Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Boeing is planning a normal plane (as in a tube with wings attatched) made of lightweight materials making it 20% cheaper to run.

“Boeing is definitely giving itself an escape hatch” from the Sonic Cruiser idea, said one aerospace industry executive who has been briefed on Boeing’s thinking.

The plane would hold 250 passengers travelling at Mach 0.82 - 0.85 as normal planes do now.

“If Boeing can build a conventional airplane that would have 20% better operating efficiencies, that would be a winning airplane,” John Plueger, president and chief operating officer - International Lease Finance Corp.

Heidi Wood of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter says that as passenger fares are the main focus of the airline industry, the Sonic Cruiser might have to wait  Big thumbs up, “In terms of practicality, it may be simply a debate as to which airplane they do first,” she said.

More information at the MSNBC Website


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlueShamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2865 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2598 times:

Hmmmmm, sounds like an A330-200  Big thumbs up


So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

No, I think they mean 20% lower than that.
The 330 has a heavy wing. I'm sure that AI could fix that..but it would cost a bit.
Nonetheless it's a very competitive aircraft to the 763/764


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2515 times:

Do we have any idea how serious this offer is, and what airlines are being invited to take part in the discussions?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9723 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Reading this article, I still wonder what Boeing is planning with their new product line. I still do not see a significant market for the Sonic Cruiser, as many aviation analysts think this aircraft will be expensive to operate. Boeing really needs to sort out things, as they are struggling to come up with a true competitive aircraft to replace their 767 product line. I hope there will be more clarification from Boeing on the direction they will go in the future.

Regards A388


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

IF, they do not build the Sonic Cruiser, then they will have to offer a better 747 derivative against the A380.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2506 times:

Fine. They want to build a 767 "Lite" .....go for it.

But the comment that this is an escape clause from making Sonic Cruiser a reality is ominous. To drop development on the Sonic Cruiser would set back commercial aviation by 10 to 2o years. The future belongs, in shares, to economy, the right size, flexibility, all of that....but the biggest share of the future belongs to speed.


User currently offlineOO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

After the Sonic Cruiser... comes the Cheap Cruiser Big grin


Falcon....like a limo but with wings
User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 997 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Well, many of us are not surprised at all by this.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2392 times:

It could also be that Boeing is developing 2 new planes for the the very large, very important, and growing 200-250 seat market.........it was previously announced that Boeing was begining studies to replace the 757/767 families, which although updated many times and very capable aircraft, should be replaced by something new for the next decade.

The Sonic Cruiser could become the long-haul aircraft, for intercontinental routes and some US transcon services. The new "Low-Cost" cruiser could replace the some of the 757/767 range - high-density short-haul, medium haul flights, and long-haul low-cost operations. If Boeing is serious about replacing the 757/767 over time, there is a huge gap to fill between the 739 and 772 and it may be necessary to develop two distinct aircraft to do it.

Good for Boeing! I hope that the develop new, more effecient, and advance and faster aircraft........they are taking a different approach than Airbus and that is healthy competition.


User currently offlineRabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

so i figure this plane is going to be 80% composite. if, then let's hope that the public will forget the hype about the claimed risks with composite materials. or maybe AA pilots will go on strike to get the 7lite7 grounded before her maiden flight.

cheers, r.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

I was wondering already ......

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/773211/6/

keesje


User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 997 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

so i figure this plane is going to be 80% composite. if, then let's hope that the public will forget the hype about the claimed risks with composite materials. or maybe AA pilots will go on strike to get the 7lite7 grounded before her maiden flight.

Well, we all know that composites are bad on Airbus'es and good on Boeing's.  Big grin


User currently offlineWoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1029 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2243 times:

This has just GOT to be an "out" for Boeing to shelve the Sonic Cruiser for the time being. Airlines arent screaming for 15% faster aircraft, they are screaming for 15%-20% more efficient aircraft, speed doesnt seem to factor into the equasion at this point nearly as much as the economics of fleet commonality, reduced fuel consumption and overall efficiency. It would seem that the logical step would have been to start developing a more economical replacement for or addition to the existing product line rather than a faster aircraft that appeard to cost alot more to build and somewhat more to operate.
The technology has existed for 40 years to build faster jets than what we fly today, but the only two attempts thus far have either filled a tiny niche (the Concorde) or long since passed into history (the Convair 990), having been passed over for economy rather than speed.


User currently offlineGeotrash From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

Just another perspective- In the early 1930's, the railroads in the U.S. were languishing as the days of expensive to operate, steam-driven locomotives were coming to an end. The railroads were seeing significant economic pressures for the first time in history.

Ralph Bud, then president of Burlington Northern, introduced the traveling public to a train called the Zephyr that could travel nearly twice as fast is conventional trains, and had a radical new look known as streamlining. It cut the time to travel coast to coast by train to little more than half of the previous travel time. He was enormously successful for 2 reasons: The train cost less to run AND was twice as fast. Business travelers in particular beat a path to their door. Many credit him with keeping the railroad industry alive for another 25 years as a result.

If history can be used as a precedent in this case, perhaps Boeing could be wildly successful with the sonic cruiser if has equivalent or better economics to today's aircraft, and can significantly reduce the travel time on a transatlantic or transpacific flight. Imagine Mach 1.3 or more. Would you pay an extra 20% to fly on such an aircraft? I know I would, and businesses can make an easy case that an extra 20% is well worth it as well, if their people can cover twice the ground in a day. Suddenly businesses can fly people from LA to Sydney or Delhi in half a day. As a business traveler, I believe the greatest successes with such an aircraft would be on very long haul routes. Many others on this forum have concluded this as well.

-Geo


User currently offlineJU101 From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 832 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Do you really think Boeing is willing to get rid of its 757 and 767 product line? This is actually one thing i really dislike about Boeing. They seem to market a certain product line as most efficient, environmentally friendly, most modern technologies, best solution in its class, and then all of a sudden they come with the idea to scrap it altogether. Just look at the way they are presenting the Boeing 737 classics on its website, suddenly they are presented as outdated in comparison to the NGs.

However i wouldnt be surprised that they scrap the 757, since the extended derivations of the 737 are overlapping the original 757 idea. I personally think this is stupid. Boeing could have easily modified the 757, and produced a new version that would have been comparable to operations of a 737, thereby allowing the same pilots and other crew to operate on either plane types.

Tell me what is the significant difference between the 767-400 and the 777-200. I personally want the 767s to survive. Boeing should make technological advancements on the 767-200 and 767-300; it would be cheaper that way. This way many airlines that plan on long term purchases would stick with the 767 since they know that Boeing wont halt production and make their fleet look outdated any time soon... My best example of this is the MD80, MD90, and MD11 product lines. Many of these are fairly new, yet their production was halted, so us airliner enthusiasts suddenly have the intuition that the fleet is all of a sudden outdated and requires replacement...


User currently offlineNightcruiser From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Perhaps Boeing is planning to create a 787/797 family to replace the 757/767 program. I wouldn't recommend it though.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7990 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1949 times:

Here's what I think Boeing is working on: a plane that uses the 767 cross fuselage cross section but with new nose, new tail, a brand-new low-drag wing, and next-generation high-bypass engines (PW8000 revived? An engine derived from the Engine Alliance GP7000? Rolls-Royce Trent 600?).

In short, we maybe looking at a plane with the seating capacity of the 767-200 and 767-300, but with substantial increases in range, 777-200ER cruise speeds, and lower fuel burn per passenger-mile.


User currently offlineSerge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

I think they Boeing should compete with Airbus's new prototype, the A302:



It is in no way related to the A300...  Big grin

(joke post, no flaming of the poster needed)

...Serge


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

It should be a little wider then the 767 to allow efficient 8 abreast coach and 6 abreast Business class/ US F class. (I know it's about the A330/340 diameter)

Such an aircraft IMO could have a giant replacement market on flights upto 8 -9 hours (-ER versions) in thenext 30 years.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1873 times:

I doubt that the new aircraft will have the 767's fuselage cross section. The SC baseline design accommodates side-by-side LD3s, and I doubt they'll drop that design feature if they go ahead and build an all-new composite fuselage. I could see them building an all-new composite M0.85 airliner, and later using the same fuselage for the SC. The wing carry-through region would be different, though. I wonder if the outer wing panels could be common. My guess is no, that the SC's outer wing would be thinner than one optimized for 0.85.

User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Geotrash....

Outstanding post! So much of the answers to present questions lay in the past...we just need to be aware of them.

I heartily agree.....the future belongs to speed. In the same era you speak of the Zephyr dazzling trancon business travellers, the world marvelled at the speed of Queen Mary, Rex and the fabulous Normandie....magnificent machines that had cut the travel time between Europe and New York to an unheard of 3 and a half days.

Even a small increase in speed at efficient operational costs will pay huge rewards. As a leisure traveller eager for my first visit to Alaska this summer, I nevertheless don't look forward to six hours in a coach seat aboard a 757 to get there...regardless of how much I love flying (and the 757!).

I would gladly pay extra to get there 20 percent faster. Everyone would.



User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2369 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

It's all about speed. . . .no i't isn't.
It's all about economics. If 20% extra speed will cost 40-50% more, most of your average traveller [up to 80%] is not going to fly it. The jetage came about because it brought 80% extra speed for about 20% extra cost. Now that's economical progress.
Concorde brought 120% extra speed, but for zillion% extra cost. That just ain't gona work, at least not for approx. 99.9% of the travelling public.
20% extra cost is a lot. Decreasing seat cost by 15-20% over the 744 was the reason for Airbus to launch the 380.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1788 times:

I concur that operating economics are more important than overall speed of an aircraft. If the Sonic Cruiser makes economic sense and has its speed capability, then Boeing has a winner. If it doesn't, then a 767 like aircraft that has 20% less operating costs than any other commercial aircraft on the planet will be winner.

My concern though is IF Boeing doesn't go with the Sonic Cruiser, then their main competitor to the A380 will not arise. That will mean that the 747-400 will need more attention than it is currently being given. What do you all think?



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

I think Sonic cruiser is not a competitor to the A380.

I also think piles of A300/A310 and 757/767 need to be replaced on the short/medium range markets in the next 20 years.

I also think B767-2/3/400 and A330-2/300 are not the best candidates for that.

I also think it won´t be brilliant Boeing engineers who decide on the SC or "787" but economics.

I think that when I was a Boeing stoke holder I would invest in the "787" 200-250 seat, low cost people mover.


25 AvObserver : This lower cost airplane might be the right ticket for Boeing in today's economic climate, making sense for more carriers than the Sonic Cruiser. Boei
26 F4N : To all: From a business standpoint, an alternative plan should always be available as a contingency should unforeseen circumstances(say, 9/11, for exa
27 Post contains images Klaus : Keesje: I also think it won´t be brilliant Boeing engineers who decide on the SC or "787" but economics. The engineers´ brilliance (or lack thereof)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing's "New Plane" Website posted Mon Jul 19 2004 05:51:32 by Kalakaua
Boy:"...we Hijack This Plane With My Two Guns" posted Sat Dec 6 2003 17:41:37 by Triple Seven
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw
FAX - "Boeing Operator"? Since When? posted Sun Aug 20 2006 18:36:58 by Flying-Tiger
"Nonhijackable Plane" posted Fri Aug 11 2006 13:35:16 by NWDC10
Boeing Feels "Compassion" For Airbus' Troubles posted Sun Jul 16 2006 22:31:19 by BoomBoom
Why Do All Canadian Airport Codes Start With "y"? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:05:56 by NZ8800
"Are You With Me, Steve?" Video posted Wed Jun 28 2006 21:56:25 by Bravo45
Boeing: Weight "a Challenge" For B787 posted Tue Apr 4 2006 14:17:31 by Joni
What Will Happen To The "Pink Plane"? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 20:18:18 by DL4EVR