Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Opus99
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:33 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.

On a second note, the next exciting new aircraft will come from Airbus+Leonardo and it will be some kind of hybrid ATR. It is a good platform to test new technologies commercially while still not exposing the company too much.

I think we can to be fair
 
astuteman
Posts: 7420
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:02 am

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
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:20 am

Revelation wrote:
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.


I think we always disagreed on that. For me it would have been another A380 like mistake, as such plane would be eaten alive by the successors of the MAX/NEO and A330/787, which will field all new engines.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:22 am

astuteman wrote:
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


Well, conceptually yes. But reality shows there is less and less investment in nuclear.
 
AeroplaneFreak
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:19 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:08 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.


Honestly why do people make comments like this?
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:59 am

AeroplaneFreak wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.


Honestly why do people make comments like this?


Because the thread was going in circles about a possible NMA from Boeing that clearly got shot down by the CEO. So we can continue going in circles about an aircraft that will not materialize within a reasonable time frame to keep this thread open.

But this means all upcoming discussion is more off topic from the premise the thread was based on.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:36 pm

Pythagoras wrote:
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.

My thoughts aren't around the material, my thoughts are that Y3 could be positioned differently than 777X, which was forced to be a larger version of 777. That is what happens when you add better wings and engines to the same basic design like 777X did. The issue for Boeing is the 772 replacement market is huge, and the best 772 replacement is A359 and definitely not 778. They have some cover because some airlines are replacing 772 with 789 which is a small down size, but still not optimal to have left behind such a big market for Airbus. If Y3 were a clean sheet I think it would have been made the same size as 772 and 773 with room for growth to a 774 since growth is the natural result of process improvements.

I don't feel I'm disparaging 777X. I feel it had better sales pre-COVID than I was expecting it to have. I do feel Y3 would have sold even better, but the 787 debacle took away any chance for there to be a Y3.

majano wrote:
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.

Interesting you put so much significance in a corporate goal, rather than (IMO) a trusted media source that has used freedom of information laws to find out exactly what Airbus is telling the EU in private meetings. Personally I think you have it backwards, you should trust corporate greenwashing statements far less than the work of investigative reporters.

FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.

I don't see the linkage between the former and the later. The CEO will continue to make comments about the next airplane for the foreseeable future. He has to do so if he wants to project the ability to develop new airplanes going forward, which is important to retain both investors and internal talent. I still find such comments interesting even if they all end up for naught. It makes for an interesting study of how corporations and CEOs communicate in less than ideal circumstances, IMO.

FluidFlow wrote:
AeroplaneFreak wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.

Honestly why do people make comments like this?

Because the thread was going in circles about a possible NMA from Boeing that clearly got shot down by the CEO. So we can continue going in circles about an aircraft that will not materialize within a reasonable time frame to keep this thread open.

But this means all upcoming discussion is more off topic from the premise the thread was based on.

The thread started just as the CEO killed the NMA and began talking about what the next airplane would look like, and he keeps adding bits and pieces as time moves on. It may all go for naught, just like A350F may all be for naught even though they now have authority to develop it.

Maybe you should just not open threads that no longer interest you?
Last edited by Revelation on Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
dare100em
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:31 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:37 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
AeroplaneFreak wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.


Honestly why do people make comments like this?


Because the thread was going in circles about a possible NMA from Boeing that clearly got shot down by the CEO. So we can continue going in circles about an aircraft that will not materialize within a reasonable time frame to keep this thread open.

But this means all upcoming discussion is more off topic from the premise the thread was based on.


You do NOT need to open this threat for at least two years if your that safe. It is your joyce to just stay away.
 
Opus99
Posts: 2365
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
Pythagoras wrote:
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.

My thoughts aren't around the material, my thoughts are that Y3 could be positioned differently than 777X, which was forced to be a larger version of 777. That is what happens when you add better wings and engines to the same basic design like 777X did. The issue for Boeing is the 772 replacement market is huge, and the best 772 replacement is A359 and definitely not 778. They have some cover because some airlines are replacing 772 with 789 which is a small down size, but still not optimal to have left behind such a big market for Airbus. If Y3 were a clean sheet I think it would have been made the same size as 772 and 773 with room for growth to a 774 since growth is the natural result of process improvements.

I don't feel I'm disparaging 777X. I feel it had better sales pre-COVID than I was expecting it to have. I do feel Y3 would have sold even better, but the 787 debacle took away any chance for there to be a Y3.

majano wrote:
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.

Interesting you put so much significance in a corporate goal, rather than (IMO) a trusted media source that has used freedom of information laws to find out exactly what Airbus is telling the EU in private meetings. Personally I think you have it backwards, you should trust corporate greenwashing statements far less than the work of investigative reporters.

FluidFlow wrote:
Personally I see that we can 1st close this thread because we will not see a new Boeing aircraft launched in the next 5-7 years.

I don't see the linkage between the former and the later. The CEO will continue to make comments about the next airplane for the foreseeable future. He has to do so if he wants to project the ability to develop new airplanes going forward, which is important to retain both investors and internal talent. I still find such comments interesting even if they all end up for naught. It makes for an interesting study of how corporations and CEOs communicate in less than ideal circumstances, IMO.

FluidFlow wrote:
AeroplaneFreak wrote:
Honestly why do people make comments like this?

Because the thread was going in circles about a possible NMA from Boeing that clearly got shot down by the CEO. So we can continue going in circles about an aircraft that will not materialize within a reasonable time frame to keep this thread open.

But this means all upcoming discussion is more off topic from the premise the thread was based on.

The thread started just as the CEO killed the NMA and began talking about what the next airplane would look like, and he keeps adding bits and pieces as time moves on. It may all go for naught, just like A350F may all be for naught even though they now have authority to develop it.

Maybe you should just not open threads that no longer interest you?

You raise very good points. I think the 78X is what Boeing hopes will (eventually?) answer that question. As well as 330CEO which is also big. I understand China are very interested in that aircraft. I expect Boeing to pitch it for British airways 772 replacement effort. It won at ANZ even though any said it won’t it will be even more appropriately placed with the 787IGW
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4984
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:48 pm

An international standards group must, in my view, define what the US, EU, and China will require in the new automated flight deck/control. The project is too complex and undefined for any company to spend tens of billions$$ coming up with what could be an half ass solution. The definition of what is required will be followed by a definition of what is possible. The more ideal solution will result in a flight deck that can largely be redefined via well tested updates. This would, I think, entail that all hardware on a plane, engine, controls, monitoring etc be fully accessible to the current and later software. Then there is security and anti-hacking. It likely will be fully capable of flying the plane in all known situations, although not at first.

Analysts none withstanding electric and electric hybrids are coming. 200 miles endurance, and then creeping or leaping up toward 500 and then 1000 miles. The 737/320s will no longer be the mass produced/cheaper by the dozen planes they are now. Nor is the effect of full self driving cars and trucks appreciated. They likely will compete with any transportation mode outside of city cores for legs under 200 miles cars, and 1000 miles trucks. RRs - watch out!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:51 pm

enzo011 wrote:
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?


As I recall, the engine issues occurred early on in the flight test regimen and effectively halted them both because it would have invalidated data Boeing was getting from the engines and I also believe there was a Safety of Flight concern related to them so Boeing did not want to risk the airframe.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:18 pm

Stitch wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
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?


As I recall, the engine issues occurred early on in the flight test regimen and effectively halted them both because it would have invalidated data Boeing was getting from the engines and I also believe there was a Safety of Flight concern related to them so Boeing did not want to risk the airframe.


The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

The engine issues and Covid-19 were used a bit as decoys for those who wanted to believe. But the aggresive application of the changed product rule on the 777x and the way FAA agreed, amazed many from the start. On record and hotly discussed on this site for years.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:29 pm

keesje wrote:
The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

The engine issues and Covid-19 were used a bit as decoys for those who wanted to believe. But the aggresive application of the changed product rule on the 777x and the way FAA agreed, amazed many from the start. On record and hotly discussed on this site for years.

Yet 777x will be certified as a 777 family member and not an all new aircraft, so I'm not seeing the justification for the taking of victory laps.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:45 pm

Just not seeing hydrogen as viable.
Hydrogen is explosive unlike JetA (except in exact fuel/air mixtures). It's also got a much lower energy density than JetA. Finally, there's no distribution system for Hydrogen which is a huge issue.

Yes it is possible, but would be decades to get it established.

Hydrogen can be made carbon neutral through electrolysis of water from wind/solar. But hydrogen is more a carrier of energy than a source of energy. Unlike fossil fuels which exist in nature, H2 gas must be made using....energy from some other source.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:26 pm

keesje wrote:
The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.


Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along". :shakehead:
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:40 pm

Chemist wrote:
Hydrogen can be made carbon neutral through electrolysis of water from wind/solar.

True, but then do the math on how much wind and solar you'd need to supply the aviation industry with enough hydrogen to operate a meaningful fraction of its needs and you soon realize in the real world we'll probably need carbon based fuels to generate the electricity to make enough hydrogen for the aviation industry to be able to boast about their use of 'clean energy'. I guess that's OK from the aviation industry's point of view, they took the government grants and did their bit, but in the great scheme of things the problem just got moved around a bit. Meanwhile, people burning wood to cook their food is a bigger source of CO2, with no glamorous solution.

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.

Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along". :shakehead:

True, and will also point out their complaints were not about the certification basis of the airplane.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14536
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:09 pm

Stitch wrote:
keesje wrote:
The fundamentel issue us that it's not a derivative, it's a new aircraft. FAA had to play along, but JATR and EASA didn't after taking a good look at the MAX certification process.


Events of the past few weeks make it quite clear that the FAA is not "playing along". :shakehead:


That's correct, but it took crashes/ investigations to restore FAA authority and power. Boeing/ congress driven streamlining, delegation, exemptions forced by congress FAA budget re-authorizations took their toll. Boeing now is in the process of 4 years of certification rework. And resulting modifications.
Last edited by keesje on Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
744SPX
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:30 pm

Revelation wrote:
744SPX wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
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.



I think it may depend on the frequency of extreme weather events over the next 5 years- if they continue and worsen, I think there is a good chance major action affecting commercial aircraft emissions will be implemented. On the other hand, if we get even a temporary lull in the news-making climate-related events maybe the MAX and NEO will be enough for the next 15 years...
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 6:57 am

Boeing's proposal to certify a Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) engine by 2030 is by no means a stretch technology wise. It has less to do combustion of the fuel as an energy source as it does making design changes within the engine and fuel tanks to keep elastomeric materials malleable and functioning. There is no reason to delay any aircraft before this occurs.

As much as everyone likes to speculate on a hydrogen airplane, it is likely that costs associated with Synthetic Aviation Fuels, and in particular synthetic kerosene made from renewable energy, are going to decline due to scale and technological advances.

True, today the costs of eFuels are prohibitively high, which is why the EU is proposing a mandate of a blend initially.

"In a recent study commissioned by T&E, Ricardo Energy and Environment estimated a cost of 137 - 233 €/MWh (i.e. 1.3 - 2.2 €/litre) for e-kerosene in 2020 depending, that is almost 2 to 3 times the average price of fossil kerosene."

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/FAQ%20e-kerosene%20_0.pdf

Projections which look at economies of scale and technology improvements show cost equivalency of synthetic kerosene (eFuels) to fossil fuels by 2050.
Image
- eFuel Alliance
information brochure
This is what climate-neutral fuels will cost in the future

Once one considers the added effects of contrail formation, Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) make even more sense.

"Synthetic e-kerosene is produced from synthetic crude in much the same way as e-diesel but is refined to be suitable as a jet fuel. The development of new aircraft based on novel fuels require significant research and development, investments, and accompanying regulation to ensure safe, economic aircraft. Commercialisation and certification of aircraft can take more than 10 years. Drop-in fuels like e-kerosene are the most immediate solution that would only require development of the supply infrastructure.

As with e-diesel, fuel impurities are removed, but the exhaust from e-kerosene combustion still contains CO2, CO, NOx and particulate matter. Emissions of the first three pollutants would be at a similar level to fossil-derived kerosene, but the concentration of particulate matter is likely to be lower.

Aviation has difficulty reducing these emissions due to technical solutions adding weight to the aircraft and requiring technical complexity that could have an impact on passenger safety. In addition, an issue unique to aviation is that the fine particulate matter results in contrails, creating cirrus clouds that contribute to short-term global warming. The effects of NOx emissions from aeroplanes are complex. On the one hand, they increase ozone formation, which has negative effects on respiratory health (at ground level) and is a greenhouse gas but NOx also shields the earth’s surface from harmful UV radiation at high altitudes. While on the other hand, NOx tends to reduce methane levels, which is itself a significant greenhouse gas."

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_Report_RES_to_decarbonise_transport_in_EU.pdf

Now as to the question of how much renewable energy is required. It is estimated for the EU that the entire transportation sector, including aviation, will use renewable energy equivalent to that in the electrical grid. Certainly a large amount, but not so large as to be entirely infeasible. One would presume that the same trends would apply to other localities.

"To achieve full decarbonisation of transport with T&E’s Base Case forecast, about 2,800 TWh/y will be required by 2050. This represents a significant scale-up between 2030 and 2050. For comparison, the predicted demand for renewables from the decarbonised electricity grid in 2050 is predicted to be about 3,350 TWh/y.

This study shows that the potential for additional renewable electricity in the EU28 countries comfortably exceeds the projected demand to decarbonise transport and the electricity grid by 2050. Studies show that the total exploitable potential for renewable electricity (solar PV, onshore wind, off shore wind & geothermal) in the EU28 countries is about 27,000 to 28,000 TWh/y. "

Reference: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_Report_RES_to_decarbonise_transport_in_EU.pdf
 
VV
Posts: 2352
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:01 am

Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.
 
JonesNL
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:40 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:15 am

VV wrote:
Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.

