Odds and Ends: A350 pressures Boeing for 777X; the future of flight; FAA and 787; “one Boeing”

A350 Pressures Boeing: With the first flight of the Airbus A350 now scheduled for tomorrow (instead of today), Bloomberg News reports that the pressure is increased on Boeing to go forward with the 777X.

The future of flight: Is this what flying will be like in the future?

Congressional hearing on 787: The FAA says its certification system is good and that the 787 is safe.

“One Boeing:” This means the defense and commercial units working together. Aviation Week has this article; we’ll be talking about this more next week.

28 Comments on “Odds and Ends: A350 pressures Boeing for 777X; the future of flight; FAA and 787; “one Boeing”

  1. That concept plane thing has been around for awhile now. The transparent fuselage thing is cool (and would terrify most people) but I have to say I hope by the time our technology is that advanced we’ll have Star-Trek style matter transporters.

  2. I can assure, that will never happen. These Airbus promotional videos are simply created to generate attention in the less technical newspapers and media. This video will be posted in one million blogs, newssites and whatsoever. Job well done: generated public attention ahead of the first flight.
    Fun fact: if you move the date sufficiently far into the future, even technically educated people start to get carried away.

  3. “Ten years ago,” Muilenburg recalls, “we saw rapid growth in defense and a challenging time in the commercial business,” and robust defense sales meant that “we could make the investments we needed to, to build the 787.”

    What everbody knows, but can’t say I guess (WTO)..

    On the 777X, I guess 2020-21 (source : EK) is late to the game. Usually OEMs pimp their existing products to keep them attractive until something new arrives. At current production rates the 777 line is filled until early 2017. The 4 years until the 777X can become available still have to be sold, 300-400 777s. Maybe some nice 777 enhancement in Paris?

    I can see John Leahy trying to create doubts about the 777X at the Paris show next week, just like Boeing did in recent years on the A350-1000.

    A JAL, ANA or UA order for the A350-1000 could send Boeing back to the drawing board.E.g putting a bigger wing on the 787, without hinges.

    • keesje :
      “Ten years ago,” Muilenburg recalls, “we saw rapid growth in defense and a challenging time in the commercial business,” and robust defense sales meant that “we could make the investments we needed to, to build the 787.”
      What everbody knows, but can’t say I guess (WTO)..

      You are twisting words here. If Boeing has an successful defence business, then there is no problem using the profits of the defence business to support other parts of the business. It would be the same if I would have a successful potato business and use the profits from it to develop a 787 competitor.

      You can discuss if the defence projects are awarded in an ethical way and the way the costs are handled after the project has been awarded, but that is a completely different kettle of fish. And the global defence business (does not matter if it is in US, Europe, Russia, India or any other banana republic) is one of the smelliest around. But it is not relevant here. And the global financial meltdown and fiscal cliff do a better job of addressing this problem than years of WTO deliberations.

      • NdB :
        You can discuss if the defence projects are awarded in an ethical way and the way the costs are handled after the project has been awarded, but that is a completely different kettle of fish.

        For what reasons do you exclude that from this discussion?

      • Baroque :
        For what reasons do you exclude that from this discussion?

        Because the US defence establishment never said “oh you are developing the 787, here is another defence contract to help you pay that bill”. There are many political motives behind the awarding of defence contracts all over the world, but subsidising commercial aviation is not one of them.

      • Even when the political motives behind US defense contracts are dubious, they are not “free money”. The contractor has to do the work and often the budgeted hours are on the low side with thin profit margins so the bids are low. The defense R&D contracts I’ve worked on typically have pre-negotiated profits of less than 10%.

        Some people try to make the argument that the contractors make up for it by padding their overhead rates, but there are restrictions on how companies can use those dollars, and as part of the contracting process, the gov gets a very deep view into the company’s finances.

        Also forgotten are the many instances when US defense contractors “bet the company” to win certain contracts involving the use of revolutionary technologies that the gov was not sold on. Examples come to mind like Boeing’s 367-80 (KC-135 and 707 prototype) which was funded entirely by IRAD dollars and GD’s prototype which lead to the F-16 which was also IRAD funded. These companies took a real risk to win those contracts.

        Like you said NdB, these defense contracts do not subsidize the development of commercial aircraft. However, once a company earns a legitimate profit, they can do with it what they want, either pay their shareholders or re-invest it to grow the business.

  4. Interesting ideas but one thing the futurists, no matter who they are, always seem to ignore.
    They can change the design of the airplane but they can do little to change the environment in which it must operate.
    There will always be screaming babies and seagulls, turbulence and lost luggage.

    • You’re obviously not familiar with the Baby eradication plans being put into effect in many western nations and especially Japan. Seagull demography (er…pouliography?) appears to be holding steady as ever, though…

  5. That 350-1000 is putting pressure on B’s 300 ER is old news, nothing new there. It is also a fact that B has always studied (and studied) its cash cow replacements -recall the NSA vs 737 refresh (now called max) . Even McNerney said, they were at least six months late , well it is closer to a year or more.
    I see a bigger wing /reinforcement et al on the 787 at some point of time on top of the 777X -to defend at least half the market unless A’s 350-1000 stops short of its promises.
    B has to speed up its product investment decisions faster in stead of catching up like Max and now 777X. Some how they are reluctant to invest .

    • Thnx intersting article

      “But, as part of a deal in October to sell A350s to Singapore Airlines, Airbus agreed to buy back the carrier’s 10 A340-500s, both companies say.”

      I guess they have 5 in operation, do they own more?

      Airbus isn’t the only company buying back A340s. China Eastern Airlines Corp. 600115.SH +0.34% last year persuaded Boeing to buy its five A340-600s as part of a deal to sell it 20 new 777s.”

      Didn’t know that one..

      Especially for the 340 fans that spent much effort defending her???

      I haven’t seen many defending the A340. It’s been out of the media for a long time. Except Boeing seemingly endlessly dragging in the A340 and how the 777 beat it (keeping dead silence on the A330). “remember 4 engines 4 long haul?”. A bit like “when will Northwest replace their DC9s” 😉

    • I would expect a range of in kind articles in the next days and during PAS
      to counter “First Flight” effects. FUD works ( unfortunately ).

  6. “one boeing” is the kind of mindless doublespeak that is very popular among overly paid boeing executives in my humble opinion . . . the fact Boeing is promoting this nonsense over 15 years after the merger is telling

  7. Down safely, guess the bets are on for an appearance next week! Boeing will really have to pull something out to get more coverage at the show.

  8. Seems like a very successful first flight.

    Often the details / hick-ups become public a few years after..

    • It seemed to be really smooth, congrats to Airbus! I think I saw some flutter of a small piece of the wingcover at the aft of the wingroot of the right wing when the gear was retracting..

  9. I was surprised to see that the wings on the A350 stay relatively straight in flight. They don’t curve upward like on the 787. It makes a striking contrast to the curled wingtip.

    • During the live coverage I followed with one ear someone said the wing could be bent more than 7 meters upwards. I switched to the video and it looks quite amazing. I guess the curved aspect is related to payload and artists impressions by Boeing company:
      real: http://jetphotos.com/jet/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/AA4Z9719.jpg
      art: http://screensaver5.up.seesaa.net/image/B787-ANA.jpg
      art: http://arunrajagopal.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/boeing-747-8.jpg

      Also A350 was not at MTOW.

    • The A350 wing shows significant “gullwinging” / droop at rest ( same for the A380 ) while the 787 wing appears to be rather straight.
      With the wings rather straight under normal load you loose less span from upward bending.

      • It looks like A and B have two different philosophies in regards to wing design. Since the CSeries wings are also made of composite it will be interesting to watch how they behave under various flight loads. It might be closer to that of the 787 since there is no significant wing droop on the ground, from what we can see on the latest CSeries pictures. And we have to keep in mind that the 787 wing has a very high finesse ratio.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *