Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Jetport
Topic Author
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:08 am

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-billi ... 18030.html

Not much new here, other than they are only talking single aisle MOM.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:38 am

Jetport wrote:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-billion-jet-dilemma-facing-070218030.html

Not much new here, other than they are only talking single aisle MOM.


Jon Ostrower reports the 753 is "part of the template" for the new aircraft. https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 54819?s=20

From merely an enthusiast's view, I would think there are some issues with this, namely boarding experience (requiring longer turn times, etc.) by crowding in a single aisle, and cargo. But, perhaps the economics result in this being a more cost effective solution than a wide body because its a smaller tube.

Edit to add that JO also states its a very "focused attack" in response to Leeham's reply. Spending these resources on such a focused attack is a major gamble as most aircraft development have been to have a more flexible design. On the other hand, perhaps a narrow focus will maximize efficiency and create a large market.
 
Chemist
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:08 am

I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8965
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:56 am

Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.

The A321 almost always boards at door one, to the extent that the A321neo doesn’t even have a mid-door anymore
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:23 am

There is a minimum limit to the turn around times dictated by the engines. See the problem HA faces with their 717 replacement. Modern engines (GTF, LEAP) need longer "down" times and limit the lower end of the turn around time.
 
kabq737
Posts: 754
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:29 am

cedarjet wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.

The A321 almost always boards at door one, to the extent that the A321neo doesn’t even have a mid-door anymore


I believe this is because the mid door on the A321 CEO was so close to the engine that most if not all airlines just didn’t use it. Wasn't worth the risk of damage for slightly better boarding times.

At the end of the day if you’ve only got one jetway than the same number of people have to go through the door no matter where it’s at. Therefore the difference between mid door and front door is negligible unless they can both be used.
 
BigTikiGuy
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2020 4:55 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:50 pm

Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.


Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.
 
bigb
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:55 pm

BigTikiGuy wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.


Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


That would make for very inefficient ops at major hubs for 1. You will have to increase bussing for pax or still provide protection from the elements as well let alone accommodating folks that need wheel chair assistance. Jetways are just more effective for the boarding process.
 
DaveMetroD
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:05 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:04 pm

BigTikiGuy wrote:

Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


Making people walk across frozen precipitation in a raging winter storm is a fantastic idea.
 
Someone83
Posts: 5388
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:06 pm

kabq737 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.

The A321 almost always boards at door one, to the extent that the A321neo doesn’t even have a mid-door anymore


I believe this is because the mid door on the A321 CEO was so close to the engine that most if not all airlines just didn’t use it. Wasn't worth the risk of damage for slightly better boarding times.

At the end of the day if you’ve only got one jetway than the same number of people have to go through the door no matter where it’s at. Therefore the difference between mid door and front door is negligible unless they can both be used.


In Europe, especially among the LCC, it is not common to use two doors, in terms of the front and rear, when boarding the aircraft
 
Kikko19
Posts: 722
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 4:45 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:46 pm

DaveMetroD wrote:
BigTikiGuy wrote:

Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


Making people walk across frozen precipitation in a raging winter storm is a fantastic idea.

Done it several times at HEL, returning from canary. Shorts and light jacket... Outside was - 25. Finns do the same. None complained.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 4:59 pm

DaveMetroD wrote:
BigTikiGuy wrote:

Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


Making people walk across frozen precipitation in a raging winter storm is a fantastic idea.

Because there are no "frozen precipitation in a raging winter storm" in Europe? You think it only happens in the US?
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:04 pm

DaveMetroD wrote:
BigTikiGuy wrote:

Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


Making people walk across frozen precipitation in a raging winter storm is a fantastic idea.


If it's a raging winter storm, flights probably aren't in the usual rush to board and depart quickly.
 
User avatar
flyingturtle
Posts: 6163
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:16 pm

BigTikiGuy wrote:
Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


I always loved the free tour of the airport (if there is bussing to/from the plane), or the possibility to snap some good pictures.

And passengers in wheelchairs get their own elevator bus anyway, at no surcharge.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:20 pm

Someone83 wrote:
In Europe, especially among the LCC, it is not common to use two doors, in terms of the front and rear, when boarding the aircraft


I think you mean it is not uncommon, or just that it is common. ;-)

The first time I saw how fast a full A321neo (235 / 238 seats on Easyjet and Wizz Air respectively) actually board when using both front and rear doors, it is obvious that this reduces turnaround times significantly. On these major European LCC, your boarding pass will tell you which door to use.

On many airports the aircraft is parked at a gate, so no need for buses. The jetbridge might be used for the front door, if it also has stairs down to the tarmac for the passengers boarding through the rear door.

In the winter, traffic is lower, more gates are available for longer, slot times a little bit more flexible, aircraft utilisation is lower etc., so the pressure on turnaround times is also reduced. In other words, if it is snowing, you can see many departures only using the front door with a jetbridge connected.
 
Someone83
Posts: 5388
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:23 pm

reidar76 wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
In Europe, especially among the LCC, it is not common to use two doors, in terms of the front and rear, when boarding the aircraft


I think you mean it is not uncommon, or just that it is common. ;-)


Ha ha, yes of course, it should be that it is common )
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4974
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:25 pm

On a typical 180 passenger narrow body boarding 40-60 persons from the back via stairs would be welcome to most, turn those rear seats into something more premium as well as reduce hassle just a little.
 
oldJoe
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:04 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:31 pm

Someone83 wrote:
kabq737 wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
The A321 almost always boards at door one, to the extent that the A321neo doesn’t even have a mid-door anymore


I believe this is because the mid door on the A321 CEO was so close to the engine that most if not all airlines just didn’t use it. Wasn't worth the risk of damage for slightly better boarding times.

At the end of the day if you’ve only got one jetway than the same number of people have to go through the door no matter where it’s at. Therefore the difference between mid door and front door is negligible unless they can both be used.


In Europe, especially among the LCC, it is not common to use two doors, in terms of the front and rear, when boarding the aircraft


I see it differently and reality confirms that.
Examples : Ryanair at Eindhoven and after the short video the same in Marseilles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F37ZFmy4fN4

Easyjet at Pula / Croatia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5TAuoiCsRI

Wizz Air at Lodon and if you watch this video careful you can see three aircraft wich get boarded front and rear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5pBM2iwyiA
 
Chemist
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Thu Jun 03, 2021 6:12 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
On a typical 180 passenger narrow body boarding 40-60 persons from the back via stairs would be welcome to most, turn those rear seats into something more premium as well as reduce hassle just a little.


I board on the tarmac at BUR on WN all the time. It makes loading/unloading a lot faster, and with non-assigned seating, you go to the back when flying to BUR and you are out of the plane in no time from the rear ;)
 
SteelChair
Posts: 1641
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:37 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:44 am

Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.
 
RoyalBrunei757
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:18 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 3:57 am

oldJoe wrote:
Someone83 wrote:
kabq737 wrote:

I believe this is because the mid door on the A321 CEO was so close to the engine that most if not all airlines just didn’t use it. Wasn't worth the risk of damage for slightly better boarding times.

At the end of the day if you’ve only got one jetway than the same number of people have to go through the door no matter where it’s at. Therefore the difference between mid door and front door is negligible unless they can both be used.


In Europe, especially among the LCC, it is not common to use two doors, in terms of the front and rear, when boarding the aircraft


I see it differently and reality confirms that.
Examples : Ryanair at Eindhoven and after the short video the same in Marseilles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F37ZFmy4fN4

Easyjet at Pula / Croatia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5TAuoiCsRI

Wizz Air at Lodon and if you watch this video careful you can see three aircraft wich get boarded front and rear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5pBM2iwyiA

In many parts of Asia too, airlines use both front and rear for boarding, mainly for LCC, despite having aerobirdges at the airport they fly to. Both entry/exits allow quick turnaround for them. On occasion when there is heavy downpour or lightning/thunder, they will use aerodbridges. Boarding a widebody via stairs is the ultimate flying experience!
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:00 am

SteelChair wrote:
It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain.


That's no quite true anymore. https://aviramp.com/
 
BTV290
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:33 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:31 am

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


Whilst I agree with you that tarmac boarding should be a thing of the past, there are two points I'd make about your statement:

1. US-based airlines are not governed by the ADA, but rather the ACAA... It's similar, but has some differences.
2. I've never seen someone who uses a wheelchair for mobility get carried up or down air stairs... Most airports have a lift for that case, where the person as well as their chair gets raised up to the door of the aircraft where they can transfer from there.
 
SwissCanuck
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:06 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:13 am

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


In GVA we have trucks similar to catering trucks that will bus you out and lift you up to door R1. Was in a wheelchair last year and it was great. Guy knew I was an avgeek and let me knock on the R1 door to get the F/A to open it. Boarding from that side was super weird/fun, considering I couldn't walk at the time.

EDIT: Got me thinking more about that experience. Thanks to any ground crew at GVA, DUB, and YOW last year you did a great job. YYZ, as usual, you got some 'splainin to do... Ditto LHR T5.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1088
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:45 am

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


It is the nicest experience you can have. Best one I had was an AF flight from ZRH to CDG early morning. Taking the Bus through the parked aircraft from Gates B1-B8 boarding an A318, sitting in 25B (has no window but you get served first) and we deboarded also on the tarmac in CDG and you can see the airport from a totally different perspective.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20086
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:12 am

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


Really? Boarding from the tarmac is the definition of being civilised? :lol:

You do know most countries have very similar disability laws, right? Do you really think the likes of Ryanair and easyJet don't have to meet the same requirements? Or do you think they simply leave differently abled folks behind on the tarmac? By the way, nobody gets to be "literally carried up and down stairs" and I've yet to see herds of feral children wandering around the tarmac.

BTW, I've also, shock horror, boarded from the tarmac in America, and it was very recently, not the 1950s. :o
 
Noshow
Posts: 2625
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:12 am

Boarding from the apron is no problem even the president does it. I like this no nonsense style especially if you can walk to the terminal without any bus.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:33 am

scbriml wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.


Really? Boarding from the tarmac is the definition of being civilised? :lol:

You do know most countries have very similar disability laws, right? Do you really think the likes of Ryanair and easyJet don't have to meet the same requirements? Or do you think they simply leave differently abled folks behind on the tarmac? By the way, nobody gets to be "literally carried up and down stairs" and I've yet to see herds of feral children wandering around the tarmac.

BTW, I've also, shock horror, boarded from the tarmac in America, and it was very recently, not the 1950s. :o


There are lift trucks for disabled and the elderly in a wheel chair.. Disabled go on the plane first and off the plane last. Ryanair still manages 20 minutes turn around. The main reason for Ryan air, EasyJet and Wizz boarding from the tarmac are fast turn around.
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1927
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:44 am

It's perfectly possible to be flexible, adjust for circumstances and cater to people with disabilities.
For example, BA at Edinburgh often use just the jetway BUT if the incoming aircraft is late arriving (or is an A321) then, to reduce the turnround time, they will often put additional steps at the rear door. The front pax (and disabled) use the jetway, the rear pax use the stairs - all going through the same gate infrastructure.
 
kalvado
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 11:13 am

I wonder if combination of jetbridge at the front door and stairs at the back door is a feasible option.
Those in wheelchairs get all possible comfort, those who are not afraid of rain get a chance to jump the queue.
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 12:43 pm

I hope I don't upset the interesting discussion about boarding practices, but I see Boeings problem from a bit of a different perspective. I'd say the biggest gamble comes precisely from what energy source the aircraft is designed around. Regardless of which they will need to make a new aircraft (or refresh say the 757) in such a way as to accommodate that future energy source. Hydrogen or solid state battery technology? Either choice present very different needs on ground infrastructure and aircraft architecture. SAF's are a stopgap. A valuable stopgap, but a stopgap.