It is already happening. It might not scale but it will definitely happen.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:22 am

With the latest comment from the CEO will Boeing look at the possibility to increase MTOW of the 737 MAX 10?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:26 pm

SAF is a great approach for the aviation industry in that they can still get government funding for 'green research' yet have set a very achievable low bar for themselves while making the issue of who produces the SAF someone else's problem. Even the fact that the idea of using a 'blend' is already out there shows they are preparing to point the finger at someone else. 99.9% crude and 0.1% SAF is still a blend, right? They've even moved the goalposts out to 2050. All they need for success is the energy industry to create clean energy equivalent to today's grid and dedicate it all to SAF production, simples, right?

Seems the governments can/will rebut it by saying you can't fly if you emit more than X, since you want a 'market based solution' you go work with the energy industry and figure out how to make that happen.

Then round and round the wheel will go, where it stops no one knows.

I know one thing for sure, if I were CFM I would not put all my eggs in one basket.

In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.
 
Gremlinzzzz
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:28 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:01 pm

JonesNL wrote:
VV wrote:
Forget electric powered and hydrogen powered commercial passenger transport.

It is NOT going to happen.

It is already happening. It might not scale but it will definitely happen.
It is hard for one to see how they would scale to commercial aviation. Producing hydrogen is not only expensive, but you will need to build infrastructure on a global scale for this to make sense. Batteries are too heavy for them to form a solution that gets rid of current aircraft types, not to mention how long will it take to recharge between flights?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10343
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.


And to be honest this sounds very wise.
 
User avatar
Pythagoras
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:33 am

Re: Boeing CEO's Comments On Their Next Airplane

Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:18 pm

Revelation wrote:
SAF is a great approach for the aviation industry in that they can still get government funding for 'green research' yet have set a very achievable low bar for themselves while making the issue of who produces the SAF someone else's problem. Even the fact that the idea of using a 'blend' is already out there shows they are preparing to point the finger at someone else. 99.9% crude and 0.1% SAF is still a blend, right? They've even moved the goalposts out to 2050. All they need for success is the energy industry to create clean energy equivalent to today's grid and dedicate it all to SAF production, simples, right?

Seems the governments can/will rebut it by saying you can't fly if you emit more than X, since you want a 'market based solution' you go work with the energy industry and figure out how to make that happen.

Then round and round the wheel will go, where it stops no one knows.

I know one thing for sure, if I were CFM I would not put all my eggs in one basket.

In a way all this suits the engine industry as well. All the churn on what is to come means they can tell the OEMs that they won't be investing in a new engine till the way forward becomes clearer. In reality they too have been strongly impacted by COVID and still haven't gained a positive ROI on the last generation of engines so sitting back and cashing in on them while getting government grants to do 'green research' is just what they want/need.


It is to some extent in the OEM's best interest to have higher fuel price as that provides incentives for airframe retirement and renewal of an airline's fleet. As it is being said elsewhere through, the business model for engine suppliers is to generate returns on investment through spares and servicing. So early fleet renewal works to their disadvantage. As I've stated above, I see that the uncertainty surrounding the business model for how engine suppliers earn back their investment is the biggest reason why Boeing has not launched a new airplane.

The approach of gradually increasing fuel blends seems to be a good policy approach as it provides more certainty for investors in SAF as the volume of liquids can be projected and capital expenditures more efficiently made. Certainty as to the market will allow investors to go forward and accept a degree of risk that they would not otherwise would be able to justify. I was speaking about this with my daughter who is working in private equity with a focus on oil & gas sector. Algae sourced biofuels were set to take off last decade but the low oil prices resulting from the fracking boom in the US undercut the business case.

The OEM's though are still going to be in competition with each other and the incentives will be there to further reduce fuel burn through aerodynamics, structural efficiency, and new engine technology. For example, Pratt has stated that they did not push the technology for the high temperature components of the geared-fan. This would therefore appear to be relatively straight forward technology insertion. Increased use of ceramics and 3D printing will prove out that the P&W approach is a technology that can be taken further than GE's approach on the CFM family.

We may see a renewed focus in the electric systems architecture, like that of the 787, or more hybrid architecture as both permit better engine SFC. Remember a higher fuel price is acceptable if it is balanced out by fuel efficiency gains made elsewhere, whether that is in operations, engine, aerodynamics, or structural efficiency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: atal17, B777LRF, Baidu [Spider], ben7x, Bing [Bot], BUFJACK10, Captaincurious, dredgy, Flydude1063, Google [Bot], Kiwings, Marek747, masi1157, ncflyer, pmanni1, RB211trent, RoyalBrunei757, Rudenko, RyanairGuru, sise1989, veeseeten and 187 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos