Al From Australia, joined Jun 1999, 593 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
Can I respectfully request that posters to this thread stick to the topic at hand (i.e. - THE CRUISER, not Boeing, not the A380, not Airbus). If not, yet *another* thread will degenerate into a Airbus v Boeing crapola fest. We've all heard it many times over the years, and we all know who is on who's side, and who roots for which maker. Little point in re-hashing it all yet again, and ruining yet another thread.
If the report is confirmed, it's probably something that was predicted some time ago. Sort of like a new age Concorde in some ways I guess !! Saw a paper report a month or two ago that said the same thing, only the replacement aircraft was to be a cross between a 747 and a 777, if that can be envisioned !!!
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12955 posts, RR: 79 Reply 11, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
According to that report the SC would be the fastest and highest flying airliner. (Not Invented Here syndrome I suppose).
Ever heard of Concorde, not that it is a template for how to do a commercially successful programme.
However, I've heard many say the SC's problem is that it would not have enough speed to make a real difference apart from the real longer-range routes.
Yet would still cost more to operate.
Heavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2707 times:
So the future is...another twinjet. Gotcha.
There comes a point in a large corporation's existence when they transition...from 'playing to win' ...to...'playing..not to lose'. I think it's safe to say that Boeing has reached and passed that point.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 17, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2657 times:
What else have they got up their sleave when as the their designs continues to age?
Both Airbus and Boeings designs are starting to age. As far as asthetics, a plane is now a plane ot the average person, it is just a long tube with wings on it. The A380 is just a bigger tube, and the 777 is just a larger version of the 737, or A320 or whatever, they all more or less look the same to anyone that isnt totally obsessed with aviation.
The reality, is that other than refinements, aircraft have found their general shape that works the best, hence the reason that it isnt changing all that much after all the years.
One thing that most good designers will tell you is that there has to be a point to the change, if you just make it look different, but it is still the same operationally, then what is the point in spending on all the R&D to get that ?
Bethune also said when asked about a new starter for the 737 series that reduced the buttons from 7 down to 3 "If the customer will not pay more for their ticket because of the change, then what is the point" He said that the customer in 3L is not going to pay an extra 50 buckets per flight because you have less buttons, so why bother.
"Everything that can be invented – has already been invented," - Mr. Charles Duell, United States Patent Office, 1899
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 37 Reply 19, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2618 times:
For Boeing to "start pioneering like they did with the B747", they need to have an airline visionary like Pan Am's Juan Trippe. If you recall, Trippe approached Boeing for the 747 idea and they balked about it initially until Trippe issued the now-famous statement, "If you build it, I'll buy it!" Boeing literally bet the company on the 747 and it paid off in spades for them. Unfortunately, the airline industry has nothing but sheep running it - all of them trying to copy Southwest. The SC and concept like it, need vision and right now, there isn't any vision in this industry.
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.
DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
FBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 186 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2609 times:
Mr. Duell's quote is an urban legend, you can read about this here. There are many scientific areas where the researchers are waiting for a breakthrough development and aeronautics is one of these. This is why the new airplanes look just like those designed 40 years ago - there hasn't been enough development since then to enable a radical new design.
Also, Bethune is making it a bit too simple when he says that only a customer paying more can warrant an upgrade to the systems. What about increased safety or savings in training? Economy is not just earnings..
DeltaMD11 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 1701 posts, RR: 36 Reply 21, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 2565 times:
Also, you misquoted Gordon Bethune. Gordon Bethune has many quotes in his book that apply to this situation. He likes to call it the "Row Five Test" (not row 3).
Bethune: (Regarding when he worked for Boeing at this point in the book, talking about the Definition of Better) When I worked there, one of my responsibilities was managing a new airplane, the 737X. I once got into a short debate with some engineers who wanted to improve the design of the start control panel on the 737. They wanted to make a better panel with a better switch techonology and fewer functions. To make it work, the pilot and the co-pilot would have to punch only two buttons instead of 8 on the current model. (Talks about it costing more, referring to Herb Kelleher and WN about how they already had 200 of the 737 type, and to have to train his pilots to use a different set-up, and upping maintenence costs due to having to buy two new switches) Saying to his design team: "I think to decide that, he's going to walk down to the back of his airplane, to the passenger in row 5, and he's going to say, 'Would you give me 50 cents more for your ticket to Amarillo today because we have a better start-control panel?'
The passenger might say, 'Well, the engines started okay. And they're both running now. And it only takes a couple of more seconds to use the old panel, and it's always worked. And it's not an emergency procedure. So to be honest, no. It's not worth another 50 cents to me."
So Gordon keyed the term 'Row Five Test', and has used it in business every since-and it is one of the things that has made him very successful at CO (at cost-cutting, without losing service).
Boeing postponed the Sonic Cruiser not because the program was a failure. They closed it because right now, the more important focus is on a new 180-250 seat replacement aircraft to take over the 757/767 lines. Boeing is trying to get a sought-after product out on the market very fast (plans to have the aircraft in service by 2004/2005). The Sonic Cruiser program is not permanantly canceled. It's been postponed (indefinitely are my thoughts).
Chat Operator Delta767
Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 22, posted (10 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 2561 times:
I think the point I mentioned was the same, I just didnt spend half an hour typing it all out. Row three, Row five... a bit pedantic me thinks. The other quote was correct, and I knew it was urban legend, just thought it seemed appropriate for the time
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36 Reply 24, posted (10 years 12 months 23 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
You have totally missed my point, I always laugh at how silly his point was, it is totally ridiculous what he said, that is why I included it, for a laugh !!. As far as today, I think there will be changes, but not radical ones in the near future. Eventually we may have atmosphere skipping planes, or sound barrier regional jets, but in truth the current shape of a jet makes sense, I do not see the Boeing Borg Cube on the horizon.
As I said in my post, there will be changes, but I see them more on modifications than on total restructured design. In the future perhaps this will change, but not in the near future..
25 Artsyman: in 2002 you just said nothing more can be invented (pertaining to airplanes), clearly you are ___n_. where the hell did I say that ? Jeremy
26 Solnabo: YESSSSSSSSS....... At last Boeing took sense after all!! I mean, WHO wants the slowest "ssc"?? They´ll coming up with something better (Boeing), hope
27 Voodoo: World Wide Recession... Is that like the World Series of Baseball?
28 RUSCOE: What Boeing knows is that we are at a point of technology transition. Over the next few years the technology will develop enough to build non metal ai
29 Keesje: The A380 will be the last of the great new metal airplanes A380 is not all metal. It's made of Glare. The material is built up from alternating layer
30 RUSCOE: Thankyou Keesje. Unless things have changed I heard only the upper fuselage surface is skinned with Glare. I don't want to put too fine a point on it,
31 Keesje: RUSCOE as you are obviously know about materials do you think the "787" will be non ALU ? If so "time to market" for Boeing could become too longer th
32 EA CO AS: I'm still chuckling over the "Boeing Borg Cube" comment. Resistance is futile.
33 Alessandro: Well, the SC had no customers as far as I know (no price tag either?), hard to make a new plane without customers. So if B was serious about this plan
34 GDB: Despite wanting to see Airbus do well, I regret the SC demise. It could maybe in time have led to an SST, despite only a Mach 2 SST being a true Conco
35 Artsyman: I'm still chuckling over the "Boeing Borg Cube" comment. Resistance is futile. Don't encourage them, they will start on about Boeing being assimilated
36 ConcordeBoy: Here's two completely opposing press reports, released the same day..TODAY!! Japan: http://www.bday.co.za/bday/content/direct/1,3523,1250757-6078-0,00
37 AvObserver: "Boeing postponed the Sonic Cruiser not because the program was a failure. They closed it because right now, the more important focus is on a new 180-
38 747-451: Finally Boeing has come to it's senses to worry about immediate issues as opposed to pie in the sky unrealities... But the 757/767 isn,t the problem.
39 MD-90: That pretty sonic impossibility is something you aren't going to see flying...ever. That basic design has serious drag issues. I like Lehpron's webpag
40 Houstondallas: MD-90 How can you say the 737 is a problem? Boeing sells a ton of them. Obviously, customers think they are a good aircraft. So, what's the problem? h
41 DeltaMD11: 747-451, Are you friggin kidding me? The 737's, 747's, and the 777's are the only thing Boeing is selling right now. Haven't had any 757 orders for al
42 FDXmech: No airlines from the US have ordered the A380, so this should have no impact on Airbus. Last I checked, Fedex is from the U.S. and has ordered the A38
43 RayChuang: I'm not surprised that Boeing has shelved the Sonic Cruiser. Between the fact the plane doesn't offer that much significant time savings and the fact
44 MEA: Sorry FDXmech, I totally forgot about Federal Express. I was only thinking of passenger carriers.
45 Areopagus: MD-90: That pretty sonic impossibility is something you aren't going to see flying...ever. By calling it that, you seem to be implying that it is tech
46 RIX: The 737 and 747 are the problems that need to be faced. - well, this is quite correct! 737 is a great success but I don't think there can be any "NNG"
47 AvObserver: "As for the proposed "787" - if it has the 767 fuselage cross section then it loses to 330 from the very beginning (not because "2-3-2 is worse than 2
48 Rickb: I said it before in a previous thread, but Boeing really need to stick to the fuselage width of the 777 on this new aircraft if it is to carry suffici
49 AvObserver: Username: Rickb "I said it before in a previous thread, but Boeing really need to stick to the fuselage width of the 777 on this new aircraft if it is
50 William: As frequentflyer,do you mind if I comment on the 2-3-2. It is much preferred to the 2-4-2 Airbus layout. Polls have been taken in the past and the 767
51 Rickb: The 2-3-2 layout of the 767 was very comfortable - and I always prefer aircraft with 2 seats somewhere along the line - not least because I dislike si
52 Cloudy: It gives us enthusiasts something interesting to watch but consider.... ....There are only 2 major airframers today for 100+ seat aircraft, there used
53 Gordonroxburgh: Alan Mulally's Press conference is online here in real media. 45 mins long, but very interesting http://www.boeing.com/news/breakingnews/2002/021220g.