once, in case it crashes - those A380 accidents because of the coffee machine explosions was one thing, blimey, 550 people gone at once, that's nothing, but 1,200...too much!"
Maybe we should all fly on nothing bigger than an Aztec.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz