As the CEO said "..... we can sustain all the important investments that I think investors are counting on from the Boeing Company ...." Somehow some of us wished he said he could sustain making the world's best planes, but he didn't then and doesn't now.

Captaincurious wrote:

Why doesn't Boeing launch a 767X?

They should launch it! Into the space like SpaceX did with Tesla roadster!

frmrCapCadet wrote:

As the CEO said "..... we can sustain all the important investments that I think investors are counting on from the Boeing Company ...." Somehow some of us wished he said he could sustain making the world's best planes, but he didn't then and doesn't now.

It does make one wonder why a young-ish ambitious engineer would choose to work for Boeing Commercial.

All the current projects (MAX7, MAX10, 777X) seem to mostly involve pushing paper back and forth between Boeing and FAA. MCAS showed that the flight control software was done by Collins in Cedar Rapids and identified other out-sourced items, makes one wonder if the Company employees are mostly overseeing others doing the interesting work. Been there, done that.

The CEO recently shut down the next big airplane (NMA) and is now talking in terms of 'pre-projects' to get tech more mature before pushing forward. Who knows if/when this turns into a new airplane project? The CEO also called out China as something that could be a problem for the next airplane, and we can now see their foot dragging on the MCAS fix is holding Boeing back big time. We see the cyclical nature of the business and that the Company will lay off large percentages of the workforce when things go south.

So, as above, if you're a young-ish ambitious engineer, do you really want to tie your future to this old-tech kind of operation that is run by people who seem to think of Wall Street first and pretty much everything else second?

It does seem like a repeat of IBM, going from the "Masters of the Universe", to "Oh, are they still around?"

Revelation wrote:

They've done the classic corporate US move of dumping staff during lean times with no plan to deal with what happens upon recovery.

Heck they do that after every new airplane model launch and it always comes back to bite them in the arse.

They offered all the senior (and expensive) engineering staff early retirement after the 757/767, so they had nobody when they launched the 777. Then they did it after the 777 so they had nobody for the 787 and (this likely helped play a role in their outsourcing so much of the design). And now they have done the same with COVID and likely the belief they had the 777X in a position they were happy with for a quick certification (so much for that belief).

So good luck with getting NMA across the finish line, fellas.

All they need to do is come up with some good future programs that get realistically well funded and well managed. They can do it. Many regions just start air travel. There is more to come. With modern engines and aircraft air travel can be done environmentally responsible. And there is room for advanced engineering.

Noshow wrote:

All they need to do is come up with some good future programs that get realistically well funded and well managed. They can do it. Many regions just start air travel. There is more to come. With modern engines and aircraft air travel can be done environmentally responsible. And there is room for advanced engineering.

Calhoun has been pretty clear going back to Page 1 of this thread on suggesting what the challenges for a new airplane will be, and they are things like repairing the relationship with FAA and other regulators, coming up with a new cockpit design that the regulators will sign off on, and facing the challenges of dealing with China in terms of the new products they will be putting onto the world market while hopefully leaving a path for Boeing to participate in their market.

IMO these things are on top of the challenges you mention with regard to management, finances, technology and environmentalism, and the problems Bloomberg highlights with regard to recruiting and retaining talent.

Oh, and Bloomberg also points out they also have not been keeping up on investing in R&D compared to their main Western competitor either, going back to 2010 or so, and now we have the huge hole in the balance sheet due to MCAS and COVID that will take many years to repair even if things go well.

It makes me wonder if any one person can be expected to provide enough leadership to turn that ship around, and if Calhoun is that person.

Noshow wrote:

All they need to do is come up with some good future programs that get realistically well funded and well managed. They can do it. Many regions just start air travel. There is more to come. With modern engines and aircraft air travel can be done environmentally responsible. And there is room for advanced engineering.

Yes. But these regions are not interested in environmentally responsible air travel.

They want access at the cheapest possible price. China has been investing heavily in "third world" regions, building infrastructure and handing out loans for percentages of petroleum, minerals and other things. Look at their progress in aerospace, launching space stations and satellites left and right. Their aviation industry will blossom, and the Boeing / Airbus duopoly will be challenged.

"Here are two dozen C929s and an international airport for free, we will only demand 40% of your profit for the next 25 years".

This could be reality a decade from now. Maybe 15 years.

I don't know what the big picture with China will be. Even without China the market will remain big enough to build commercial aircraft at a profit.

Noshow wrote:

I don't know what the big picture with China will be. Even without China the market will remain big enough to build commercial aircraft at a profit.

China has bought an awful lot of political capital with many country's with their Silk Road Project - including I believe heavy investment in Airports outside China.

When they get C919 production up to speed (and they will) it shouldn't be that hard for them to push their partners to order it.

morrisond wrote:

Noshow wrote:

I don't know what the big picture with China will be. Even without China the market will remain big enough to build commercial aircraft at a profit.

China has bought an awful lot of political capital with many country's with their Silk Road Project - including I believe heavy investment in Airports outside China.

When they get C919 production up to speed (and they will) it shouldn't be that hard for them to push their partners to order it.

The strategy has a fair amount of risk though. A lot of money has been poured into some of those areas for decades now without a lot to show for it, yet China does have lots of money to spend. Those are areas where the political capital you mention is up for grabs whereas other areas are going to cling to their political capital, it's got their own entrenched interests in place already.

It is interesting that C919 has a lot of Western intellectual property on-board. It makes for some very interesting hypothetical situations probably best discussed in non-av.

Revelation wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Noshow wrote:

I don't know what the big picture with China will be. Even without China the market will remain big enough to build commercial aircraft at a profit.

China has bought an awful lot of political capital with many country's with their Silk Road Project - including I believe heavy investment in Airports outside China.

When they get C919 production up to speed (and they will) it shouldn't be that hard for them to push their partners to order it.

The strategy has a fair amount of risk though. A lot of money has been poured into some of those areas for decades now without a lot to show for it, yet China does have lots of money to spend. Those are areas where the political capital you mention is up for grabs whereas other areas are going to cling to their political capital, it's got their own entrenched interests in place already.

It is interesting that C919 has a lot of Western intellectual property on-board. It makes for some very interesting hypothetical situations probably best discussed in non-av.

Yes it's amazing when Governments and Central banks work directly with Industry what can happen. I don't doubt they will sell at a big loss to build orders. Just like they have in almost every other industry they enter.

It's really a question of how many they can build. I have no doubt they will find homes for however many they can crank out.

China has its own credit bubble issues (serious). Let them order their own aircraft if they want. There is still enough business left for two big western players and anybody else like Embraer.

Noshow wrote:

China has its own credit bubble issues (serious). Let them order their own aircraft if they want. There is still enough business left for two big western players and anybody else like Embraer.

The whole world has a massive credit bubble issue. At some point there will need to be a reset back to 0. Who is going to say No - the Martians?

And now we have more from Calhoun ( ref: Ref: https://airlineweekly.com/2021/07/boein ... e-737-max/ ):

Boeing is more likely to focus on a 777X freighter variant than a clean-sheet aircraft, Calhoun said. The issue remains that propulsion suppliers are still developing the next generation of engines, and ones that are optimized for sustainable aviation fuels. Until then, Boeing’s engineering resources are better spent on a freighter, he said.

He sluffed off the Bloomberg article on the brain drain:

Boeing has the talent it needs, and he is confident the company will attract young engineers through its internship and college-recruitment programs. “I like our chances,” he said. “It’s about the mission of the company, and [young engineers] like what we do.”

He seems to have no understanding of what young engineers would like to do. They don't sign up for a company mission, they sign up to work on cool stuff. If they work on boring stuff they quickly get concerned that they are not building the skills they will need to be in a good position to weather the inevitable next Boeing layoff.

In the bigger picture view Boeing is saying we won't do a clean sheet till the engine makers give us the next generation of engines that run on sustainable fuels, but CFM is saying that'll be the mid 2030s and I don't think Pratt or RR will be any sooner, so Boeing won't be doing a new airplane for a long time and thus they won't have people around who know how to build that new plane when Boeing wants to build it. It also means Boeing thinks MAX can soldier on not just through the 2020s but deep into the 2030s as well. Somehow I think they may be a bit too optimistic.

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.

Revelation wrote:

And now we have more from Calhoun ( ref: Ref: https://airlineweekly.com/2021/07/boein ... e-737-max/ ):

Boeing is more likely to focus on a 777X freighter variant than a clean-sheet aircraft, Calhoun said. The issue remains that propulsion suppliers are still developing the next generation of engines, and ones that are optimized for sustainable aviation fuels. Until then, Boeing’s engineering resources are better spent on a freighter, he said.

He sluffed off the Bloomberg article on the brain drain:

Boeing has the talent it needs, and he is confident the company will attract young engineers through its internship and college-recruitment programs. “I like our chances,” he said. “It’s about the mission of the company, and [young engineers] like what we do.”

He seems to have no understanding of what young engineers would like to do. They don't sign up for a company mission, they sign up to work on cool stuff. If they work on boring stuff they quickly get concerned that they are not building the skills they will need to be in a good position to weather the inevitable next Boeing layoff.

In the bigger picture view Boeing is saying we won't do a clean sheet till the engine makers give us the next generation of engines that run on sustainable fuels, but CFM is saying that'll be the mid 2030s and I don't think Pratt or RR will be any sooner, so Boeing won't be doing a new airplane for a long time and thus they won't have people around who know how to build that new plane when Boeing wants to build it. It also means Boeing thinks MAX can soldier on not just through the 2020s but deep into the 2030s as well. Somehow I think they may be a bit too optimistic.

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.

Yes. This is the message I’m getting as well. But from what I understand if that’s the case. Neither will Airbus. Unless they launch a new clean sheet aircraft program and they don’t seem to be hot on that either. So it will be about 15 years since they launched a new program if they wait till 2030 or late 2020s to launch.

Now how long max can last I think will depend on how MAX10 holds up. They will pip 787, bring 777XF and -9 to market. I guess they’ll also pip MAX.

If the MAX10 can truly hold its own on the <6000KM routes vs the 321NEO for them it’s good enough for them

What does this also tell me? They don’t seem to be care anymore about being no.1 commercial aircraft manufacturer. They seem to just want products that work and are stable.

Let’s see. But I agree with your outlook.

So line up will be

MAX -7 -8 -9 -10
787 -8 -8 -10
777X -9
777XF -8F

It’s not a bad line up. It can compete. It can hold its own but it won’t take the no.1 spot. But Boeing doesn’t seem to care.

787 I believe will become (if not already) the no. 1 wide body

But Boeing will remain a big player but it’s okay

Revelation wrote:

It also means Boeing thinks MAX can soldier on not just through the 2020s but deep into the 2030s as well. Somehow I think they may be a bit too optimistic.

On the one hand, we have folks telling us the significant majority of single-aisle missions are under 2000km, which the MAX10 works great for. On the other hand, these same folks tell us that 7000km is where all the action is in future single-aisle RFPs so the MAX10 is going to get destroyed.

Personally, I think MAX can do well enough for Boeing through the mid-2030s and the next "propulsion breakthrough" be it alternative fuels, electrics or a combination of both is ready for NSA / 737RS.

Clearly, MAX10 will be at a disadvantage to A321 as stage length increases, but I do feel overall stage lengths will tend to be in a range where MAX10 can be competitive. And MAX8 is fine for any (reasonable) narrow-body stage length so it should be fine against A320. A220 will have an advantage against MAX7 in general, but MAX7's customers will buy enough of them to more than cover Boeing's costs to build them and will make the model desirable enough for financiers so said customers will buy them in the necessary numbers.

As such, I really feel NMA is a plane whose time has not so much passed, but who's window of opportunity was closed by COVID and I feel Boeing is unlikely to ever bring it to market.

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And now we have more from Calhoun ( ref: Ref: https://airlineweekly.com/2021/07/boein ... e-737-max/ ):

Boeing is more likely to focus on a 777X freighter variant than a clean-sheet aircraft, Calhoun said. The issue remains that propulsion suppliers are still developing the next generation of engines, and ones that are optimized for sustainable aviation fuels. Until then, Boeing’s engineering resources are better spent on a freighter, he said.

He sluffed off the Bloomberg article on the brain drain:

Boeing has the talent it needs, and he is confident the company will attract young engineers through its internship and college-recruitment programs. “I like our chances,” he said. “It’s about the mission of the company, and [young engineers] like what we do.”

He seems to have no understanding of what young engineers would like to do. They don't sign up for a company mission, they sign up to work on cool stuff. If they work on boring stuff they quickly get concerned that they are not building the skills they will need to be in a good position to weather the inevitable next Boeing layoff.

In the bigger picture view Boeing is saying we won't do a clean sheet till the engine makers give us the next generation of engines that run on sustainable fuels, but CFM is saying that'll be the mid 2030s and I don't think Pratt or RR will be any sooner, so Boeing won't be doing a new airplane for a long time and thus they won't have people around who know how to build that new plane when Boeing wants to build it. It also means Boeing thinks MAX can soldier on not just through the 2020s but deep into the 2030s as well. Somehow I think they may be a bit too optimistic.

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.

Yes. This is the message I’m getting as well. But from what I understand if that’s the case. Neither will Airbus. Unless they launch a new clean sheet aircraft program and they don’t seem to be hot on that either. So it will be about 15 years since they launched a new program if they wait till 2030 or late 2020s to launch.

Now how long max can last I think will depend on how MAX10 holds up. They will pip 787, bring 777XF and -9 to market. I guess they’ll also pip MAX.

If the MAX10 can truly hold its own on the <6000KM routes vs the 321NEO for them it’s good enough for them

What does this also tell me? They don’t seem to be care anymore about being no.1 commercial aircraft manufacturer. They seem to just want products that work and are stable.

Let’s see. But I agree with your outlook.

So line up will be

MAX -7 -8 -9 -10
787 -8 -8 -10
777X -9
777XF -8F

It’s not a bad line up. It can compete. It can hold its own but it won’t take the no.1 spot. But Boeing doesn’t seem to care.

787 I believe will become (if not already) the no. 1 wide body

But Boeing will remain a big player but it’s okay

I doubt the 777x, 787 and KC46 will be money makers and I believe the MAX is not good enough to compete the A220s, NEO's, 195-E2's for the next 10-12 years. It was showing already before the crashes and Covid-19. So I expect Boeing will have little choice on where to invest.

If some big long term 737 operators ordered MAX out of commonality/ price/ availability considerations, that doesn't mean the MAX is fine for a decade, it means those operators ordered MAX out of commonality/ price/ availability considerations.

keesje wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And now we have more from Calhoun ( ref: Ref: https://airlineweekly.com/2021/07/boein ... e-737-max/ ):


He sluffed off the Bloomberg article on the brain drain:


He seems to have no understanding of what young engineers would like to do. They don't sign up for a company mission, they sign up to work on cool stuff. If they work on boring stuff they quickly get concerned that they are not building the skills they will need to be in a good position to weather the inevitable next Boeing layoff.

In the bigger picture view Boeing is saying we won't do a clean sheet till the engine makers give us the next generation of engines that run on sustainable fuels, but CFM is saying that'll be the mid 2030s and I don't think Pratt or RR will be any sooner, so Boeing won't be doing a new airplane for a long time and thus they won't have people around who know how to build that new plane when Boeing wants to build it. It also means Boeing thinks MAX can soldier on not just through the 2020s but deep into the 2030s as well. Somehow I think they may be a bit too optimistic.

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.

Yes. This is the message I’m getting as well. But from what I understand if that’s the case. Neither will Airbus. Unless they launch a new clean sheet aircraft program and they don’t seem to be hot on that either. So it will be about 15 years since they launched a new program if they wait till 2030 or late 2020s to launch.

Now how long max can last I think will depend on how MAX10 holds up. They will pip 787, bring 777XF and -9 to market. I guess they’ll also pip MAX.

If the MAX10 can truly hold its own on the <6000KM routes vs the 321NEO for them it’s good enough for them

What does this also tell me? They don’t seem to be care anymore about being no.1 commercial aircraft manufacturer. They seem to just want products that work and are stable.

Let’s see. But I agree with your outlook.

So line up will be

MAX -7 -8 -9 -10
787 -8 -8 -10
777X -9
777XF -8F

It’s not a bad line up. It can compete. It can hold its own but it won’t take the no.1 spot. But Boeing doesn’t seem to care.

787 I believe will become (if not already) the no. 1 wide body

But Boeing will remain a big player but it’s okay

I doubt the 777x, 787 and KC46 will be money makers and I believe the MAX is not good enough to compete the A220s, NEO's, 195-E2's for the next 10-12 years. It was showing already before the crashes and Covid-19. So I expect Boeing will have little choice on where to invest.

If some big long term 737 operators ordered MAX out of commonality/ price/ availability considerations, that doesn't mean the MAX is fine for a decade, it means those operators ordered MAX out of commonality/ price/ availability considerations.

The MAX can compete. Out of everything you listed it’s the second most popular narrow body. To say it can’t compete will be unfair. Given it has the propulsion that they all have. It has the efficiency. The only thing it doesn’t have compared to the neo family is the range and it doesn’t need it.

Also to say that before the crashes it was showing signs that it couldn’t compete. 5000 orders is a bit a lot to say it can’t compete. Yes it only sells to Boeing operators but what people don’t seem to understand is. That is enough. Not everything is about stealing new customers. Sometimes guard what you have. MAX situation is unfortunate because the operators love it. MAX 10 will sell well again to max operators only but again that’s good enough. Out of max operators they can get 1500 sales for that jet. If you add United to the existing 500 orders that’s about 650 orders. Ryanair said they’d order about 100 that’s heading to 750 or so, they’ll get to 1000 I’m sure by the time it enters service and it’s performance proves to be very good (hopefully).

The MAX will do fine. The only thing that will make it not compete is if the others get an engine package that it doesn’t have and I wonder why that will happen.

Will the 787 or 777X make money? Maybe not but who doesn’t know that. Boeing is clearly focusing on stabilising it’s business on building good high quality products that make their customers happy,get ready for the next run. They will still be healthy when those programs are running on all nine cylinders and making money for them, profitable or not. How many things in this industry are really profitable and how long does it take to get there.

There’s no doubt Airbus is leading commercial aviation but at this point I don’t think Boeing cares. They just care about restoring the stability and quality of their business. They have a lot to do to get there. Airbus has indicated no particular interest in new clean sheet. So here we are. A boring decade ahead. But it is what it is

frmrCapCadet wrote:

As the CEO said "..... we can sustain all the important investments that I think investors are counting on from the Boeing Company ...." Somehow some of us wished he said he could sustain making the world's best planes, but he didn't then and doesn't now.

44 pages of dissecting comments from the CEO... and what he didn't say is the most telling.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

As the CEO said "..... we can sustain all the important investments that I think investors are counting on from the Boeing Company ...." Somehow some of us wished he said he could sustain making the world's best planes, but he didn't then and doesn't now.

44 pages of dissecting comments from the CEO... and what he didn't say is the most telling.

He can still say that and do rubbish. What difference does it make

Revelation wrote:

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.

Amazon and SpaceX have been consistently recruiting for years. Amazon mainly needs different skillsets and interests. I do know an aerospace engineer who switched to designing warehouses for another large retailer, but I would not exactly call it the dream job of the type of people who have traditionally gone into aerospace engineering. The company mission is composed in corporate speak, but it still basically amounts to build airplanes and spacecraft and other cool stuff.

SpaceX definitely excites young engineers, but ultimately drives a lot of them away with comparatively low pay, long hours, and high stress. I met yet another one last week who bailed out to gain better work-life balance, and this was at their Redmond office, which I have been told is lower stress than their Hawthorne office. Also, they're about 7% of the size of Boeing. They can only use a limited number of Boeing's workforce.

Regardless, Boeing has to figure out where the intersection is of what the market wants and what they can deliver. They can't afford not to prioritize that. Succeeding there will interest a lot more engineers in the long run than failing with an initially more exciting project.

It actually is interesting that Calhoun recently downplayed the importance of engines to the next aircraft, yet now is identifying it as a reason to wait, but I read that as a symptom of the difficulty of defining what the next product should be. In the meantime, the less exciting incremental efforts are the priority. By the way, he may have hinted at a 767F re-engine in response to a question about the 2028 efficiency standards.

The same applies at Airbus. They're looking at an A350F, presumably an A322, and maybe a CS500 (aka, A220-500). Not a lot thrilling going on there, but it fits the market opportunities. I can't put a lot of stock in ZEROe turning into a real project at this time. Certifying a hydrogen engine and airframe would be exciting, but is going to take a lot of ambition to commit to on their own, and I remain skeptical it will be pencil out well either financially or technically compared to sustainable liquid fuel.

Personally, I really want to see the next aircraft program get underway, but I've posted in the past I think it will be around 2023 before Boeing is financially in a good position to launch. Hopefully they keep working quietly on the airframe and manufacturing effort in the background as they reportedly were doing for NMA, and remain flexible to pivot to NSA if that solidifies as being the most prudent next move.

Opus99 wrote:

There’s no doubt Airbus is leading commercial aviation but at this point I don’t think Boeing cares. They just care about restoring the stability and quality of their business. They have a lot to do to get there. Airbus has indicated no particular interest in new clean sheet. So here we are. A boring decade ahead. But it is what it is

In the big picture view, I'd say the botched 787 program killed Boeing's ability to be viewed as the leader in commercial aviation in the current era. Before it we had Project Yellowstone with CFRP replacements for 737, 767 and 777. Yes, that may have been quite ambitious, but with a reasonably competent execution of 787 I think we would have had momentum towards at least the 737 replacement being a clean sheet CFRP airplane and then we'd see how long 777 could last before it too got a clean sheet replacement. Instead we got a 787 program that went many years and many billions of dollars over budget, not to mention the post-EIS grounding due to the exploding batteries. All this meant the board had no confidence that engineering could deliver anything like Y1 or Y3 and instead we got MAX and 777x in rapid succession.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Amazon and SpaceX have been consistently recruiting for years. Amazon mainly needs different skillsets and interests. I do know an aerospace engineer who switched to designing warehouses for another large retailer, but I would not exactly call it the dream job of the type of people who have traditionally gone into aerospace engineering. The company mission is composed in corporate speak, but it still basically amounts to build airplanes and spacecraft and other cool stuff.

SpaceX definitely excites young engineers, but ultimately drives a lot of them away with comparatively low pay, long hours, and high stress. I met yet another one last week who bailed out to gain better work-life balance, and this was at their Redmond office, which I have been told is lower stress than their Hawthorne office. Also, they're about 7% of the size of Boeing. They can only use a limited number of Boeing's workforce.

Regardless, Boeing has to figure out where the intersection is of what the market wants and what they can deliver. They can't afford not to prioritize that. Succeeding there will interest a lot more engineers in the long run than failing with an initially more exciting project.

It actually is interesting that Calhoun recently downplayed the importance of engines to the next aircraft, yet now is identifying it as a reason to wait, but I read that as a symptom of the difficulty of defining what the next product should be. In the meantime, the less exciting incremental efforts are the priority. By the way, he may have hinted at a 767F re-engine in response to a question about the 2028 efficiency standards.

The same applies at Airbus. They're looking at an A350F, presumably an A322, and maybe a CS500 (aka, A220-500). Not a lot thrilling going on there, but it fits the market opportunities. I can't put a lot of stock in ZEROe turning into a real project at this time. Certifying a hydrogen engine and airframe would be exciting, but is going to take a lot of ambition to commit to on their own, and I remain skeptical it will be pencil out well either financially or technically compared to sustainable liquid fuel.

Personally, I really want to see the next aircraft program get underway, but I've posted in the past I think it will be around 2023 before Boeing is financially in a good position to launch. Hopefully they keep working quietly on the airframe and manufacturing effort in the background as they reportedly were doing for NMA, and remain flexible to pivot to NSA if that solidifies as being the most prudent next move.

Yes, Amazon and SpaceX have been recruiting all along, as have Microsoft, Google, Blue Origin, Virgin, et al, yet the thing that is different at Boeing now is a wave of technical leaders have left which in my personal experience is a pretty demoralizing thing. You see people you respect higher up the ladder leave and landing on their feet at some other interesting place to work and you do start asking yourself "why am I staying when our best and brightest are leaving?".

Of course some times the people that leave are not exactly the best and the brightest but it is the ones that know they can land on their feet elsewhere with more potential upside that push for the package whereas the opposite cling to the current job knowing they may struggle to succeed elsewhere. This often leads to an accumulation of deadwood, people with lower amounts of talent and ambition. I've seen this happen countless times over more than three decades of life in the high tech industry.

The Bloomberg article points out the key Boeing people who went to Amazon aren't designing warehouses, they're leaders in Amazon's drone program. People outside the industry may not know this but Amazon is also a world leader in cloud computing. Sure, the end goal is getting stuff in boxes onto people's porches, but there are a lot of very interesting technical issues in all of that. They are a very respected outfit in the high tech world.

Airbus indeed may have similar problems. Their CTO just left, and the one before her didn't last too long either.

I have stated this before, expect Airbus and Boeing to reap the profits of their present product portfolio. I think last two decades have spoiled us Avgeeks, but its not normal. The step change in technology will not appear till teh 2030s. Airbus and Boeing will have stronger balance sheets by then.

No new programs will be launched under David Calhoun. He's invester (stock holder) focused / dividend focused which means restoring production volumes and deliveries of existing products with miniminal investment..

We'll see if he's quality focused; which judging by the recent push to move 777 certifications forward while disregarding their own internal rules and procedures appears... well draw your own conclusion... it happened on his watch.

The question of the Next Airplane lies with the succession plan as much as anything. Who's a likely candidate to take over for the 64 year old David Calhoun? (although Harry Stonecipher was 67 when he took command of Boeing, resigning at age 69, but JIm "No Moonshots" McNerney retired at 65). Is their any good Airbus leadership that could be poached? Maybe that's a qustion for another thread?

Boeing is a big ship that is quite hard to turn appreciably from its current momentum. They have had their way of doing business for decades, but the world is going to fully digital designs. Now the cockpit of the next version of any plane needs to be designed to new standards verses the way it was done before. IF (& that is the big question) Boeing is smart they will be a leader in this and get the new design ready, this tech needs to be settled well, long before any clean sheet design starts.

The T-7a is a digital program that has a lot of promise, it could be the nucleus of that new design and manufacture approach. This would be the start back.

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

No new programs will be launched under David Calhoun. He's invester (stock holder) focused / dividend focused which means restoring production volumes and deliveries of existing products with miniminal investment..

We'll see if he's quality focused; which judging by the recent push to move 777 certifications forward while disregarding their own internal rules and procedures appears... well draw your own conclusion... it happened on his watch.

The question of the Next Airplane lies with the succession plan as much as anything. Who's a likely candidate to take over for the 64 year old David Calhoun? (although Harry Stonecipher was 67 when he took command of Boeing, resigning at age 69, but JIm "No Moonshots" McNerney retired at 65). Is their any good Airbus leadership that could be poached? Maybe that's a qustion for another thread?

Nope. NDAs and non competes probably

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

No new programs will be launched under David Calhoun. He's invester (stock holder) focused / dividend focused which means restoring production volumes and deliveries of existing products with miniminal investment..

We'll see if he's quality focused; which judging by the recent push to move 777 certifications forward while disregarding their own internal rules and procedures appears... well draw your own conclusion... it happened on his watch.

The question of the Next Airplane lies with the succession plan as much as anything. Who's a likely candidate to take over for the 64 year old David Calhoun? (although Harry Stonecipher was 67 when he took command of Boeing, resigning at age 69, but JIm "No Moonshots" McNerney retired at 65). Is their any good Airbus leadership that could be poached? Maybe that's a qustion for another thread?

At the moment it is not the time to launch a new program, as we are heading towards big changes for the industry. A new plane burning conventional fuel with an EiS of 2027 would be old by 2035. The mistakes happened in the past. The first was the bad execution of the of the 787 program, but the key was the arrogance to ignore P&W and their GTF and believe that Airbus will not move first. The idea of "Airbus is always copying us" is quite funny for a forum debate, but proofed deadly as the company believed it as well.

Yes - it seems like we will be in for a very boring decade of Airliner design - just derivatives.

We could see MAX 8 or 9 ER's based on MAX 10 and an 788ER and 788F instead of 767RE to reduce the number of lines and it could be cheaper than the 767RE. Just shrink a -9, use same gear, etc..

I agree on what someone posted above A322 Simple Stretch, A350F and that's about it, 330 and 767 wind down (after Tanker production is done) to reduce the number of lines.

seahawk wrote:

At the moment it is not the time to launch a new program, as we are heading towards big changes for the industry.

We are always heading towards 'big changes'. Competitors always 'react and respond'. It's always taken folks with a bit of moxy to lead companies that produce big things.

seahawk wrote:

[...]
At the moment it is not the time to launch a new program, as we are heading towards big changes for the industry. A new plane burning conventional fuel with an EiS of 2027 would be old by 2035.
[...]

The elephant in the room is hydrogen (even if not for the next clean sheet and maybe not for the one after that).

FiscAutTecGarte wrote:

seahawk wrote:

At the moment it is not the time to launch a new program, as we are heading towards big changes for the industry.

We are always heading towards 'big changes'. Competitors always 'react and respond'. It's always taken folks with a bit of moxy to lead companies that produce big things.

Moxy does not change facts. And CFM made a clear statements on what the next engine will be and when it will be ready. To be honest I can not see RR or P&W not heading in a similar direction and I think neither is interested in doing a new engine for a 2028 EiS. Doing a new plane with an engine that is only a derivate of an existing design or a 50% generational upgrade, is prohibitive.

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's. It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going. The NEO won't be adequate either by that point. Development of open rotor and hybrid propulsion along with TBW technologies will be accelerated and in turn will accelerate the phaseout of the MAX and even NEO.

morrisond wrote:

Yes - it seems like we will be in for a very boring decade of Airliner design - just derivatives.

We could see MAX 8 or 9 ER's based on MAX 10 and an 788ER and 788F instead of 767RE to reduce the number of lines and it could be cheaper than the 767RE. Just shrink a -9, use same gear, etc..

As per our A350F thread, Boeing was already working towards a 787-IGW and presumably on the path to a new engine option (TM) for the 787:

The Air Current reported in May 2019 about a series of payload and range improvements for the 787-9 and -10, upping the jet’s maximum takeoff weight to 572,000 lbs. (260 metric tons). Prior to the pandemic, Boeing planned to introduce the improved 787 — the 787IGW (increased gross weight) as it is known internally to Boeing — with Air New Zealand in late 2022. The IGW is understood to be a structural stepping stone for an eventual re-engined 787, should it come to pass. Given changes in production rates and customer deferrals the timing of the IGW is no longer clear.

I think we can presume that those plans can be put into effect as needed. Who knows, maybe they can even lure back the 787 chief engineer from Amazon?

IADFCO wrote:

The elephant in the room is hydrogen (even if not for the next clean sheet and maybe not for the one after that).

I think it's more mouse than elephant. No one has figured out how to make carbon neutral hydrogen.

The only way there will be enough SAF to support the aviation industry is if we all eat fried chicken and french fries non-stop, then we'll all die of coronary arrest so there will be no live pax needing transportation anyway.

seahawk wrote:

Moxy does not change facts. And CFM made a clear statements on what the next engine will be and when it will be ready. To be honest I can not see RR or P&W not heading in a similar direction and I think neither is interested in doing a new engine for a 2028 EiS. Doing a new plane with an engine that is only a derivate of an existing design or a 50% generational upgrade, is prohibitive.

No one is interested in doing a new engine for 2028 introduction because they haven't got any return on investment for the previous generation of engines.

Personally I thought the NMA with it's "LEAP and a half" engine from CFM made sense i.e. start with LEAP, grow its size a bit, add in whatever technology has matured since the original LEAP design was frozen and target it at a market segment with little competition, but COVID and MCAS killed it off. COVID pretty much guarantees we'll see nothing but PIPs for the rest of the 2020s, IMO.

744SPX wrote:

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going.

Nonsense, the difference between A320 and 737 on emissions is small and may even favor Boeing on short flights.

744SPX wrote:

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's. It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going. The NEO won't be adequate either by that point. Development of open rotor and hybrid propulsion along with TBW technologies will be accelerated and in turn will accelerate the phaseout of the MAX and even NEO.

What will put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Everything is the engine on those frames let’s be realistic here.

So unless the LEAP on the MAX does not get something that the NEO will get. Then I don’t know what you people are talking about.

If emissions goals have any chance of being reached, technologies like TBW and open rotor need to be ready by 2028-2030, not 2035-2037.

Opus99 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's. It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going. The NEO won't be adequate either by that point. Development of open rotor and hybrid propulsion along with TBW technologies will be accelerated and in turn will accelerate the phaseout of the MAX and even NEO.

What will put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Everything is the engine on those frames let’s be realistic here.

So unless the LEAP on the MAX does not get something that the NEO will get. Then I don’t know what you people are talking about.

I said BOTH the MAX and NEO will be forced out of the game earlier than people think.

744SPX wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's. It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going. The NEO won't be adequate either by that point. Development of open rotor and hybrid propulsion along with TBW technologies will be accelerated and in turn will accelerate the phaseout of the MAX and even NEO.

What will put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Everything is the engine on those frames let’s be realistic here.

So unless the LEAP on the MAX does not get something that the NEO will get. Then I don’t know what you people are talking about.

I said BOTH the MAX and NEO will be forced out of the game earlier than people think.

Yes you did, and I apologize, I should have read it better.

As for your prediction, I'm skeptical. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I do think there's a good chance the alternatives such as SAF and hydrogen are being over-sold.

A case in point: "Airbus tells EU hydrogen won't be widely used in planes before 2050"

Most airliners will rely on traditional jet engines until at least 2050, Airbus (AIR.PA) told European Union officials in a briefing released on Thursday on its research into creating zero-emissions hydrogen fuelled planes.

The planemaker says it plans to develop the world's first zero-emission commercial aircraft by 2035, but has not publicly said whether the technology will be ready for the replacement for the medium-haul A320, due to be rolled out in the 2030s.

February's briefing to EU officials appeared to rule this out.

Ref: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-06-10/

Anyone can write a goal into a document, that doesn't mean it can or will be achieved.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.[/quote

The same applies at Airbus. They're looking at an A350F, presumably an A322, and maybe a CS500 (aka, A220-500). Not a lot thrilling going on there, but it fits the market opportunities. I can't put a lot of stock in ZEROe turning into a real project at this time. Certifying a hydrogen engine and airframe would be exciting, but is going to take a lot of ambition to commit to on their own, and I remain skeptical it will be pencil out well either financially or technically compared to sustainable liquid fuel.

.

I won't comment on this line-up of developments at Airbus, or your views on how a hydrogen engine aircraft will develop, but the Airbus listed the following as a key priority in their Q2 results presentation today: lead the development of sustainable aerospace.

majano wrote:

I won't comment on this line-up of developments at Airbus, or your views on how a hydrogen engine aircraft will develop, but the Airbus listed the following as a key priority in their Q2 results presentation today: lead the development of sustainable aerospace.

Yes, that's what they say when making statements to the pubic at large, whereas Reuters reported what they said when briefing EU officials, i.e. actual policy makers.

You have heard of greenwashing, no? If not, you may want to google it.

Opus99 wrote:

744SPX wrote:

With greater and more urgent emphasis on dealing with climate change and CO2 emissions, the MAX will be at a distinct disadvantage come 2030 and will not be competitive for the 2030's. It can take Boeing through the late 2020's at best given the way things are going. The NEO won't be adequate either by that point. Development of open rotor and hybrid propulsion along with TBW technologies will be accelerated and in turn will accelerate the phaseout of the MAX and even NEO.

What will put it at a disadvantage compared to its competitors? Everything is the engine on those frames let’s be realistic here.

So unless the LEAP on the MAX does not get something that the NEO will get. Then I don’t know what you people are talking about.

There's a sfc difference between LEAP-A and LEAP-B (3-4% I assume), there a reason new aircraft designs have larger BPR's on their engines. https://i.stack.imgur.com/KvOZb.png , although that appears to a small taboo for many to acknowledge (MAX-NEO battle). https://leehamnews.com/2021/07/05/podcast-10-minutes-about-ssts/ (->4.40min)

If Boeing develops a new narrowbody I expect a BPR of at least 11-12 and a fan of 80+ inch. Even more with RISE like designs.

Revelation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

There’s no doubt Airbus is leading commercial aviation but at this point I don’t think Boeing cares. They just care about restoring the stability and quality of their business. They have a lot to do to get there. Airbus has indicated no particular interest in new clean sheet. So here we are. A boring decade ahead. But it is what it is

In the big picture view, I'd say the botched 787 program killed Boeing's ability to be viewed as the leader in commercial aviation in the current era. Before it we had Project Yellowstone with CFRP replacements for 737, 767 and 777. Yes, that may have been quite ambitious, but with a reasonably competent execution of 787 I think we would have had momentum towards at least the 737 replacement being a clean sheet CFRP airplane and then we'd see how long 777 could last before it too got a clean sheet replacement. Instead we got a 787 program that went many years and many billions of dollars over budget, not to mention the post-EIS grounding due to the exploding batteries. All this meant the board had no confidence that engineering could deliver anything like Y1 or Y3 and instead we got MAX and 777x in rapid succession.

There really is not a good reason to make disparaging comments about the 777X. I don't have any insight in terms of how the flight test program is going currently but for the most part it has been a pretty typical airplane development program. The most significant issue has been the delay due to the problems with the GE9X engine, which really isn't that unexpected considering how much they are pushing the technology on this engine. The static test failure received quite a lot of press and continues to have unwarranted speculation herein, but in the big picture the failure mode was easily addressed and has no discernible impact to schedule or program finances.

The only real criticism that you could make about the 777X versus a Y3 is that the fuselage construction remains aluminum rather than moving to carbon-fiber. There really is not a valid technical argument for why CFRP would be a better design choice here as much of benefits provided on the 787 fuselage have been incorporated into the 777X fuselage even though it is a metal airplane, specifically the higher cabin altitude, larger windows, and longer maintenance intervals. Spending R&D dollars on a CFRP fuselage has opportunity costs as well with every dollar spent on generating the necessary design values, engineering, and tooling is a dollar taken away from another program which would provide greater returns.

For all the negative talk about long-term program viability, everyone seems to forget that the 777X is a tailor-made airplane for Emirates to replace their existing fleet of 777s and A380s. Emirates currently has a fleet of 124 777-300ER and 10 777-200LR and has taken deliveries of 120 A380s. That is quite a lot of lift that will need to be replaced over the next decade or two. True, the program has experienced delays but a factor in mitigating the impact of the delays is that the Emirates fleet has not been flying which delays the costly heavy maintenance on engines and air frame on their existing fleet.

Proceeding with a new airplane though is going to require some stability in the 777X production and delivery schedule which remains speculative at this point.

JayinKitsap wrote:

It does seem like a repeat of IBM, going from the "Masters of the Universe", to "Oh, are they still around?"

With a market cap of $130 Billion? Yeah. They are still around. About the size of Boeing, actually. 20% larger than Airbus.

Pythagoras wrote:

There really is not a good reason to make disparaging comments about the 777X. I don't have any insight in terms of how the flight test program is going currently but for the most part it has been a pretty typical airplane development program. The most significant issue has been the delay due to the problems with the GE9X engine, which really isn't that unexpected considering how much they are pushing the technology on this engine. The static test failure received quite a lot of press and continues to have unwarranted speculation herein, but in the big picture the failure mode was easily addressed and has no discernible impact to schedule or program finances.

The only real criticism that you could make about the 777X versus a Y3 is that the fuselage construction remains aluminum rather than moving to carbon-fiber. There really is not a valid technical argument for why CFRP would be a better design choice here as much of benefits provided on the 787 fuselage have been incorporated into the 777X fuselage even though it is a metal airplane, specifically the higher cabin altitude, larger windows, and longer maintenance intervals. Spending R&D dollars on a CFRP fuselage has opportunity costs as well with every dollar spent on generating the necessary design values, engineering, and tooling is a dollar taken away from another program which would provide greater returns.

For all the negative talk about long-term program viability, everyone seems to forget that the 777X is a tailor-made airplane for Emirates to replace their existing fleet of 777s and A380s. Emirates currently has a fleet of 124 777-300ER and 10 777-200LR and has taken deliveries of 120 A380s. That is quite a lot of lift that will need to be replaced over the next decade or two. True, the program has experienced delays but a factor in mitigating the impact of the delays is that the Emirates fleet has not been flying which delays the costly heavy maintenance on engines and air frame on their existing fleet.

Proceeding with a new airplane though is going to require some stability in the 777X production and delivery schedule which remains speculative at this point.

Is it typical for a derivative to take longer than a new design though? If the engines are the delay, why did flight testing start 18 months ago? Is there a sudden delay that has not been reported that the engines are causing? Some nice rewriting of history here.

As for Emirates, you are correct that they will have a lot of aircraft they need to replace. But with 80 A359 and 789 on order the airline is transitioning to a more right size approach. We will have to see if this means the same amount of 777X as 777 or if there will be a reduction and to focus on yield with more efficient aircraft with lower seating capacities.

Revelation wrote:

I think it's more mouse than elephant. No one has figured out how to make carbon neutral hydrogen.

While I agree hydrogen (planes) is an mouse and a lab mouse at that, the second part is not completely correct. There are parties who have figured out carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) hydrogen, but it is commercially not viable at the moment. I have friends in the industry and they believe that hydrogen production could be viable/competitive end of this decade. Although they are quite biased, I also see the massive amounts of investments in hydrogen in Europe; Public and private.

Latest comments of industry leaders point to slashing cost by an factor of 3 by 2025: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... g-63037203
The highest contributing factor is the rapid decline in Wind and PV solar costs. The other part is declining electrolyser technology costs.

The hydrogen part might be solved by end of this decade, but developing a hydrogen plane is a different cookie. So, all in all I am still sceptical about a hydrogen plane. Too many challenges need to be solved at once...

majano wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It seems Boeing hopes to move forward with MAX, 787, 779 and 77F and no real vehicle to develop the next generation technology anywhere in sight. If I were a young engineer I think I'd be all ears if Amazon or SpaceX was recruiting.[/quote

The same applies at Airbus. They're looking at an A350F, presumably an A322, and maybe a CS500 (aka, A220-500). Not a lot thrilling going on there, but it fits the market opportunities. I can't put a lot of stock in ZEROe turning into a real project at this time. Certifying a hydrogen engine and airframe would be exciting, but is going to take a lot of ambition to commit to on their own, and I remain skeptical it will be pencil out well either financially or technically compared to sustainable liquid fuel.

.

I won't comment on this line-up of developments at Airbus, or your views on how a hydrogen engine aircraft will develop, but the Airbus listed the following as a key priority in their Q2 results presentation today: lead the development of sustainable aerospace.

Sure, but talk is cheap. Certifying a new conventionally-fueled aircraft is very expensive. Certifying a new aircraft with a radically changed fuel system will be significantly more expensive. I would tentatively call it the most radical change to commercial aviation since jet engines, and maybe even exceeding that. Jet engines had the fortune to be introduced in a very different regulatory environment, and were simpler to integrate onto airframes than I expect hydrogen fuel tanks will be.

I have no doubt Airbus will work at least as hard as Boeing at sustainable aerospace development, but the options for that include biofuel, which has the most clear technical pathway to widespread adoption. They can adhere to that priority without hydrogen, and for reasons that are more suited to other threads, I think that ultimately will be the case.

Revelation wrote:

majano wrote:

I won't comment on this line-up of developments at Airbus, or your views on how a hydrogen engine aircraft will develop, but the Airbus listed the following as a key priority in their Q2 results presentation today: lead the development of sustainable aerospace.

Yes, that's what they say when making statements to the pubic at large, whereas Reuters reported what they said when briefing EU officials, i.e. actual policy makers.

You have heard of greenwashing, no? If not, you may want to google it.

Yes I have. But it has nothing to do with Airbus' ambitions of playing a leading role in the development of sustainable aerospace. Nothing to do with green or blue. I would not rely on a relayed message from any media house in this day and age.

iamlucky13 wrote:

majano wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I won't comment on this line-up of developments at Airbus, or your views on how a hydrogen engine aircraft will develop, but the Airbus listed the following as a key priority in their Q2 results presentation today: lead the development of sustainable aerospace.

Sure, but talk is cheap. Certifying a new conventionally-fueled aircraft is very expensive. Certifying a new aircraft with a radically changed fuel system will be significantly more expensive. I would tentatively call it the most radical change to commercial aviation since jet engines, and maybe even exceeding that. Jet engines had the fortune to be introduced in a very different regulatory environment, and were simpler to integrate onto airframes than I expect hydrogen fuel tanks will be.

I have no doubt Airbus will work at least as hard as Boeing at sustainable aerospace development, but the options for that include biofuel, which has the most clear technical pathway to widespread adoption. They can adhere to that priority without hydrogen, and for reasons that are more suited to other threads, I think that ultimately will be the case.

Fair enough, and as I said, I will not be drawn into predicting what initiative will succeed and which will fail. What I wanted to point out with my original post was that Airbus sees this as much of a priority as ramping up production and achieving profit targets.

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think it's more mouse than elephant. No one has figured out how to make carbon neutral hydrogen.

While I agree hydrogen (planes) is an mouse and a lab mouse at that, the second part is not completely correct. There are parties who have figured out carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) hydrogen, but it is commercially not viable at the moment. I have friends in the industry and they believe that hydrogen production could be viable/competitive end of this decade. Although they are quite biased, I also see the massive amounts of investments in hydrogen in Europe; Public and private.

Latest comments of industry leaders point to slashing cost by an factor of 3 by 2025: https://www.spglobal.com/marketintellig ... g-63037203
The highest contributing factor is the rapid decline in Wind and PV solar costs. The other part is declining electrolyser technology costs.

The hydrogen part might be solved by end of this decade, but developing a hydrogen plane is a different cookie. So, all in all I am still sceptical about a hydrogen plane. Too many challenges need to be solved at once...

Nuclear power guys solved it a long time ago....

Rgds