SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 9:18 pm

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.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2569
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 9:39 pm

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... :-(
 
Greg
Posts: 5539
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:11 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:34 pm

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:48 pm

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
 
A388
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:50 pm

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
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:52 pm

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
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:52 pm

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.
 
OO-AOG
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2000 1:24 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:54 pm

After the Sonic Cruiser... comes the Cheap Cruiser Big grin
Falcon....like a limo but with wings
 
transswede
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Tue Jun 11, 2002 11:54 pm

Well, many of us are not surprised at all by this.
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:13 am

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.
 
rabenschlag
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 10:28 pm

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:36 am

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 avatar
keesje
Posts: 9070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 12:57 am

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
transswede
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 9:30 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 1:49 am

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
 
woodsboy
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 5:59 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 1:56 am

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.
 
geotrash
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 1:25 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 2:11 am

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
 
JU101
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 1:57 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 6:32 am

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...
 
Guest

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 7:14 am

Perhaps Boeing is planning to create a 787/797 family to replace the 757/767 program. I wouldn't recommend it though.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8026
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With

Wed Jun 12, 2002 1:21 pm

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.
 
serge
Posts: 1903
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 2:01 pm

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Wed Jun 12, 2002 1:37 pm

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 avatar
keesje
Posts: 9070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:09 am

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less

Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:14 am

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.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4443
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 1:35 am

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 avatar
PW100
Posts: 2770
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 2:58 am

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!"
 
CX747
Posts: 5622
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 3:10 am

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 avatar
keesje
Posts: 9070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 6:32 am

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.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 8:16 am

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. Boeing, however, had better fast make up its' mind WHAT to build unless it wants to be eating Airbus's dust from now on. Twice they cancelled plans to build a 747X and now it looks like they might also shelve the Cruiser. Their credibility is on the line if they don't commit to SOMETHING.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Boeing Proposing "Normal" Plane With 20% Less Cost

Thu Jun 13, 2002 9:01 am

To all:

From a business standpoint, an alternative plan should always be available
as a contingency should unforeseen circumstances(say, 9/11, for example), changing market forces, customer requirements, ect negatively impact a previously made
decision with regard to product. In the case of SC, Boeing is reaching for an innovation which has not been fully explored, i.e., will airlines pay for speed and can the level of technology currently available or projected to be available make the SC a viable proposition? In this case, Boeing would be extremely foolish to place so much on emphasis on a program which has so many intangibles; alternative thinking or, more conventional thinking has to be part of the equation.

Whatever you think of the concept, SC could only be looked at as a niche type of program which only so many airlines would need or could afford. By and large, most carriers would be content with conventional a/c which are economical, cost-effective solutions to their requirements. Boeing obviously cannot afford to neglect this segment since Airbus has been, currently is and probably always will be looking to exploit areas of Boeing weakness. Even if SC comes to nought for whatever reason, information gained from researching such a concept could undoubtedly be applied to more conventional designs to make them better a/c which airlines will buy. In either case, Boeing will benefit.

Some thoughts,

Regards,

F4N
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Keesje

Thu Jun 13, 2002 11:25 am

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) will, however, decide whether a new plane will be economically attractive.  Wink/being sarcastic

Other things (like possible environmental and fuel price developments) are out of their domain, of course.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos