holzmann
Topic Author
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:25 pm

I am sure this has already been argued to death, but I believe the argument should be revisited in the wake of the "runaway" success of the A320NEO. I am sure today's Qantas order will not be the last, and I am confident that the A320NEO will become the best-selling commercial aircraft of all time. At the end of the day, this success has nothing to do with A vs. B. It has everything to do with two companies and how they "read the wind" and how they invest, strategize, and make product announcements accordingly. I for one believe that Boeing has failed to read the wind correctly when it comes to narrow body aircraft. I also believe that Airbus' strategy is obvious:

Step 1) Which aircraft have been historically a success?
Select Answers: 727, 737, 747, C-130, etc.
Step 2) Are the factors (demand) that made these aircraft successful still applicable today AND going forward?
Select Answer: Yes
Step 3) When did these aircraft have their maiden flights?
Select Answers: Feb 1963, April 1967, Feb 1969, August 1954, respectively.
Step 4) Despite being "refreshed" are these airframes still the most efficient options for the 21st Century? Can we do better?
Select Answers: No, Yes.
Step 5) Does the perception in the market exist that these airframes are getting old? (What is the MINDSHARE?)
Select Answers: More or less, yes. Some have been retired. All use 50s/60s designs.
Step 6: Great! We see an opportunity to make money. Let's make some new planes! Makes sense, right? So let's build an A320, an A380, and a A400M!
Step 7) PROFIT!

Whereas Boeing has been much more lethargic, opting to "squeeze" every drop out of their legacy designs by refreshing them here and there. But this can only work for so long. (Mindshare, perception, etc,) Heck, they should know this. Their more recent "clean sheet" designs like the 777 and 787 have been/will be big successes. Whereas the refreshes? 747-8? Perhaps not so much. Again, this has nothing to do with A vs. B. This has to do with strategy and management.

Boeing should now take a page or two out of the Airbus playbook and develop a few clean sheet designs for 2020 and beyond. Obviously, someone at Boeing thinks this as well or else we would have not heard the 797 rumors a few months back.

I personally think the 737NE, as we know it today, is a flawed strategy. A waste of time and money. Compared to the best-selling A320NEO, the 737NE is already a failure.

So why not re-consider the following 797 option?

-Two variants, a -8 and a -9.
-The -8 variant: 100-150 pax (2 class config). Range: 5,000-7,000 km.
-The -9 variant: 150-200 pax (2 class config). Range: 4,500-6,500 km.
-Twin-aisle, 2x2x2 configuration for maximum comfort and improved turnaround time. Not a bad seat in the house!
-Borrow components from the 787 for interior, avionics, electronics, etc.
-Borrow the general 787 design/shape.
-Build more complex parts like the nose, tail, and wing out of next-generation ALCOA aluminum.
-Build the "simpler" middle part of the fuselage out of carbon composites.
-Think of it as a scaled-down, shorter version of the 787 with perhaps 75% the fuselage width.

Any comments from the peanut gallery? Should I put my flame suit on?

Finally...

This new 797 will be so quiet that Boeing will seek to work with at least one daring American airline that will commit to offering "child-free" flights for all flights departing before 10:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. (A child is defined as a person being younger than the age of 8-years-old.)

I can see the ads now (using Delta as my example):

"Delta and the Boeing 797: Working together to provide the most comfortable and the most quiet flying experience ever! Fly with us and enjoy more personal space, a guaranteed aisle or window seat, quieter engines, and no screaming kids or babies if your flight departs before 10:00 AM or after 10:00 PM local time. We value business passengers more than any other US airline. In celebration, all 797 aircraft in our fleet will feature complimentary onboard WiFi. Enjoy your flight!"

 

[Edited 2011-08-16 08:30:27]
 
MYT332
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 7:31 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:35 pm

Firstly the A320 was launched in 1984, the NEO is a refresh and secondly, child free flights? Really? That sounds incredibly stupid.
One Life, Live it.
 
Jonathanxxxx
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:48 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:08 pm

Child-free flights are the only bad thing there from a consumer standpoint. Even from a business standpoint it won't work because your paying full-fare for about half the weight of an average adult when you take a child. The schedule seems bad too. 10-10? Do you know how many families take red-eyes? Those poor families who spent months planning their vacation because they could only afford so much? Please have some cosideration for rhe other end!
Flaming done 

Although I really don't like the child thing everything on that list seems like top-notch comfort. Deintely got some nice ideas there! Although I fear that it may have a bad fate like a 762 or something. It will be too wide for its own good. The wasted space might be too much. Although I really hope Boeing can pill it off.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2530
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:09 pm

Whatever the specifics, I think whatever Boeing offers needs to be something significant and attention getting at this point to make up for them being tardy for the party...
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:12 pm

When will the 797 appear? When there is a sound business case for for Boeing to introduce it.

When will that be? When Boeing can make more money selling it compared to selling the 737.

When will that be? When the 797 can be so much more efficient to produce and operate compared to the 737 that airlines can make more profit using the 797 - even if it might be much more expensive to buy - rather than an optimized version of the 737.

I think it is as simple as that.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:35 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
I personally think the 737NE, as we know it today, is a flawed strategy. A waste of time and money. Compared to the best-selling A320NEO, the 737NE is already a failure.

Boeing's customers appear to disagree with you and by the end of this year and the start of next, we'll likely be looking at an order book deep into the triple digits, if not touch the quadruple digits.

Boeing wanted to launch the 797, but their customers refused to wait and to show just how serious they were, started talking to Airbus about the A320neo. If Boeing had continued to stick with the 797 with a likely EIS around 2025, Boeing would have seen more and more customers move to the A320neo in whole or in part.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
797 with a likely EIS around 2025,

Why does it take 14 years to develop a new airplane? The 777 took what, about four? The 727 about 3-4.

I'll be looking for those high triple digits, or even quadruple digits.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:30 am

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
Why does it take 14 years to develop a new airplane?

I should have said "full production of 50+ frames per month" instead of EIS.

That being said, I do not believe Boeing could have had the first 797 in a customer's hand this decade. I expect the initial deliveries would have been around 2021 with a production ramp of at least a year or more after that to reach 50+ per month.
 
fleabyte
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:40 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:33 am

Maybe Boeing has been outmanuvered by JL and Airbus for the last 10 years on A320 vs 737 programs, and that Airbus called check when A320 NEO passed 1,000 orders.

Now will it be checkmate? since Airbus will have a war chest to develop its A320 NEO replacement in the future nearer than maybe we think, (just like Boeing thinking to make 737 and 797 concurrently.)

That Boeing was not planning the 737 replacement for last 10 years is criminal, and should lead to some high level resignation or if the board of directors was not a rubber stamp, a FIRING.

signed,

disgusted Boeing cheerleader

ps - does John Leahy have any siblings Boeing could hire?
 
astuteman
Posts: 6341
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:39 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
I personally think the 737NE, as we know it today, is a flawed strategy. A waste of time and money. Compared to the best-selling A320NEO, the 737NE is already a failure.

How can it possibly be a failure when it hasn't been launched yet?

The indecision around launching it or not might be considered a failure of sorts, but that's about it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Boeing wanted to launch the 797, but their customers refused to wait and to show just how serious they were, started talking to Airbus about the A320neo. If Boeing had continued to stick with the 797 with a likely EIS around 2025, Boeing would have seen more and more customers move to the A320neo in whole or in part.

And not just the A320NEO. By the time the 797 hit full output, some of the new entrants will also be hitting their stride, in my book.

For me, this was simply about getting as much "new-engined" metal to the market as quickly and as easily as possible

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
by the end of this year and the start of next, we'll likely be looking at an order book deep into the triple digits, if not touch the quadruple digits.

Absolutely agree. The chances of the 797RE being a complete flop are less than zero, in my book.

Quoting fleabyte (Reply 8):
That Boeing was not planning the 737 replacement for last 10 years is criminal,

Why?
If the technology available doesn't allow a step change in operating economics, or is unproducible in the sheer numbers required, then Boeing can "plan" a 737 for all they;re worth (and to be honest, I'm pretty sure they have "planned" it).
But if building it cripples them in that market space, that would be criminal.

The 737RE gives them time to properly plan the 797

Rgds
 
fleabyte
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 12:40 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:00 am

what I mean astuteman, is that any company, even long term capital aircraft or heavy industrial equipment, would be wise to be planning what next with the product that accounts for 75% of unit sales over the last 15 year period, especially when they are offering a 3rd revamp against a competitor's more modern original clean sheet design based on turbofan engines, not turbojet.

Airbus plans its moves and executes without all the delay and in-decision - that is why they are now the un-disputed leader. (Even A350 iterations stayed on a focussed track to produce an airplane family and took the wind out of the 777/787 juggernaut)
 
ckfred
Posts: 4716
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:05 am

First, why insult Boeing for doing a refresh of the 737 Classic and now the 737NG and not Airbus. I've read comments from people who write about air travel, and they think Airbus should have gone to the clean sheet of paper, rather than the Neo.

For both manufacturers, why do a refresh that might only sell for 10 to 15 years, when the brand new airplane could sell for 30 years or more. With the composites of today, as well as the new aluminum alloy that Alcoa has created, maybe the plane for domestic service could be a twin aisle in a 2-2-2 or 2-3-2 coach arrangement. It would make air travel more comfortable. Boarding and deplaning would be faster. I'm sure there would be advantages in terms of baggage, cargo, and mail going into the hold.

Second, banning children from flights just sounds too much like the old United flights between New York and Chicago that were all men. I'm sure that since airlines can only operate with operating certificates from the FAA, the government wouldn't allow an airline to ban children from flights.

And if it did, you would have members of Congress from areas that have a lot of young air travelers up in arms, such as central Florida (Disney World, Universal Studios, and Sea World).
 
CapEd388
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:38 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:28 am

Boeing was leaning towards a new clean sheet aircraft. Everything we were hearing at the beginning of the year pointed towards a new aircraft. There was even very strong hints from Boeing's CEO himself at a conference in NYC. I read various articles saying that both airlines and lessors wanted a new aircraft. Then suddenly around April/May, Boeing started to lean the other way, and they started mentioning that they might do a re-engine. I guess they did the math and it came out that it was cheaper to do a re-enginening. Personally I think they should have taken the plunge and just gone with a new aircraft. The 737 is a great aircraft, but its time has come. Now you have a 1st time re-engined/upgraded aircraft (A320) going against a 3 time re-engined/upgraded aircraft (B737). The A320NEO certainly looks more attractive.
388 346 77W 787
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:00 am

Quoting fleabyte (Reply 8):
That Boeing was not planning the 737 replacement for last 10 years is criminal, and should lead to some high level resignation or if the board of directors was not a rubber stamp, a FIRING.

Over the past ten years (July 2001 to July 2011), Boeing has secured orders for 4103 and delivered 2844. Based on list prices between 2001 and 2011 and assuming a 50% discount, each of those frames averaged over $30 million per delivery.

That's over $85 BILLION in revenues.

As a stockholder during almost that entire time, I'm more inclined to give management a medal.
 
abba
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:13 am

Quoting CapEd388 (Reply 12):
I guess they did the math and it came out that it was cheaper to do a re-enginening.



How will Boeing be able to price a clean sheet 797? The answer is - generally speaking as different airlines have different mission profiles and therefore different requirements - that a new 797 must be much cheaper to operate than an 320NEO as it will likely be more expensive to own.

That means that the airlines in order to commit to higher overheads in terms of capital costs - which means higher risk - they must be able to operate the 797 with better margins than the 320NEO. Remember: risk is expensive!

The key here is technology. When - and only when - technology has reached such a stage that a clean sheet development will be so much better than a redevelopment of the old model - so that it becomes more profitable for the airlines to own it - the new 797 will be introduced. I believe that we are not there yet. Perhaps we will need to have one pilot NBs before the next gen. 320/797?
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:59 am

The 797 is more of a question of when and what rather than if. Obviously there is a need for a new product to replace the 737 but the 320neo gives Boeing more time come up with the big leap that the airlines crave because it only requires them to develop a 737neo. They messed up the launch though and Airbus (and American) made them look incompetant.

If I were Boeing management I'd seriously look into buying Bombardier. They have a market cap of only $9 billion which is peanuts for Boeing. That would give them the C-Series which could do very well with Boeing's backing. The C-Series would enable Boeing to concentrate their resources on a 150-230 seat 737/757 replacement. This would force Airbus to either develop two aircraft or try to optimize a 320 replacement with a single aircraft which would be very hard to optimize for 110-220 seats.

They would also get the CRJ and Q as well as business jets which would give it competitive aircraft in virtually every niche.

The Rail Transport portion of Bombardier could be divested for say $4 billion leaving the price for the avation division quite cheap.
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:27 am

have a look at the presentation JL gave about the A320 neo and 737 to airline representatives.
He clearly lays out why the only sensible way for Boeing was to re-engine.
While JL may not be the best spokesperson for Boeing, he clearly has a consise and compelling argument and eventually he was right (some might say again).

The best Boeing could do (with lighter materials, better wing and ideal fan diameter ratio) is about 5% better in operating cost than the A320neo. That is not enough to justify 10B$ development cost. Not to mention Boeing's resources are still stretched right now...
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:27 am

Quoting abba (Reply 4):
When will the 797 appear? When there is a sound business case for for Boeing to introduce it.

When will that be? When Boeing can make more money selling it compared to selling the 737.

When will that be? When the 797 can be so much more efficient to produce and operate compared to the 737 that airlines can make more profit using the 797 - even if it might be much more expensive to buy - rather than an optimized version of the 737.

I think it is as simple as that.

Agreed - if you put into the equation the maybe 20 billion $ costs to develop a complete family - in a country with a banking system that does not borrow money for long term plans, but uses it to gamble on the stock market.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 6):
Why does it take 14 years to develop a new airplane? The 777 took what, about four? The 727 about 3-4.

Since 727 times, a lot of prcess have been speeded up by computers. Work on the 777 starter in 1986, the first successful model (772ER) had first flight in 97, the real success 77W in 2003 - the truth is 777 full development was 17 years.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1172
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:54 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
So why not re-consider the following 797 option?

-Two variants, a -8 and a -9.
-The -8 variant: 100-150 pax (2 class config). Range: 5,000-7,000 km.
-The -9 variant: 150-200 pax (2 class config). Range: 4,500-6,500 km.
-Twin-aisle, 2x2x2 configuration for maximum comfort and improved turnaround time. Not a bad seat in the house!
-Borrow components from the 787 for interior, avionics, electronics, etc.
-Borrow the general 787 design/shape.
-Build more complex parts like the nose, tail, and wing out of next-generation ALCOA aluminum.
-Build the "simpler" middle part of the fuselage out of carbon composites.
-Think of it as a scaled-down, shorter version of the 787 with perhaps 75% the fuselage width.

Doesn't sound like anything that would beat the A320NEO on efficiency.

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
This new 797 will be so quiet that Boeing will seek to work with at least one daring American airline that will commit to offering "child-free" flights for all flights departing before 10:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. (A child is defined as a person being younger than the age of 8-years-old.)

You are joking, right? Or are you also promoting elderly-free flights to speed up deplaning?  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
I personally think the 737NE, as we know it today, is a flawed strategy. A waste of time and money. Compared to the best-selling A320NEO, the 737NE is already a failure.

How can it possibly be a failure when it hasn't been launched yet?

The indecision around launching it or not might be considered a failure of sorts, but that's about it.

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Quoting fleabyte (Reply 8):
That Boeing was not planning the 737 replacement for last 10 years is criminal, and should lead to some high level resignation or if the board of directors was not a rubber stamp, a FIRING.

Over the past ten years (July 2001 to July 2011), Boeing has secured orders for 4103 and delivered 2844. Based on list prices between 2001 and 2011 and assuming a 50% discount, each of those frames averaged over $30 million per delivery.

That's over $85 BILLION in revenues.

As a stockholder during almost that entire time, I'm more inclined to give management a medal.

And still, there are people considering sueing them for this...
146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
 
christao17
Posts: 902
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:05 am

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
Whereas Boeing has been much more lethargic, opting to "squeeze" every drop out of their legacy designs by refreshing them here and there.

And that's not what Airbus is doing with the A320neo? Both manufacturers are putting a lot of effort into analyzing the market, forecasting the future, and figuring out what business strategy will be most effective. It is easy to be an armchair CEO and second-guess and certainly as aviation enthusiasts, a clean-sheet design would be way more exciting than a re-tread, but I'm comfortable assuming that the management of both A and B are making the best business decision when they decide to update old models rather than to introduce new ones.
Keeping the "civil" in civil aviation...
 
parapente
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:08 pm

Reply 9

If the technology available doesn't allow a step change in operating economics, or is unproducible in the sheer numbers required, then Boeing can "plan" a 737 for all they;re worth (and to be honest, I'm pretty sure they have "planned" it).
But if building it cripples them in that market space, that would be criminal.

The 737RE gives them time to properly plan the 797


I totally agree.We may not like the stumbling way Boeing arrived at their decision or the fact that John Leahy tald the World that this is what they would (eventually) do.Of course it makes them look silly.But doing the right thig is more important.

In my view (not worth a dime) they were looking at a carbon 2x3x2 aircraft that started at the dash 800 size and went up to encompass the 757 market.However they have found that some major (US?) airlines still needed and wanted a -700 size.But perhaps in a decade (following present trends) that requirement will have gone/reduced significantly.Also as stated above,they have not yet sorted mass production of carbon aircraft (787) and they need to learn more - not even taking into account new "Cold cure" technologies.When you have to make 40-50 a month you have to have this manufactuing area totally bolted down first.

Then there is engine technology.As we write no one in the world actually "knows" how the GTF technology will pan out in the real world.Could be better,could be worse.Better to watch a while.Then there is the Cfm/RR OR route.Again no one knows , but a technology demonstrator is due out around 2015/16.So perhaps then we will know.So again better to wait I think.

What is clear is that until full laminar flow wings can be produced (and they are only at experimental stages right now).The real gains are coming from the 2 new engines.So they will be able (I think) to match Airbus in this regard.

That is all they need to do to keep their (already very efficient) production line moving along nicely.

So 10 out of 10 for making the right decision but 0 out of 10 on the way they did it in public.
 
holzmann
Topic Author
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 3:43 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:27 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):

Agreed.

Why not look at companies like Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc. that use the "tick-tock" approach? I know we are talking different industries but Intel, etc. spend billions on fab plants; it's not cheap business either.

Tick = Clean sheet design
Tock = Product refresh

The difference being of course that with semiconductors, this tick-tock duration is a short 6-18-month cycle. For the likes of Boeing, it would have to be (at most) a 10-20-year product cycle I would imagine. But the principle is the same: constant re-examining of your product vs. the competition, constant re-evaluation, constant keeping your competition on its toes, etc. Of course, have at least two corporate teams, one for narrow-body commercial development and one for wide-body commercial development, one for cargo, and at least several more for military designs, etc. Cost savings can come from more reliable outsourcing of certain components as well as designing a degree of interchangeability, allowing current manufacturing tools/processes to be applied to future generations, etc.

I don't know. I am no expert. I have not studied any of this. I can just say that from my perspective as a hobbyist, Boeing has been sloppy and asleep at the wheel. But what about the 787? 747-8? Well, then they are guilty of putting all their production eggs in one basket. You cannot tend to one a/c and then cede an entire market to the competition. Boeing also just looks uncoordinated. They seemingly lack a defined strategy. A company that thinks that it is enough to simply refresh designs from the 1960s is quite simply guilty of being static and lethargic.

Before it's all over, after Airbus has scored a few more victories, China will probably buy Boeing out and their HQ and manufacturing will move to Beijing. More American jobs will be lost. Another American president will appoint the Boeing CEO that sells out to China as a "jobs czar" and all will be right with the world.

[Edited 2011-08-17 07:30:35]
 
masi1157
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:48 pm

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
This new 797 will be so quiet [...]

Why should it be so quiet? I don't see any specific reason for that.


Regards, Matthias
 
b767
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 9:23 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:59 pm

Since the 737 is a typical cityhopper with average flight times of 1,5 hour would you realy benefit so much from a new design with composits and better aerodynamics?? And with more fuel efficent engines these drawbacks will be less important.I have heard someone mention that a 787 like sucsessor will only have marginally better fuel economy.Is this worth extra dollar for a new plane,extra training for pilots and ground personell.I personally think the idea of scaling down a 787 sounds a little to simple.Unless the average 737 flight time will go up,or something revulotinary new design ideas come up(I don,t think passanger planes will be of canard type either) I guess the 737 will still be in production fifteen years from now.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:27 pm

Quoting b767 (Reply 23):
would you realy benefit so much from a new design with composits and better aerodynamics?

How about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fPsyoMA1pE
It would be cool to see, but I wonder if Boeing has the appetite to do something radical after the 787 spectacle.

If indeed Boeing is going for a 797, Boeing may not want to take orders that requires compensation for delay before first flight. Given the necessary ramp up time, this may not be a bad idea after the 787 lesson.

Quoting b767 (Reply 23):
I guess the 737 will still be in production fifteen years from now.

   Even if there is a 797, it will take that much time to design and ramp to 50-60/month.
 
bonusonus
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:49 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:06 pm

Quoting b767 (Reply 23):
Is this worth extra dollar for a new plane,extra training for pilots and ground personnel?

I think typically these days Boeing is designing their new a/c cockpits to have the same type-certification as existing airliners. I know this is the case with the 787 (same as the 777). It's likely that they would figure out a way to certify a new build NB with the same TC as a 737NG, only requiring a few days extra of training for crews.
 
vegas005
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:25 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:40 pm

Boeing has dropped the ball so many times I have lost faith in their management team. They couldn't produce a 797 in less than 10 years if their life depended on it. Wake up and smell the coffee Boeing, Airbus and possibly the Brazilians and the Chinese are leaving you in the dust.
 
parapente
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:05 pm

Reply 21

"Boeing also just looks uncoordinated. They seemingly lack a defined strategy. A company that thinks that it is enough to simply refresh designs from the 1960s is quite simply guilty of being static and lethargic".

This is a worry I think.In the large aircraft sector they decided not to join Airbus in a JV siting no market and continued in this vein.Then very late decided to stretch the 747.Then (worst of all) told eveybody that the first purchasor would get to decide the length/range of the plane. It should never be "one customer" it should be what they believe to be right.Whatever length it seems that they should have stuck to their guns and not built it at all waiting for a real Y3 (IMHO)

Again with the 737RE it looks like one operator forced them down the route they have taken . I don't believe this - but they made it look like that the way they announced it. Not clever at all.

Obviously the difficulties of the 787 are well documented - but of course they have refused (and still do) to release real performance figures,again letting Airbus to publically sumise them (330HGW and 787 range performance) again not smart.

They really do need to get on top of this and quickly as credibility will start to ebb away.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 17, 2011 6:22 pm

Quoting masi1157 (Reply 22):
Why should it be so quiet? I don't see any specific reason for that.

You must not live near an airport or under an approach or departure lane.  

As someone who does (the latter), I would prefer quieter airplanes going overhead.




Quoting parapente (Reply 27):
This is a worry I think. In the large aircraft sector they decided not to join Airbus in a JV siting no market and continued in this vein. Then very late decided to stretch the 747.T hen (worst of all) told eveybody that the first purchasor would get to decide the length/range of the plane. It should never be "one customer" it should be what they believe to be right. Whatever length it seems that they should have stuck to their guns and not built it at all waiting for a real Y3 (IMHO)

I'm still of the opinion not joining Airbus to make a VLA was not a wrong decision.

As to the 747-8 Intercontinental, LH was ready to order 20 with 20 options while EK just spouted specs. And then when Boeing actually met EK's specs with the larger model, they then officially said "Oh, we were never interested in the plane as a passenger carrier. We just needed some column inches."

LH has wanted a larger 747 since at least 2001. EK has not. So Boeing did the right thing by building the plane the serious customer wanted, rather then continuing to chase after the not-serious customer.



Quoting parapente (Reply 27):
Again with the 737RE it looks like one operator forced them down the route they have taken . I don't believe this - but they made it look like that the way they announced it. Not clever at all.

It was a poker game and AA called Boeing's bluff. So they had to show their hand at the table, even if they would have preferred to have more time.
 
parapente
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 11:37 am

Re Stitch reply 28.

For clarification. I don't believe for a moment that Boeing's chosen path for the 748 was made by LH any more than AA "made" the decision to go RE rather than "new" - I am sure the decision had already been taken - but not announced. Just that Boeing managed (both times) to make it look this way. The people managing their PR should be sacked IMHO.
 
masi1157
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:21 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
You must not live near an airport or under an approach or departure lane.

As someone who does (the latter), I would prefer quieter airplanes going overhead.

I do. But here it all was about interior noise (and childless flights), and I don't see why a B797 would be so extraordinarily quiet inside.


Regards, Matthias
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:39 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 29):
For clarification. I don't believe for a moment that Boeing's chosen path for the 748 was made by LH any more than AA "made" the decision to go RE rather than "new" - I am sure the decision had already been taken - but not announced. Just that Boeing managed (both times) to make it look this way. The people managing their PR should be sacked IMHO.

you would be surprised how often the Airlines force the manufacturers hand.
"I will buy 30 of these" is a very powerful argument.

Why do you think Airbus revised the A350-1000 again to EK's demands?
 
parapente
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 3:33 pm

Why do you think Airbus revised the A350-1000 again to EK's demands?

To be honest I don't think they did.They are presenting this aircraft continually around the world,they continually get feedback from everybody ,then revise and refine and represent.I have no doubt that EK did make their views known - but so would BA orAF etc etc. As such all Airline and leasor CEO's have huge inside info on what is going on.The difference is the grown up ones with normal sized parts keep it to themselves and those less well endowed just can't help themselves but try to claim that they and they alone are running Airbus (or Boeing). They are a good source of (inside) information so I don't care but does one customer one one day change Airbus policy/decisions that will costs billions and have financial/marketing consiquences for 30 years or more? No.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:02 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 29):
For clarification. I don't believe for a moment that Boeing's chosen path for the 748 was made by LH any more than AA "made" the decision to go RE rather than "new" - I am sure the decision had already been taken - but not announced.

Honestly, considering the difference between the original specification of the 747-8 and the final configuration was in the forward fuselage plug and both plugs were well aft of the cockpit, I don't believe it was any "easier" to design or build a 74.2m model than the 76.3m model.

That being said, I expect Boeing's internal studies probably favored the 76.3m model to both increase the gap to the 777-300ER (so as not to have that model steal sales as it did against the 747-400) and to close the gap to the A380-800.

But if LH had also demanded the 74.2m model because they wanted the extra 500km of range, I am quite confident Boeing would have built that model and not forced them to either take the 76.3m version or not order at all.
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:02 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 32):
They are presenting this aircraft continually around the world,they continually get feedback from everybody ,then revise and refine and represent.I have no doubt that EK did make their views known - but so would BA orAF etc etc
Quoting parapente (Reply 32):
but does one customer one one day change Airbus policy/decisions that will costs billions and have financial/marketing consiquences for 30 years or more? No.

actually yes.
Airbus is showing this A/C to potential customers and then maybe (pure fantasy)
BA says ok, with the current spec I would order 20
AF says, not my type
QT says, looking good, I could envision 30 in my fleet and
EK says, if you increase the payload to that of the 777 I will get rid of them end order 100 on the spot and total fleet size could grow to 200.

What do you think Airbus would do?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:26 am

Quoting masi1157 (Reply 30):
But here it all was about interior noise (and childless flights), and I don't see why a B797 would be so extraordinarily quiet inside.

Ah, I understand. Well, Boeing could improve the noise insulation either through better materials, thicker installations or a combination of both.
 
masi1157
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:56 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Fri Aug 19, 2011 6:08 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Well, Boeing could improve the noise insulation either through better materials, thicker installations or a combination of both.

Well, if they can, why would they do it on a B797 and not on any other type like the 787? To me, this..

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
This new 797 will be so quiet that Boeing will seek to work with at least one daring American airline that will commit to offering "child-free" flights

...sounded, as if it was "logical", that a B797 per se would be so very quiet. And for that I didn't see a reason.


Regards, Matthias
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Fri Aug 19, 2011 8:29 am

Quoting masi1157 (Reply 36):
Well, if they can, why would they do it on a B797 and not on any other type like the 787?

The 787 might very well be a quiet airplane for those reasons.
 
User avatar
exFWAOONW
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:49 pm

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
Compared to the best-selling A320NEO, the 737NE is already a failure.

Since my crystal ball is broken, I can't comment in this thread.   
Is just me, or is flying not as much fun anymore?
 
fpetrutiu
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Well, Boeing could improve the noise insulation either through better materials, thicker installations or a combination of both.

On word: weight...
 
747400sp
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Tue Aug 23, 2011 11:05 pm

Quoting holzmann (Thread starter):
This new 797 will be so quiet that Boeing will seek to work with at least one daring American airline that will commit to offering "child-free" flights for all flights departing before 10:00 AM and after 10:00 PM. (A child is defined as a person being younger than the age of 8-years-old.)




I wish there could be child free flights. I loud or crying child on a flight, is so annoying. I see it like this, if it not my child (which I have none) why do I have to deal with it's noise.
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 7:48 am

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 40):
I wish there could be child free flights. I loud or crying child on a flight, is so annoying. I see it like this, if it not my child (which I have none) why do I have to deal with it's noise.

I think it's about time for airlines to have flights free of fat people. Only us thin people should be allowed on board. When we know that it costs a lot more to get a fat person airborne than a thin person, why should we subsidize the fat? They're disgusting as well with their rolls of fat spilling over the armrest of the adjacent passenger. It's bad enough that we have to have them on our health plans and subsidize their pathetic lack of self control. At least the smokers have the decency to die early so we only have to deal with their disgusting habits for a limited time.
 
User avatar
pylon101
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 5:36 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:39 am

The new details reg. 737-9 strongly indicate that BCA is proceeding with the 797 project.
1. Preliminary design work is being done.
2. I am sure that BOD approved this - without going public.
3. Poor economic situation and a possibility of years of depressive economy makes airlines very cautious and conservative.
4. Unlike airlines - airframers must have mid-term - long-term vision. Boeing has this vision.
They see that airlines shifted up from -700 to -800 - and further up.
They see traffic growth and congested airports.
They don't believe that a 25-year-old Duopoly will last forever.
5.However, Boeing-737 is more than just an aircraft. It is the basement of thousands of airlines' business models.
In case of 787 Boeing was in a position to sell paper airplane.
In case of 797 this scheme doesn't work. After negotiations with airlines Boeing got understanding that it is virtually impossible to stop 737 production at once - and switch to 797.
6. In my view,
a) they will officially launch the 797 program some time after 737-9;
b)they will make possible for airlines to swap orders from 737-9 to 797 without penalties;
c) they will manufacture both 737-9 and 797 in parallel for some years after 2020.
7. Boeing doesn't see the today's situation the way JL does: no technologies today - plenty in 15 years.
It may happen - or may not.
To stay competitive in the future Boeing must act today. And they do, I believe.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13369
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 11:15 am

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
2. I am sure that BOD approved this - without going public.

Wait, you're seriously suggesting Boeing has approved a 'secret' plane?

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
they will officially launch the 797 program some time after 737-9

Well, you don't need much of a crystal ball to be right about that. How about you define how long 'some time' is?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:25 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 43):
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
2. I am sure that BOD approved this - without going public.

Wait, you're seriously suggesting Boeing has approved a 'secret' plane?

Boeing has approved secret planes before, but only on the military side.

Why would you get BOD approval without going public? You don't need BOD approval to work on development, you need their approval to offer it for sale. The only reason to have BOD approval is because you *want* to go public with it. What would be the utility of a secret approval for a commercial aircraft?

Tom.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 6350
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:32 pm

Twin-aisle is dead for the domestic market. It is not as fuel efficient as single aisle and there is really no way it can be. Airlines don't care about middle seats, they care about fuel burn. That is the whole reason the NEO is getting orders. The airlines are willing to do just about anything to reduce fuel costs.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4963
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:40 pm

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
1. Preliminary design work is being done.

As it is for the 777X, and a 787-11, and a clean-sheet 777 replacement, and all sorts of other neat stuff, I'm sure. That really doesn't tell us much about the strategic decisions Boeing will make in the end,

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
2. I am sure that BOD approved this - without going public.

Why bother? They're not nearly close enough to a real plane to go through that hassle. R&D doesn't require BOD approval (save for some extraordinary expenditure on it).

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
4. Unlike airlines - airframers must have mid-term - long-term vision. Boeing has this vision.

Recent events have sorely tested that theory.

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
a) they will officially launch the 797 program some time after 737-9;

I agree! I just think "some" will be 10-15 years.  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23086
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:52 pm

What the BoD have approved is the R&D expenditures for developing the NSA/797. When that R&D is completed and the family is ready for sale, the BoD will then approve "Authority to Offer" at which point Randy and his team will start paying visits to customers to secure purchase agreements.
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:58 am

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
They see that airlines shifted up from -700 to -800 - and further up.
They see traffic growth and congested airports.

funny, because this does not reflect in current orders. Otherwise the A321 and 737-900 would sell tremendously more than their smaller brothers, which they don't.
Traffic growth and congested airports.... where have I heard this before? Oh yes, A380 vs. 787 as trend of the future... Interesting that it only applies where you see it fit  
Quoting pylon101 (Reply 42):
To stay competitive in the future Boeing must act today

what do you mean by competitive? stay in the business of making money? Then yes, Boeing had to act, which they did with launching the 737RE
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing 797: Why Not?

Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:29 am