Boeing is talking up SAF's, mainly because it's convenient. It's a drop-in solution whose lifecycle can be made carbon neutral, but one that is still more wasteful than purely electric. The EU is making solid moves towards a carbon neutral future where hydrogen seems, for now, to be in the forefront. At least if France is to be trusted. Does that mean the rest of the world will follow in time? Who knows. But lets take hydrogen as a hypothetical and what it could mean for Boeing:

Boeing could theoretically create an airframe prepared for a hydrogen future by making a hydrogen combusting Gen 1 and a hydrogen fuel cell Gen 2. Both require space for hydrogen storage and could theoretically be the same basic airframe. They would differ only in engines and ancillary equipment. Gen 1 would be running on hydrogen adapted "ordinary" jet engines. Combusting hydrogen instead of Jet-A. Gen 2 would use electric engines and a fuel cell fed by the stored hydrogen instead. If the Gen 1 aircraft can be made to use both Jet-A and hydrogen depending on availability the future-proofing would be complete, letting airlines phase in greener fuels and engines as they develop.

If Boeing goes such a route they would have a possible first mover advantage in that they would set the pace, direction, and infrastructure requirements of future aircraft. Airbus would naturally have their own advantage seeing Boeing do said leg-work, but would need to follow.

Of course, it would depend on wether or not hydrogen truly is the future. I would tend to think that it should be, in part if not by itself. Either way Boeing can't sit on their hands. Putting their eggs in SAF's alone seems to me to be too shortsighted considering the paradigm shift in fuels we're coming up against.

Naturally I'm saying all of this from the comfort of my favourite armchair and without an engineering degree. But it's fun speculating.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:19 pm

Delta boards mainline Airbus and 737s using zig zagging wheelchair accessible ramps all the time in Caribbean island destinations, Key West, and some of the winter resorts out west like Steamboat.

Years ago on the 767 we would do it in Paris. But that was straight up stairs to the jet. Not sure how they handled wheelchair passengers for that stuff.
 
Insertnamehere
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:44 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 1:24 pm

BigTikiGuy wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I've always wondered why you wouldn't tolerate longer boarding times on longer range aircraft, and want shorter boarding times on shorter range aircraft, since there are more turns per day. That would imply that a shorter range aircraft with two aisles might be feasible if the turn times could be drastically reduced. Something like the 757-300 board times would be less of an issue on longer range flights.

I assume the A321 is slower to board, approaching the 757 times. Does it board from a mid-door? That would also seem to be a way to speed up boarding, as the boarding line would split into two directions after entering the plane.


Airports and airlines need to start rethinking the boarding process outright. The infrastructure behind airports is so overdone, especially in the US. Nothing gets me going like watching European ULCCs boarding from the tarmac through the front and rear doors of the aircraft. Just ditch the jetbridge for everything but long-haul and reduce airport costs.


Much like turboprops, some things just don't work in the U.S. market.

In the U.S. boarding via airstairs is seen as weird, I have personally only used stairs once in the U.S. when I was on an AA MD80 and the jetway broke so we left via the rear airstairs. While it might provide marginal timing improvements, it probably wouldn't go over well with the public and the bean counters haven't seen it as enough of a time save to be worth the added investment of enough air stairs for an entire departure wave at a large hub.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:55 pm

SteelChair wrote:
Ref boarding from the tarmac: how uncivilized. And Europeans brag about their civility.

There is this thing called the American Disabilities Act. It's difficult to board from the tarmac if you are in a wheelchair. The person has to literally be carried up and down the stairs, sometimes in the rain. To say nothing of the dangers caused by small children getting loose on the ramp.

Really, boarding from the tarmac is very 1950s.

Never seen a person in a wheelchair being carried up and down the stairs; that's not only dangerous, but would violate a lot of countries' safety rules. And let's not even discuss about liability in case the person-in-wheelchair falls.

There are some lifts for this purpose.
 
2eng2efficient
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:30 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:13 pm

I will never forget flying US Airways PHL-CDG on an A332, we deplaned via a single stair placed at L2. It was a gorgeous spring morning in Paris and I felt like I was in a different decade! Some of the other pax were grumbling about it though. I only dislike it when the weather is bad.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:27 pm

Leovinus wrote:
I hope I don't upset the interesting discussion about boarding practices, but I see Boeings problem from a bit of a different perspective. I'd say the biggest gamble comes precisely from what energy source the aircraft is designed around. Regardless of which they will need to make a new aircraft (or refresh say the 757) in such a way as to accommodate that future energy source. Hydrogen or solid state battery technology? Either choice present very different needs on ground infrastructure and aircraft architecture. SAF's are a stopgap. A valuable stopgap, but a stopgap.

Boeing is talking up SAF's, mainly because it's convenient. It's a drop-in solution whose lifecycle can be made carbon neutral, but one that is still more wasteful than purely electric. The EU is making solid moves towards a carbon neutral future where hydrogen seems, for now, to be in the forefront. At least if France is to be trusted. Does that mean the rest of the world will follow in time? Who knows. But lets take hydrogen as a hypothetical and what it could mean for Boeing:

Boeing could theoretically create an airframe prepared for a hydrogen future by making a hydrogen combusting Gen 1 and a hydrogen fuel cell Gen 2. Both require space for hydrogen storage and could theoretically be the same basic airframe. They would differ only in engines and ancillary equipment. Gen 1 would be running on hydrogen adapted "ordinary" jet engines. Combusting hydrogen instead of Jet-A. Gen 2 would use electric engines and a fuel cell fed by the stored hydrogen instead. If the Gen 1 aircraft can be made to use both Jet-A and hydrogen depending on availability the future-proofing would be complete, letting airlines phase in greener fuels and engines as they develop.

If Boeing goes such a route they would have a possible first mover advantage in that they would set the pace, direction, and infrastructure requirements of future aircraft. Airbus would naturally have their own advantage seeing Boeing do said leg-work, but would need to follow.

Of course, it would depend on wether or not hydrogen truly is the future. I would tend to think that it should be, in part if not by itself. Either way Boeing can't sit on their hands. Putting their eggs in SAF's alone seems to me to be too shortsighted considering the paradigm shift in fuels we're coming up against.

Naturally I'm saying all of this from the comfort of my favourite armchair and without an engineering degree. But it's fun speculating.


This is a very good point - if Boeing wants this aircraft to last decades, its energy source will be extremely important.
 
S0Y
Posts: 155
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:25 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:30 pm

I think we have 2 totally different threads here, the first (with a handful of posts) about Boeing and another all about boarding methods. I was at the end of the thread before I started wondering how I got into this only to realize I had started reading a very different topic.
Mods should probably split the thread in 2
 
User avatar
NWAROOSTER
Posts: 1399
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:57 pm

Hydrogen powered aircraft has a major drawback. It needs to be stored under compression and it is very explosive. Jet A is obviously flammable but does not have the potentially dangerous problem hydrogen has. The system has to be made leak proof and would require frequent pressures checks. Everyone should remember the Hindenburg.
Batteries can be heavy and need regular charging and how long would they last before needing to be replaced. Don't know what amount of space they would need or how far an aircraft could fly on a full charge or how long it would take to fully charge the batteries. They also have their problems especially if they are lithium with the possibility of fires and explosions. :old:
 
Vicenza
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2020 3:21 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:35 pm

Insertnamehere wrote:

Much like turboprops, some things just don't work in the U.S. market.


Yes, but that certainly doesn't make them invalid or incorrect
 
DartHerald
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 6:52 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Leovinus wrote:
I hope I don't upset the interesting discussion about boarding practices, but I see Boeings problem from a bit of a different perspective. I'd say the biggest gamble comes precisely from what energy source the aircraft is designed around. Regardless of which they will need to make a new aircraft (or refresh say the 757) in such a way as to accommodate that future energy source. Hydrogen or solid state battery technology? Either choice present very different needs on ground infrastructure and aircraft architecture. SAF's are a stopgap. A valuable stopgap, but a stopgap.

Boeing is talking up SAF's, mainly because it's convenient. It's a drop-in solution whose lifecycle can be made carbon neutral, but one that is still more wasteful than purely electric. The EU is making solid moves towards a carbon neutral future where hydrogen seems, for now, to be in the forefront. At least if France is to be trusted. Does that mean the rest of the world will follow in time? Who knows. But lets take hydrogen as a hypothetical and what it could mean for Boeing:

Boeing could theoretically create an airframe prepared for a hydrogen future by making a hydrogen combusting Gen 1 and a hydrogen fuel cell Gen 2. Both require space for hydrogen storage and could theoretically be the same basic airframe. They would differ only in engines and ancillary equipment. Gen 1 would be running on hydrogen adapted "ordinary" jet engines. Combusting hydrogen instead of Jet-A. Gen 2 would use electric engines and a fuel cell fed by the stored hydrogen instead. If the Gen 1 aircraft can be made to use both Jet-A and hydrogen depending on availability the future-proofing would be complete, letting airlines phase in greener fuels and engines as they develop.

If Boeing goes such a route they would have a possible first mover advantage in that they would set the pace, direction, and infrastructure requirements of future aircraft. Airbus would naturally have their own advantage seeing Boeing do said leg-work, but would need to follow.

Of course, it would depend on wether or not hydrogen truly is the future. I would tend to think that it should be, in part if not by itself. Either way Boeing can't sit on their hands. Putting their eggs in SAF's alone seems to me to be too shortsighted considering the paradigm shift in fuels we're coming up against.

Naturally I'm saying all of this from the comfort of my favourite armchair and without an engineering degree. But it's fun speculating.


This is a very good point - if Boeing wants this aircraft to last decades, its energy source will be extremely important.


I'd be willing to bet that this plane will be designed for conventional jet fuel in the shorter term and SAF longer term and that should give a it a 30 year lifespan in production.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:34 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Jetport wrote:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-billion-jet-dilemma-facing-070218030.html

Not much new here, other than they are only talking single aisle MOM.


Jon Ostrower reports the 753 is "part of the template" for the new aircraft. https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/ ... 54819?s=20

From merely an enthusiast's view, I would think there are some issues with this, namely boarding experience (requiring longer turn times, etc.) by crowding in a single aisle, and cargo. But, perhaps the economics result in this being a more cost effective solution than a wide body because its a smaller tube.

Edit to add that JO also states its a very "focused attack" in response to Leeham's reply. Spending these resources on such a focused attack is a major gamble as most aircraft development have been to have a more flexible design. On the other hand, perhaps a narrow focus will maximize efficiency and create a large market.


757s use L2, it is quicker than an A321 or 737 in my experience as 15-20% of the passengers are exiting from the front end. I wish the 737-8 or larger and A321 would use an L2.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 658
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:40 pm

As for using rear and front. That is the quickest way to board. But I dont see that happening in the US.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9051
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:35 pm

There’d be no dilemma at all if Boeing had persevered with the 757, keeping the production line warm even if there were no orders for an extended period would have been billions cheaper than what the Max fiasco has cost them not to mention the cost of developing a clean sheet replacement for the 737 AND the 757 / 767


Boeing was always very good at long term vision, the 747 was the epitome of that with an over fifty year production run they squeezed every last innovation and dollar from that magnificent aircraft


No reason they couldn’t have done the same with the 757, by now it could have been on at least it’s third significant update with new engines, a 787 inspired cockpit and a composite wing it would have offered significant range and efficiency years before the A321XLR, those improvements could have migrated over to its sibling 767 and that medium market would be covered for years to come


Just as importantly that would have allowed their development budget to provide for a clean sheet 737 replacement that would have significantly better numbers than the A321NEO, what they should have built instead of the MAX which should never have seen the light of day
 
User avatar
Leovinus
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:57 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:53 pm

NWAROOSTER wrote:
Hydrogen powered aircraft has a major drawback. It needs to be stored under compression and it is very explosive. Jet A is obviously flammable but does not have the potentially dangerous problem hydrogen has. The system has to be made leak proof and would require frequent pressures checks. Everyone should remember the Hindenburg.
Batteries can be heavy and need regular charging and how long would they last before needing to be replaced. Don't know what amount of space they would need or how far an aircraft could fly on a full charge or how long it would take to fully charge the batteries. They also have their problems especially if they are lithium with the possibility of fires and explosions. :old:


If we'd be building new aircraft with the same technical maturity as the Hindenburg was I too would be worried. But luckily we've come a long way ;)

I don't think all of the tech is there just yet though. But Boeing should (and probably are) thinking ahead. The infrastructure sure isn't ready, so there is a chicken and egg issue for anyone developing alternative fuel aircraft right now. Eviation is right to start small with their beautiful short range electric Alice. Growing their aircraft as technology and infrastructure matures over time. Expecting a hydrogen powered 777 competitor out of the gate would be unlikely. Not because it can't be done (heck you could put the tank inside and still carry hundreds) because right now you'd have no way to fuel it. No airport could serve its needs. Which is why I think forethought is key if Boeing is to develop a long lived workhorse equivalent to the 737.

As to your (quite relevant) points I can only say that hydrogen's major problem isn't its flammability at this stage, but the storage requirements and infrastructure. Liquid hydrogen needs to be kept under high pressure, and pressure vessels are heavy. Lately light weight carbon fibre honeycombs have been successfully tested and used in the car industry however. Technology that can be scaled up. Tupolev had some funny looking concepts of hydrogen storage way back. Here is a Tupolev Tu-204 with a large storage tank grafted onto the fuselage courtesy of global security.org. So long as price of hydrogen compensates for potential aerodynamic and weight losses compared to Jet-A I don't see a problem.

Image

As I said it's not all ready though. Hydrogen would also need storage tanks at airports, production facilities to make it out of green energy, and tankers to move it, and simple things like international standards for nozzles. Handling hydrogen is much harder than Jet-A.

Solid state batteries are also a quasi-solution to traditional lithium-ion batteries. They're more than twice as energy dense which means you can have the same power for half the weight or less. They also last much longer, charge faster, and are less flammable. They'll probably not reach the energy density of Jet-A. But again, that's just a fact of life we need to accept. Oil is going away.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3332
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:22 pm

Max Q wrote:
There’d be no dilemma at all if Boeing had persevered with the 757, keeping the production line warm even if there were no orders for an extended period would have been billions cheaper than what the Max fiasco has cost them not to mention the cost of developing a clean sheet replacement for the 737 AND the 757 / 767


Boeing was always very good at long term vision, the 747 was the epitome of that with an over fifty year production run they squeezed every last innovation and dollar from that magnificent aircraft


No reason they couldn’t have done the same with the 757, by now it could have been on at least it’s third significant update with new engines, a 787 inspired cockpit and a composite wing it would have offered significant range and efficiency years before the A321XLR, those improvements could have migrated over to its sibling 767 and that medium market would be covered for years to come


Just as importantly that would have allowed their development budget to provide for a clean sheet 737 replacement that would have significantly better numbers than the A321NEO, what they should have built instead of the MAX which should never have seen the light of day


There were certainly be a dilemma with the 757. It is based on older technology (heck, we all know the MAX is the last iteration of the 737) and would not have the lasting impact this new aircraft needs.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:18 am

Yay! The 757 made this thread! We have an Airliners.net Bingo!

Kidding aside, SEA just built the Concourse D Annex with 6 bus gates.

6 gates is not much for SEA, but it's a $24 million statement that people who think this won't happen in the US may be incorrect.
 
Chemist
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 12:35 am

I don't see nontraditional fuels being the primary source for a new airplane before the 30's, if even then. Hydrogen has all sorts of problems of energy density, explosiveness, and making metals brittle. Electric has the battery energy density issue. I could see an electric hybrid approach though.
 
Max Q
Posts: 9051
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 2:59 am

jbs2886 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
There’d be no dilemma at all if Boeing had persevered with the 757, keeping the production line warm even if there were no orders for an extended period would have been billions cheaper than what the Max fiasco has cost them not to mention the cost of developing a clean sheet replacement for the 737 AND the 757 / 767


Boeing was always very good at long term vision, the 747 was the epitome of that with an over fifty year production run they squeezed every last innovation and dollar from that magnificent aircraft


No reason they couldn’t have done the same with the 757, by now it could have been on at least it’s third significant update with new engines, a 787 inspired cockpit and a composite wing it would have offered significant range and efficiency years before the A321XLR, those improvements could have migrated over to its sibling 767 and that medium market would be covered for years to come


Just as importantly that would have allowed their development budget to provide for a clean sheet 737 replacement that would have significantly better numbers than the A321NEO, what they should have built instead of the MAX which should never have seen the light of day


There were certainly be a dilemma with the 757. It is based on older technology (heck, we all know the MAX is the last iteration of the 737) and would not have the lasting impact this new aircraft needs.



The 757 was much newer technology than the 737, it had plenty of improvement potential remaining, in fact it never had a significant update, the cockpit remained basically unchanged, it was the airlines that demanded improvements that were supplied by the aftermarket


Early on in the life of the 757 RR developed a substantial engine upgrade with the E4B but after that nothing, more composite construction was looked at along with a stab fuel tank but it was all abandoned



The 767 (excluding the -400) reached its development peak with the 300-ER and had very slow sales for a while but Boeing persevered and it looks like it will be around quite a while longer in civilian and military form


What did Boeing do with the latest 777 ? They put a composite wing on it, new engines and the 787 cockpit, that’s a significant update but not a ‘bet the company proposition’ and it will be a success


That’s exactly what they could have done with the 757 and 767 for that matter, an older design doesn’t automatically become obsolete if you update it with care as Boeing did successfully for decades with the 737 itself (up to the NG) the 747 and 777


Until something drastically changes these are just tubes being pushed through the air, finding the most expensive way to do that isn’t the answer


Pretty sure the next Boeing will be two models that look a lot like the 757-200 and -300, they might have composite wings but I doubt very much they’ll have a 787 like, mostly composite fuselage


With that as a premise, how much better can they be ?
 
MountainFlyer
Posts: 502
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:19 am

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:26 am

Insertnamehere wrote:
In the U.S. boarding via airstairs is seen as weird, I have personally only used stairs once in the U.S. when I was on an AA MD80 and the jetway broke so we left via the rear airstairs. While it might provide marginal timing improvements, it probably wouldn't go over well with the public and the bean counters haven't seen it as enough of a time save to be worth the added investment of enough air stairs for an entire departure wave at a large hub.


WN does front/back boarding all the time in some US markets. When I used to commute to SMF frequently, a WN focus city of sorts, it was actually almost more common than not to board/deplane both front and back simultaneously even while parked at the gate.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Reuters: The $15 billion jet dilemma facing Boeing's CEO

Sat Jun 05, 2021 3:30 am

Max Q wrote:
What did Boeing do with the latest 777 ? They put a composite wing on it, new engines and the 787 cockpit, that’s a significant update but not a ‘bet the company proposition’ and it will be a success


That’s exactly what they could have done with the 757 and 767 for that matter, an older design doesn’t automatically become obsolete if you update it with care as Boeing did successfully for decades with the 737 itself (up to the NG) the 747 and 777


But why? The 757 was amazing. Hot, high, sprightly, a sportscar. The 737 is a minivan.

There are a lot of minivans on the road.

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