rootsair
Posts: 4012
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:25 am

Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 7:28 pm

I know this question has come up several times. I looked in the Archives and could find no constructive threads about the fiasco.

What were the main reasons for aborting the project. was it because not enough airlines were interested.

its true that from an esthetical point of view it was horrific but who knows, it may have been an amazing plane !
A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 7:31 pm

It wasn't aborted. It evolved into the 787.

And remember that looks are both highly subjective and have no influence at all on a goahead decision.
Very few people (except in the general aviation market where the folly is present) buy aircraft because of how they look.
I wish I were flying
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 7:37 pm

No, the Sonic Cruiser did not evolve into the B787. Boeing did four design studies, two of which were supersonic and the other two were the Sonic Cruiser and the B7E7. Prior to 9/11, the Sonic Cruiser generated the most interest from the airlines. Following the 9/11, the B7E7 received the most interest from the airlines.

With fuel costs above the lows of the last several years, IFE improvements, onboard Internet, and more comfortable seating, the demand for faster airliners has diminished.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 7:53 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
Prior to 9/11, the Sonic Cruiser generated the most interest from the airlines

Rubbish! No-one was interested in the Sonic Cruiser, ever. I remember Boeing wheeled Branson out at a press conference to express his strong interest in the project: "Virgin Atlantic is excited to be involved in this great new plane. We plan to order three." Three? That's it?! Boy, that's pretty lukewarm excitement. At best.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 8:31 pm

Apart from Fuel Economy would'nt Flying faster to a destination be of interests to Airlines.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 8:46 pm

Airlines wanted fuel savings over speed
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18104
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm

Quoting 777ER (Reply 5):
Airlines wanted fuel savings over speed

The cost of fuel was not an issue at the time that Boeing was promoting the Sonic Cruiser. The price of oil did not begin it's rise to the stratosphere until (about) 18 months ago.

Basically, Cedarjet has it right - no one wanted the aircraft.

cheers

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
AA767400
Posts: 1889
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2001 2:04 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 8:52 pm

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
What were the main reasons for aborting the project. was it because not enough airlines were interested.

You answered your own question, that plus I don't think it would be put onto the GVA-SJO route anytime soon.   

[Edited 2005-05-13 14:06:40]

[Edited 2005-05-13 14:07:43]
"The low fares airline."
 
FlySSC
Posts: 5179
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 1:38 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 9:30 pm

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
It wasn't aborted. It evolved into the 787

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

The 787 is everything but an evolution of the "chronic sucker" !

The Sonic cruiser was just the biggest Aviation joke of the decade.
 
tsnamm
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 9:33 pm

airline interest in the project was lukewarm at best...especially the R&D costs that would have to be p/u by the carriers buying it, the market for the plane wouldn't cover the costs of purchase /operation...there's another thread here concerning SST issues and this belongs w/that...the difference between the technology costs of a true SST or one that flys "right up next to the sound barrier" is not low enough for airlines to take such a large financial risk...basically same problem....
 
exFATboy
Posts: 1887
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:15 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Fri May 13, 2005 11:59 pm

The Sonic Cruiser would have been faster, but not so much faster that high-end passengers would have been willing to pay a large premium to fly on it, as they were happily willing to do to fly on Concorde.
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 1:05 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 3):
Rubbish! No-one was interested in the Sonic Cruiser, ever. I remember Boeing wheeled Branson out at a press conference to express his strong interest in the project: "Virgin Atlantic is excited to be involved in this great new plane. We plan to order three." Three? That's it?! Boy, that's pretty lukewarm excitement. At best.

"The Boeing Co.'s proposed sonic cruiser would be a good fit for Delta Air Line's future fleet needs, the carrier's new president said yesterday.

"In principal, we are very, very excited about the sonic cruiser," Fred Reid, who was named the airline's president and chief operating officer yesterday, said in a telephone interview."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/21315_boeing031.shtml


"Singapore Airlines (SIA) chief executive Dr Cheong Choong Kong – SIA is launch customer for the A380 – confirmed Boeing had spoken to the carrier and it had been “encouraged to proceed” with the project. Dr Cheong pointed out the jet would likely be ideally suited to routes with a high share of business passengers who would pay a premium for faster, non-stop services. Cathay Pacific Airways also has met Mr Mulally and expressed early interest in the concept plane.

American Airlines head Don Carty is enthusiastic about it, too, and said if the price is right he would like AA to be the first airline to fly the sub-sonic cruiser. James Goodwin, boss of United Airlines, also believed there would be a market for a higher-speed aircraft. Air Canada chief executive Robert Milton said Boeing had made the right strategic choice."

http://www.orientaviation.com/pages/...sues/01_05/OA_V8N7_Turbulence.html


There were even rumors that AA wanted to buy out the entire first year's production. Of course, 9/11 and the bursting of the dot.com bubble changed everything, but if the strong-economy cheap-oil environment of the late 1990s had continued, the Sonic Cruiser could have done quite well. Concorde was very profitable during that period.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
 
rsmith6621a
Posts: 1507
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 1:13 am

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 8):
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
It wasn't aborted. It evolved into the 787



The 787 is everything but an evolution of the "chronic sucker" !

The Sonic cruiser was just the biggest Aviation joke of the decade.

The 787 evolved from the 767 and yes just like the Sharkstail deception the SonicLoser was just a bunch of Boeing Buzz and Spin.
Did You Ever Think Freedom Could Be this Bad
 
norcal
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:44 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 8:50 am

Quoting Rsmith6621a (Reply 12):
The 787 evolved from the 767 and yes just like the Sharkstail deception the SonicLoser was just a bunch of Boeing Buzz and Spin.

Let it go, no one but a couple of anet people care, or will even remember that the 787 had a shark tail in the concept drawings. No airline will cancel orders b/c of a lack of a sharktail. "Buzz and Spin" is used to sell just about anything from airplanes to politicians. If you are pissed off about buzz and spin, you might as well kill yourself or hide in a hole b/c it surrounds you in every day life.
 
AR385
Posts: 6735
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 10:28 am

The Sonic Cruiser was Boeing's smoke screen to Airbus to develop the 787. The thing is, it lasted longer than they had planned because of 9/11, but it's an interesting industrial strategy case.
 
aeropiggot
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 6:43 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 11:11 am

Quote:
No, the Sonic Cruiser did not evolve into the B787. Boeing did four design studies, two of which were supersonic and the other two were the Sonic Cruiser and the B7E7. Prior to 9/11, the Sonic Cruiser generated the most interest from the airlines. Following the 9/11, the B7E7 received the most interest from the airlines.

With fuel costs above the lows of the last several years, IFE improvements, onboard Internet, and more comfortable seating, the demand for faster airliners has diminished.

Zvezda, above has it correct. Boeing was smart enough to carry out Multiple studies. The sonic cruiser was a very exciting project for both engineers as well as the airlines, and Boeing solved all the technical problems to produce that aircraft (Aerodyn, structures, systems, logistics..Etc.). The problem is the airlines could not afford it, and did not see out they could make a profit in that geo-political climate.
A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8545
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 11:12 am

Quoting AR385 (Reply 14):
The Sonic Cruiser was Boeing's smoke screen to Airbus to develop the 787.

What are you talking about? There is only a single sequence of events, and it can be clearly deliniated from Boeing press releases, Boeing publications, and airline reactions. Boeing began a concept known as Yellowstone in 1999, which included four aircraft. Two were supersonic, one was high subsonic, one was typical subsonic.

The high subsonic aircraft appeared very promising. Airlines were interested and speed was right in-line with Boeing's point-based philosophy. How many smoke screens proceeded to the construction of entire fuselage sections? The massive industry down-turn (9/11, SARS, economic dropoff) sharply changed this opinion, and the project was shelved.

It's obvious that airlines' appetite is the low-risk, subsonic aircraft that was a parallel study of the Sonic Cruiser. At that point, all that existed of the SC was research and development, primary definition of the 7E7 didn't begin until the end of 2003. Where can you fit a "smoke screen" into that chronology?

Quoting AR385 (Reply 14):
but it's an interesting industrial strategy case.

Only you think that. There was no smoke screen... it wasn't a strategy at all.
 
Sabena332
Posts: 14938
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 3:57 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 11:17 am

Quoting Jwenting (Reply 1):
It wasn't aborted. It evolved into the 787.

Please tell me your postal address, I would like to send you some of these:



It is actually a shame that the Sonic Cruiser didn't become reality. I was a big fan of this (concept) aircraft because it was designed to reduce travel times on certain long haul routes, I am not a big fan of flying 18 hours nonstop!

Patrick
NZ1's mother is a disgusting crack-whore and his father is a worthless alcoholic!
 
Jet-lagged
Posts: 818
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:58 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 11:31 am

Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter):
about the fiasco

Sonic Cruiser was a stupid name. Sounds cool, but when you think about it, it doesn't make sense.

But . . . I don't think it is appropriate to call it a fiasco. Boeing was pushing the envelope with a real game-changer - speed, configuration, and use of materials. But following more studies and testing and consideration by their customers, a consensus developed that it really wasn't appropriate after all. You can't do that based on a couple of drawings. That takes lots of work, some money, a lot of communications, and time.

Many learnings around components and composites were I believe incorporated into the 7E7-->787 offering. And the sonic cruiser concept was prudently cancelled rather than push ahead based on emotion or ego. Boeing was doing what commercial airlines manufactures are supposed to do. Unless they were knowingly pushing marketing puff they never intended to make, you shouldn't call that a fiasco.
 
FriendlySkies
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 3:57 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 11:38 am

Quoting Rsmith6621a (Reply 12):
The 787 evolved from the 767 and yes just like the Sharkstail deception the SonicLoser was just a bunch of Boeing Buzz and Spin.

 
tatfsn
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:56 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 12:40 pm

Please bear in mind that while "Sonic Cruiser" and .95 Mach sound exotic and impressive, the reality is that that margin of extra speed translated to all of an hour of time saved per approximately 3000nm.

That means that on a 6000 mile trip you would save all of two hours. While that is a saving of time, is there really that much of a difference between 10 hours and 12 hours on an airplane? Enough of a difference that any saavy business traveller would fork out a premium fare?

Practically, if the flight were delayed due to ATC or weather or other issues beyond the airline's control, that marginal advantage would be negated rather quickly. How to deal with a bunch of irates who demand their "premium" back in such circumstances?

Unlike the 787, the Sonic Cruiser--or any hybrid thereof--would be of little tangible or intangible benefit on any but long haul trips. The Hawaiian Airs, Southwests, Air Trans, Jet Blues, easyJets, etc., would have no use for it. The legacy carriers (Northwest, Continental) would be limited to utilizing them to certain routes to reap the speed advantage--even those excluding trips over the pond--to realize the benefit.

The fuel savings of the 787 would apply and accrue benefits over any route segment that the 767 is currently utilized on; everything from KDTW-LGA to KEWR-NRT. It provides a much more versitile, flexible, and efficient platform than a Sonic Cruiser could ever hope to, for all of its flash and novelty.

Boeing has played it just right, not least in that they are providing just what their customers wanted. It has worked out awfully well, so far!!! Big grin
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8545
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 12:46 pm

Quoting Tatfsn (Reply 20):

That means that on a 6000 mile trip you would save all of two hours. While that is a saving of time, is there really that much of a difference between 10 hours and 12 hours on an airplane?

The Mach .95 cruise was a two-fold approach-

First, the fast cruise and 9,000 nm range meant that connections were eliminated and the airplane spent less time in the air. In terms of cruise time, only about 2-3 hours max could be eliminated, but it you eliminate a 2 hour stop-over as well, that's starting to be a good amount of time.

