BABC Conference, Part 1: WA State’s position, Boeing’s outlook

The British American Business Council-Pacific Northwest is sponsoring a conference today on the Advanced Technologies for Next Generation Aircraft in Seattle. We’ll have several reports, starting with this one.

Alex Pietsch of the Governor’s Office of Aerospace, kicked off the conference, saying that Boeing employees more than Microsoft, Starbucks and Amazon combined.

“No one should question Wasnhington’s place in aircraft production,” Pietsch said, noting the siting of the 777X assembly and wing production, a rate increase to 52/mo for the 737 and expansion by suppliers.

Thanks to the 777X, Washington will be the only location in the US where composite wings are built, Pietsch said.

Kourosh Hadi senior director of Boeing Airplane Product Development, said that trends in commercial aviation during the next 20 years indicate that single-aisle aircraft and demand remains the “fastest growing, most dynamic segment” in the industry. Traffic demand continues at 4%-5% per year, despite four recessions, two financial recessions, two Gulf Wars and other global factors.

Hadi indicated that “advanced designs” fall within the 2021-2030 timeframe and “future concepts” fall from 2031 and beyond. Advanced designs include advancements in aerodynamics, systems and propulsion. Future designs might include SST and other concepts.

Technology has to add value, Hadi says, for performance, cost, production rates, Cash Airplane Related Operating Costs (CAROC, a common Boeing term) and environmental issues are focus areas.

First flight of the 737-8 MAX is early 2016, with EIS with Southwest Airlines in July 2017.

Hadi said it was “mind-boggling” that Boeing is improving the 777 by 20% with the 777X, a plane he characterized as one of the finest aircraft ever produced.

Flight test of the 777X is slated to begin in 2019, with firm configuration next year and detailed design in 2016 and the production to begin in 2017.

  • Our observation: Hadi detailed the 777 Classic, 777X and 787 families but only talked about the 737-8. FWIW.
  • In a change from practice, and a refreshing one, Boeing compared its next round of aircraft with its own current and past generation aircraft rather than bashing Airbus at every opportunity.


15 Comments on “BABC Conference, Part 1: WA State’s position, Boeing’s outlook

  1. “Hadi said it was “mind-boggling” that Boeing is improving the 777 by 20% with the 777X, a plane he characterized as one of the finest aircraft ever produced.”

    I guess he forgot to mention big part of the mind boggling “innovation” is assuming an airline now has 9 abreast and decides to sqeeze in 10 instead on the 7x and than compare per seat. Bordering dishonesty IMO.

    • Yes, for a 777x to A350 comparison, the 777x configuration has to be half at 19″, 9 wide, extra-econ, and half at 17″, 10 wide, sub-econ.

  2. Isn’t up to airlines to the airlines to decide, not us? Airlines are in business to make money, not friends. Carriers who have 9 abreast could go 10 because it brings in more money than 9 abreast.

    • Yeah, right, but Boeing preempts that decission by comparing a 9 abreast 777 with a 10 abreast 777x.
      comparing a 9 abreast 777-300ER against a 9 abreast 777-9x will (probably) only show less than 10% improvement. same for comparing 10 abreast arrangements. ( going from 9 to 10 abreast leverages a delta of 11% )
      As ever, bananas compared to t*ds.

      • Even using a 9 abreast comparison, the 777x beats the almighty 777-300 by a significant percentage. The new engines themselves bring 10% improvement on sfc, the new wing design add to that improvement, the 777x will carry more pax and hence will have a superior efficiency per seat.

  3. What would the numbers look like if the A350-1000 is configured with 10 abreast?

  4. I find this comment amusing and suggesting a bias of the commentator toward airbus
    “◾In a change from practice, and a refreshing one, Boeing compared its next round of aircraft with its own current and past generation aircraft rather than bashing Airbus at every opportunity.”
    As if airbus will let pass an opportunity to bash Boeing and Boeing products that set the standard that airbus is imitating.
    I have personally seen more of airbus bashing Boeing than the opposite, also seen documents marked as Boeing proprietary leaked to AB and used by AB to bash the boeing 787

    • Could you give some examples of what you consider A bashing B?
      If you include A correcting B on given “facts” A is obviously guilty of an active roll in an A on B bashfest.

      • Uwe,

        I wouldn’t trust any Airbus “correction of Boeing facts” anymore would I trust Boeing’s “correction of Airbus facts.” The fact that you wrote that implies a bias. Both companies will skew the “facts” their way in any way possible, as they have an obvious reason to do so.

        And, really, you have to ask for examples of Airbus bashing Boeing? Come on, Dude. John Leahy (you remember him?) is an all time Boeing basher. That is too easy….

        • I didn’t ask for your ( or anyones ) opinion and personal bias in that context.
          I asked for some substantial examples.

          Then, if a select information source regularly misinforms correction can never be bias.
          The tag “bias” is regularly misused in a partisan discussion.

          Finally: finding “$xyz proprietary” stuff in the wild is a problem for $xyz and potentially their partners they have an NDA with … _and_ really nobody else.

          • Really? Uwe, surely you remember these classics:

            “Pinocchio” ad?

            “787 is a Chinese copy of the A330”?

            “777x is Avery heavy ‘paper airplane’?

            ” Boeing’s lineup is a ‘dog’s breakfast”?

            “787 is not reliable and it will suffer a lot more cancelations”?

            ” 4 engines are better than 2″?

            That’s just the highlights!

          • Neutron73!
            So, what is “patently wrong” with your example statements?
            In the established scope of PR statements I would place your examples in the “stated fact” going to “slightly overstated” range.

            A misconception regularly called up:
            in context of ETOPS intensely managed Twins used to be deemed _good enough_ to fly a limited set of 4 holer routes.
            “good enough” does not equal to “better”.

            Only with the most recent improvements to reliability could the case be made that a 2 engine setup can be more reliable than a 4 engine setup. But this is valid for engines/planes certified ETOPS beyond 300/350 and not the ETOPS 180 when that statement was made.

  5. Uwe,

    I’m not even going to try to engage in that conversation, because I can see you are moving the goalposts already.

  6. I just wanted to point out putting more, smaller seats in a given space and then claim a mind boggling efficiency improvement is fair and ethical correct communication if you mention what you did.

    If you don’t mention you mean efficiency per seat and you cramped in small ones to get there, well, it isn’t fair and ethical correct communication. Agree?

    For me credibility takes a hit if you try to smart out a moderately informed large public to create perceptions like that.

Leave a Reply

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