29 Comments on “Odds and Ends: Boeing ponders 787 rate hike; A350 fly-by at PAS?; EMB wins order for E-Jet”

1. The Globe and Mail:

   “Airbus is keeping a tight lid on the A350’s progress ahead of the maiden flight and broke with tradition by deciding not to hold a lavish “roll-out” party for its new model.”

   I don’t understand why Airbus would decide not to hold a roll-out ceremony of some kind. Unless they plan to use the time saved to go to Paris!

   Reply

   • What’s the point of a roll-out though? Since Boeing kind of already exposed it for the meaningless event that it is, by passing that 787 roll-out as an actual one. You might as well save all the pomp for when it does what it’s actually supposed to do, fly.

     Reply

     • Boeing may have “exposed it for the meaningless event that it is.” But like it has been observed here before, nobody does it better than Boeing. A roll-out ceremony is a show and can generate tremendous publicity. Only the cognoscenti will care wether the flaps are real or an improvised wooden copy.

       Only the date chosen is really questionable: 07-08-07. To hold back on the aircraft reveal a few days, or a few weeks, to make it coincide with the number 787, would have been nice and even justified. But to put an aircraft together hastily with everybody in a panic mode to meat the desired coincidental date was childish in my opinion.

       Reply

   • Normand – “…But to put an aircraft together hastily with everybody in a panic mode to meat the desired coincidental date was childish in my opinion.” Quite. Did no one tell Boeing that such a shorthand style for indicating date ain’t done that way in all other parts of the world. not only arguably childish, but awfully parochial as well.

     Reply

2. Boeing has no choice but to bring the B-787 up to 14 per month. If they don’t, there is no sense to build the B-787-10.

   An A-350 fly by at the PAS? I’ll bet my life savings on it if FF is before the PAS. Airbus may even put it on static display for a day or two.

   Reply

   • I think the chances of a PAS flight are small. A flight test department at this stage is super focussed, putting their reputation (and lives) on the line. Not even the CEO can change the procedures and tests building up to first flight. Landing the new aircraft at Le Bourget with its restricted operational options and flight envellope would most likely be irresponsible. A medium speed pass at respectable height is all we can hope for, if the flight crews gains enough confidence and the required capabilities are confirmed.

     Reply

   • Just as an aside: can anyone think of a public-transport passenger aircraft that turned up at a major international show on the day of its first flight?

     Reply

3. Normand Hamel :

   I don’t understand why Airbus would decide not to hold a roll-out ceremony of some kind. Unless they plan to use the time saved to go to Paris!

   SInce a certain company rolled out of their new jet, and included an empty cockpit and temporary fasterners, rolls outs have proved a little less important, that’s not to say Airbus have a clean sheet with delays to the A380. For them, first flight and delivery are far more important milestones.

   Reply

   • I agree. Too new of an aircraft for a smooth test flight series and perhaps even the test flight might be delayed for a few months. They are breaking new ground and wading in unfamiliar waters.

     Reply

   • If the fake parts had been kept a secret nobody outside Boeing would have questioned the pertinence of that particular roll-out. In fact I was not aware at the time and could not tell the difference with a “real” 787. As for the public at large, they don’t know and they don’t care.

     When people watch a Cirque du Soleil show they are in awe when they see someone flying around like a bird. They don’t care if the performer is attached to steel rope. It might not be real, but it is beautiful.

     Reply

     • Normand Hamel :
       If the fake parts had been kept a secret nobody outside Boeing would have questioned the pertinence of that particular roll-out. In fact I was not aware at the time and could not tell the difference with a “real” 787. As for the public at large, they don’t know and they don’t care.

       At the time, there were close-up shots published that clearly showed that parts of the tail were only held together by run-of-the-mill nuts and bolts from the DIY-store.
       This a.net thread has one of these in its starting post:
       http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3604483/
       Hard to keep that a secret if you’re doing a public roll-out as a PR exercise.
       As for the general public – they don’t buy 787s, and they don’t have to bear the financial burden of delays created by the rework required to partly disassemble the rolled-out plane to get all the right fittings in place.
       While nobody will mind a bit of general public PR, I think the mindset these days is that the target audience to wow in the roll-out/first flight phase consists of airline execs. And they probably won’t be that easy to impress with a lavish roll-out ceremony any more, because they’ve already seen that the roll-out is really only a minor milestone in the grand scheme of things.

       Normand Hamel :
       When people watch a Cirque du Soleil show they are in awe when they see someone flying around like a bird. They don’t care if the performer is attached to steel rope. It might not be real, but it is beautiful.

       Good for you if that’s all you care for in an airplane. Airline execs will take a different view.

       Reply

     • Normand Hamel :
       If the fake parts had been kept a secret nobody outside Boeing would have questioned the pertinence of that particular roll-out. In fact I was not aware at the time and could not tell the difference with a “real” 787. As for the public at large, they don’t know and they don’t care.
       When people watch a Cirque du Soleil show they are in awe when they see someone flying around like a bird. They don’t care if the performer is attached to steel rope. It might not be real, but it is beautiful.

       Exactly. Which is kind of why I think it’s soo meaningless, the fact that you could roll out an empty shell as a complete aircraft, without people being the wiser if it hadn’t come out, shows how much roll-outs are really worth.
       Besides FF without any delays usually take place within a few months of roll-outs anyways. Might as well just wait till then.

       Reply

4. Before increasing rate on the 87, Boeing needs to get down on the cost learning curve. I mean down for real, not just by reducing shipset prices. Suppliers need profits, too.

   Reply

5. Re. KC135. I agree with you, that if the A350 gets air born before the PAS, it
   would be foolish for Airbus not to make at least a fly-by! It will be the most
   cost-effective way for them to advertise the a/p to the whole aviation/airline
   industry and at the most prestigious Airshow of them all, Paris!

   Reply

6. Meanwhile, Jim McNerney is letting loose some “feel-good” vibes.

   CEO: Boeing is ‘way ahead’ of Airbus with 777X

   http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130522/BLOG01/130529959/1005/BIZ

   –

   Airbus doesn’t have an airplane that will compete with the 777X, McNerney said.

   “We’re way ahead of them and it’s going to be fun,” he said.

   –

   Last year, Mike Bair said that Boeing was in a march to put Airbus out of business in the twin-aisle space: 777 vs A340, 787 vs A330, 747-8 vs A380.

   http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/odds-and-ends-787-ramp-up-istat/

   Are these people for real?

   Reply

   • In this case, McNerney is correct that Airbus doesn’t have an airplane to compete with the 777-9X.

     Reply

     • Well, the 777-200 has about 10 percent more floor area than that of the A330-300, yet the latter one seems to have outcompeted the former. The 777-9X will have less than 10 percent more area for seating than the A350-1000. Just because an aircraft has slightly more capacity doesn’t mean it doesn’t compete with the one with slightly less capacity. In fact, the slightly bigger aircraft must at least equal the slightly smaller one on CASM — in a like-for-like seating configuration — if it is to compete.

       Reply

     • Also, doesn’t the 787-9 compete with the A350-900; the latter having about 7 percent greater floor area.

       Reply

     • leehamnet :
       In this case, McNerney is correct that Airbus doesn’t have an airplane to compete with the 777-9X.

       I don’t agree. What would the 779x seat in Airbus marketing configuration, or the A351 in Boeing marketing configuration? You have made this point yourself in the past:

       http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/comparing-the-747-8i-and-the-a380-after-the-advertising-battle-commenced/

       So once Boeing has to calculate F/J/Y with 81″/61″/32″, instead of 62″/39″/32″, how many more seats are left? Which airlines in the real world are still using Boeing config pitch on long-haul flights?

       In the case of the 748i, applying real world pitch (similar to Airbus) reduced the seating by 62 seats, or 13.3%, from 467 to 405. For example, United’s new seat has 60″ in J. Korean Air has 34″ in the new Y. British Airways new first has 79″.

       http://airinsight.com/2012/12/20/comparing-very-large-aircraft-the-a380-and-747-8/

       Applying the same reduction to the 779x, you’ll end up with 354 seats. I leave it up to your imagination what this analysis does to the business case for the 778x. But basically it turns it into a competitor to the A359, rather than the A351.

       Reply

       • Our analysis of typical airline three-class configuration gives the A350-1000 a capacity of 330.

         Reply

7. anfromme :
   While nobody will mind a bit of general public PR, I think the mindset these days is that the target audience to wow in the roll-out/first flight phase consists of airline execs. And they probably won’t be that easy to impress with a lavish roll-out ceremony any more, because they’ve already seen that the roll-out is really only a minor milestone in the grand scheme of things.

   You are making a good point anfromme. But what I had in mind is the general pubic.

   When I learned in Aviation Week that some of the parts were actually makeshift parts I was quite disappointed. But when I realized that all the brouhaha surrounding the roll-out was due to management pushing really hard to make the date coincide with the number 787 I was really upset by the whole thing. Like we say in french I thought that “Boeing avait poussé le bouchon un peu loin!” (Boeing had pushed the cork back in a bit too far!).

   It was not the first time that a manufacturer had rolled out a new aircraft with fake parts. The Canadair Challenger was presented to the public for the first time in 1978 with a few fake parts. But that was minor and mainly cosmetic. What Boeing did was of a different scale altogether.

   Like I said, for the general public it made no difference. And for the cognoscenti I think most of us were happy to finally see what this beauty really looked like “in the flesh”. As for the airline executives that had bought the airplane, I think they were probably very happy to see “their baby” for the first time. Because that’s the point of a roll-out ceremony: to see what it looks like.

   Reply

   • Presenting something as having certain properties that it has not and where the visible part has been carefully augmented to tide over that difference is fraud imho.

     Boeing devalued the virtual milestone “Roll Out” for profane reasons with consequences for the global aircraft industry.

     Reply

8. Herald:

   “Boeing is “five years ahead” of Airbus in new technology, CEO Jim McNerney said during the company’s annual investor conference.”

   That was true for a time, but no longer is. If we subtract the four-year delay on the Dreamliner programme, Boeing is now only one year ahead. Provided the A350 does not incur further delays. Or the 787 for that matter.

   Reply

9. leehamnet :
   Our analysis of typical airline three-class configuration gives the A350-1000 a capacity of 330.

   Fair enough. What’s your number for the 779x, 778x, and A359 if I may ask?

   Reply

   • Haven’t done the X yet (not enough data).

     A359=253 three class in typical airline config today.

     Reply

     • Thanks! That’s very interesting.

       Reply

     • Also, could I ask what your assumptions are? I’m just a bit puzzled, because the A333 is similar to the 359, I believe, and the Korean Air config I posted below (which appears generous to me (34″ Y, lie-flat J, F on board) comes in at 282. That’s 18 below Airbus marketing configuration, or 6%. If you apply the same reduction to the 314 seat Airbus marketing config on the A359 you’ll end up at 295. You are applying a 17.5% reduction, which seems quite substantial?

       Reply

     • By the way, I understand that what I am doing is very very crude. 🙂

       Reply

10. OV-099 :
    Well, the 777-200 has about 10 percent more floor area than that of the A330-300, yet the latter one seems to have outcompeted the former.

    Just look at real world configs. Korean Air, operating both types:

    A333 6/24/252
    772 8/28/212 (one version)

    Difference being that F on the 772 is much nicer (more space, heavier), but total seat count well below the A333.

    Reply