Second, what the 787 is to fuel savings, the Sonic Cruise was to labor savings. Not so long ago, paying the flight crew was more expensive than gasing the airplane up. Reducing the time a crew spent on the clock by 20% and keeping fuel burn on par with existing industry-accepted airplanes (like the 767 and A330) seemed a sound strategy.
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 2:49 pm

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
Apart from Fuel Economy would'nt Flying faster to a destination be of interests to Airlines

Profit Maximization, economies of scale, etc.
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
AR385
Posts: 6735
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 3:05 pm

DfwRevolution,

Chill down a bit.

I don't know what are you talking about in your timeline. Perhaps you could be more concrete.

I am not the only one who thinks the Sonic Cruiser is/was a smokescreen. I would not propose such an idea in this forum just because it magically came out of my head. It has been said in at least one specialized publication and between a few of my colleagues.
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2391
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 6:22 pm

"I am not the only one who thinks the Sonic Cruiser is/was a smokescreen."

Just because the concept was used as a "spoiler" against the Airbus A380 like its immediate predecessor, the 747X, doesn't mean it wasn't a real developmental effort. Continental's Gordon Bethune had also speculated the higher speed could bring higher yields. With fuel economy roughly equal to a similar capacity 767, even that marginally higher speed would likely have proved popular with business travelers on longer flights where the time savings was more apparent. Even an hour or two could make a difference for many of them, for whom "time is money". Had the airline business, especially for the hard-hit U.S. carriers, not taken such an awful hit on 9/11, it might have been done, though admittedly, even then, it would have been a smaller factor in the mid-size airliner market than the 787. This has been discussed to death but nobody's mind is being changed, they believe what they want to. Fine. Incidentally, the 3 Sonic Cruisers Branson envisioned for Virgin equal the number of Concordes he'd allegedly planned to "buy" (for a song) from British Airways. Perhaps, they were intended for a similar, lower-volume higher speed service (assuming SRB was serious); the Cruiser had already been nixed in favor of the (then) 7E7 when he began to cajole BA to fork over their SSTs. The SC seemed perfectly feasible and attractive for certain markets but at the end of the day, saving fuel, not time, was the overriding priority for the airlines that could even afford to reequip. Boeing had used it as a marketing tool as they had the cancelled 747X because that's all they had at the time to try to steal some of the A380's thunder; a tactic Airbus would also have readily used had the roles been reversed. Many analysts now see the A350 concept (which it still is) as a similar "spoiler" offering though few in here seem to doubt Airbus's intent to develop it. It's not so different in principle.
 
zkeye
Posts: 222
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:05 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 7:59 pm

No doubt Boeing made the right call in not proceeding with the Sonic Cruiser. However had they done so it would be interesting to see the effect that it would have had on Boeing in the current economic climate.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 24):
Incidentally, the 3 Sonic Cruisers Branson envisioned for Virgin equal the number of Concordes he'd allegedly planned to "buy" (for a song) from British Airways. Perhaps, they were intended for a similar, lower-volume higher speed service (assuming SRB was serious)

He wasn't - his posturing over Concorde was all just for publicity. Something he does well. He/Virgin were never realistically going to be able to operate Concorde.

[Edited 2005-05-14 13:00:55]
Bring out the gimp
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 11737
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: Why Was The Sonic Cruiser Aborted?

Sat May 14, 2005 8:02 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
With fuel costs above the lows of the last several years, IFE improvements, onboard Internet, and more comfortable seating, the demand for faster airliners has diminished.



Quoting 777ER (Reply 5):
Airlines wanted fuel savings over speed

The sonic cruiser was a plane that carried a 767 payload for a 777 fuel burn rate... The economics just weren't there. In this era of $50+++++/bbl oil, Boeing made the correct decision.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 24):
doesn't mean it wasn't a real developmental effort.

Boeing was serious. They turned on quite a few vendors to do "design Studies" for component feasiblility. All three engine vendors started interested and all three realized that at M=.95 cruise, fuel economy would suck. None of the engine vendors could meet Boeing's targets... So the sonic cruiser WOULD NOT have had its design range. But what do I know...  wink 

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain