Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1991 times:
Boeing has sent the strongest signal yet that the Sonic Cruiser could be scrapped!
It admitted that convincing airlines to pay a premium for speed is difficult. Discussions with airlines were still focused on the "value of speed" and confirmed that "other options" were under consideration.
"If it turns out that we all don't value this speed, the Sonic Cruiser is way more than an airplane. It is a focus for the enabling technology we would bring to bear to build a new airplane," Mr Mulally said.
Virgin Atlantic CEO, Steve Ridgway commented, "I don't know if there is a premium to be had from the marginal increase in speed."
Airbus CEO, Noel Forgeard obviously said, "We think airlines expect cheap and clean airplanes and now our competitor is saying the same."
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Dated 22 July,
Boeing could launch the Sonic Cruiser with an order from just one airline.
A public announcement on the project will be made at the end of 2002.
"It doesn't have to be a high number if someone says 'We want to go there,'" Phil Condit, CEO said.
"We will narrow down on the direction that we will take probably in the latter part of this year," Condit said. "I think there will be a new product in the basic (Sonic Cruiser) category period: 200 to 250 seats." Among the decisions the company has to make: "Is it (one) product or might it be two?" "The engagement of the airlines has been pretty good. I don't sense any lessening of enthusiasm about this technology. I (see) no less enthusiasm about Sonic Cruiser than 18 months ago."
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
I would doubt that, Boeing has this posted today with a big, new SC pic:
FARNBOROUGH, United Kingdom, July 24, 2002 -- At the Farnborough Air Show today, Walt Gillette, vice president and program manager for the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, outlined the progress being made on five technology fronts as Boeing [NYSE:BA] continues to focus on this major product-development effort.
"We are making very good progress on the fundamentals required to create the Sonic Cruiser," Gillette said. "These fundamentals involve the technology needed for the airplane, the processes needed to create the airplane, and the basic configuration exploration activities necessary to reveal the very best shape for the airplane."
The Sonic Cruiser airplane concept was unveiled in March last year. The airplane would have a dramatic new configuration and would be designed to fly as fast as Mach 0.98, shortening travel times with fuel efficiency per passenger comparable to today's best performing widebody twinjets. As part of the normal product development process Boeing also has developed two other alternative applications of the technology being used on the Sonic Cruiser and is asking for airline input.
Gillette characterized the current phase of development as a "learning" phase and said that progress is measured by how fast the team is learning about the technologies, tools and processes that will allow it to create an all-new class of flying machines.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1937 times:
Dated 24 July 2002,
How much are pax willing to pay for speed?
Studies say $25 for each hour saved.
Phil Gillette (does he shave?), product manager, says 50 J Class seats (there's a difference between the J Class seats that Boeing and Airbus refer to, and what a premium airline like Singapore Airlines describes as a J Class seat), and 180 Economy Class seats would save two hours on a long haul flight, earning $14 000 more revenue per flight.
"We are not there on any of the (technical) measures. We can see we can get to the solution and we have various paths to work through," he said, describing studies into aerodynamics, engine technology and weight-saving materials. "We can see there is a solution space. The three engine companies are dong a wonderful job and really providing what the airplane needs in efficiency. They are very close to target."
Navion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1891 times:
Singapore Air, Boeing is not near scrapping the SC. As a matter of fact, just at the Farnborough Airshow GKN Westland has joined the team, a team comprised of many of the top companies in aerospace. As Boeing has said this week, doing the SC is possible. They have proven all of the technology issues in testing they need to make it work. Their concern is time saved on premium routes such as JFK-NRT or JFK-HKG will be about 2 hours which may not be worth it. The jet however is doable. Check out some of the information on Aviation Week & Space Technology online. It's pretty interesting. Thanks for posting.
Backfire, notwithstanding your silly name for the SC, your basic premise is pretty good. There will be complete transfer of all useful technologies being developed by the cream of the crop aerospace companies already on board the SC project. These companies certainly aren't stupid (i.e. they know what they're doing).
Finally, I think it's time we all saw something new such as the SC and not just another updated rehash of the same old platform layouts and technology such as the A380 and 777. It's time to move to another level (provided the business case is there of course). The SC looks hot. The A380 is an absolute pig of a design, looks wise even though it (and the 747 derivatives) will be really efficient buses to haul butts in seats (yawn).
Mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6354 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1873 times:
$25/$50 as the value of an hour saved as described in the article above sounds very low. how much time saving will the SC have were it will really counts across the Pacific ~3hrs.. that only an additional $150 per passenger can airlines make a profit with the SC and only $150 extra per pasenger?
Mt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6354 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
further more (from http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1027434889688&p=1012571727304)
"The move was a gamble by Boeing, which had done no market testing of the proposed aircraft. It was envisaged that Sonic Cruiser would travel at up to 98 per cent of the speed of sound. The company argued that this would allow airlines to charge a premium of around 15 per cent above business class fares."
15% above business class fares
United: ORD_HKG Oct 4 / Oct 20 business class : $6663
15% above = $7663
difference = ~$1000
if we assume a 3hr time savings.. thats $ 333.33/hour saved 6 times more that what people are willing to pay for an hour saved.
Wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1837 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1826 times:
I'm no aerospace engineer, but it still seems to me that Boeing could have this plane fly at M.92-94, saving tons of fuel while still improving flights times and range. Why are they so stuck on M.98? Even at M.94 and a capacity of 200-250, I still see this plane as a pure business traveler machine with smaller capacity going exclusively to high yield fares.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1824 times:
Hey, Backfire, do you feel the need to paraphrase the ever arrogant Noel Forgeard? Boeing needs to thoroughly evaluate the business case for the SC before making a launch commitment? If airline response is sufficiently favorable, it's a go. If not, it makes sence to apply some of the SC technology to a more conventional jetliner to reduce direct operating costs. Boeing has maintained from the beginning it will do the SC only if a favorable business case exists. If airline opinion leads to a different direction, that's where it will go. All Boeing needs to do is not to make any grandiose claims early on that they can't back up later. Yes, they've been guilty of this before but if they let the airlines choose the airplane, the way they did with the 777, they should have a world-beating product. They must choose their projects carefully since they can't rely on a 33% government loan for funding.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16260 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1779 times:
The Sonic Cruiser could really hurt the A-380, since most of the higher yields travelers will choose the SC (or 808 as it will likely be called), leaving the A-380 as a flip-flop hauler and cargo aircraft.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1766 times:
Now who would be the most likely choice for the Sonic Cruiser? Considering that it is a splashy aircraft with attitude (even though it's still a concept), who better than Virgin Atlantic? Sir Richard Branson has already expressed an interest in the aircraft for the start, and the Sonic Cruiser just seems to look like something that belongs in Virgin's fleet, and add to that something he could throw up against BA's Concorde. BA and Air France could be potential targets as well, since the Concorde is getting older and more costly to operate, and is very limited in the number of destinations in which they fly to. They could give Concorde comfort to more people at a good price.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1718 times:
Agreed, STT757. If Boeing delivers on what they're aiming for, the SC will revolutionize air travel the way the B-707 did in the late 50s. Furthermore, if Boeing can manage to keep the purchase price below that of an A-380, it would be a VERY attractive alternative to the behemoth from Toulouse.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
TransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
This talk about a price-premium for just slightly faster speeds is nonsense. Would you pay $100 extra to arrive 1-2 hours earlier in a trans-pacific flight? I sure as heck wouldn't. Now if we are talking Concorde-like speeds, now then I might be willing to pay more. But for 10-15% faster? No way...
Delta-flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2676 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1707 times:
Boeing is not the only one investing in the SC. Every supplier in the industry is lining up to get on board, at their own expense. The program has huge momentum. Even if the SC is scrapped, the technology now emerging can (and will) be used to enhance current designs.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 12559 posts, RR: 64 Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1695 times:
When you're going to visit Grandma or lay on the beach, 10-15% faster doesn't mean much. However, when you're a business traveler making your way across the globe or even just across a continent, that 10-15% can mean quite a bit in terms of time and money saved. And since business travelers are the market most aggressively sought by airlines, the backpacks-and-flipflops crowd can slug it out on the A-380. Most international carriers will opt for the SC if it delivers the economics Boeing is promising.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1686 times:
Boeing's Walt Gillette was scheduled to give a major address on the Sonic Cruiser's progress at Farnborough today. The plane is still being touted by Boeing as their most important new product development. Why would this be if they're ready to scrap it. I'm inclined to think someone (Airbus?) leaked the story to the press to create disinformation about Boeing just as Farnborough was getting underway. Yes, I've got a rotten, suspicious mind but this is BIG business and 'Dog eat Dog'. On the orders front, I hope Boeing isn't humiliated like they were at last year's Paris show.
Kanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Turn that 12 hour flight into a 10 hour flight? Where do I sign up! Even in F class the less time I'm in the air the better. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the aircraft utilization issue at all. What will the Sonic Cruiser do to current utilization patterns?
Skiordie From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 73 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
There are quite a few possibilities that can evolve from the Sonic Cruiser program. The large number of outside companies that are partners and are developing technology and systems for this program are reducing the risk to Boeing itself and is investing these companies in the success of the project. There is an enormous investment all the way around. The out come is not certain, but an interesting set of possibilities can looked at.
1. Sonic Cruiser, as advertised. 10 hour flight 10% more efficient.
2. Super Sonic Cruiser, dependent on the health of the industry and economy. A possible growth of the existing program. 8 hour flight same efficiency as current airliners.
3 Sub Sonic Cruiser, newly developed technology and airframes that perform at current levels with increased efficiency. Boeing would like to update the 767's, how much more efficient can they become without new developments? Keep the flight at 12 hours, but become 20% more efficient.
All of these airliners can be developed from the same basic program, it would seem to me that by choosing the middle ground for the sonic cruiser, Boeing can change goals of the program and still include the newest and most efficient design.
Ben88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1555 times:
Didn't the 747 prove that travelers preferred price over speed? The 747-400 is the best plane ever built imho, from a technical and usability stand point. I simply can't understand why Boeing is standing still while Airbus takes all the orders for a jumbo widebody. Business travelers who want REAL speed take Citation X's at mach .92 and avoid crowded airports which have constant delays, bomb threats, horrible security lines etc. Anyone agree??
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 1552 times:
No Ben. The 747 brought price and speed at the same time.
Before the 747, most people could not afford airtravel AT ALL. Now they can, and with the SC to complement the 747 and 777 people can now choose price or speed both (where previously it was price or don't travel).
I wish I were flying
25 N79969: The 747 is about the fastest commercial airliner out there. (I am not counting the Concord because of its limited use). I have heard that Boeing or To
26 DIA: I agree with N79969. . .especially his last sentence. LOL. Anyway, If the SC can cut out a couple hours on a trip for a small premium fee, sign me up
27 QatarAirways: "And since business travelers are the market most aggressively sought by airlines, the backpacks-and-flipflops crowd can slug it out on the A-380" I w
28 Joni: DIA, The market isn't necessarily that huge. Many businesses are favouring economy class travel nowadays, which means they are very sensitive to cost
29 Keesje: I think business passengers will have the option of sitting for 10 houres in a SC or sleeping flat for 12 houres on a flat bad in a 747, 346 or 380. I
30 Areopagus: There is a bit about SC in Boeing's Farnborough Wednesday report at http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/farnborough02/wednesday.html. The paragraph ann
31 Singapore_Air: Keesje: "Is Boeing still using 40 inch pitch in their J class seatcounts ? Pls recount with 60 inch" I'm glad someone has noticed. When Boeing and Air
32 Aerosol: Regardless of the airlines wanting it or not, anybody thought about that this aircraft technically might not be feasible. Reading some of the posts ab
33 STT757: Concorde should have if it could have flown over the Continental US at Super Sonic speeds, and had the range to cross the Pacific. It had neither.
34 Backfire: Don't quite know how you came to that conclusion about my comment, AvObserver, particularly since it originally came from the mouth of arguably the la