Airbus made a dumb bet. It thought that what the world's airlines wanted was bigger airplanes. What they'd really like, of course, is economic supersonic aircraft, but none (or, should I say, neither?) of the major aircraft manufacturers understand the problem well enough to go after that market.

Now, it turns out that, for some strange reason, their customers (and their customers' customers, the actual passengers) didn't want airplanes that took a humungous amount of time to board and unboard, and wouldn't fit in many of the existing terminal gates. Not to mention how attractive a target a 900-passenger aircraft would be to a terrorist...

Somehow, while Boeing hasn't been impressive in the commercial air industry as of late, I don't think that they would have made a marketing blunder like this, if for no other reason than, well...they haven't. They've been looking into more economical smaller planes instead (though they still don't understand the supersonic issues). Only a quasi-government aircraft company like Airbus could get way with a dumb decision like this one, and I suspect that they'll be bailed out of any negative consequences.

G'day,

Tell me, do you reckon theres a market for sub orbital passanger/cargo rocketplanes? I would think being able to get anywhere in the world in 45 minutes would have a reasonable market.

ta

Ralph

Interesting...
At Slate Douglas Gantenbein says Boeing are stuffed for not going with hyper fuel efficient and innovative jumbos.

I guess the dilemma is where do you put the bottle-neck: at the gate or in the skylanes and runways? One provides discomfort; the other real live danger...

Not to mention how attractive a target a 900-passenger aircraft would be to a terrorist...

Which raises an interesting question - on 9/11, why didnt Atta el al. go after jumbos?

Interesting article, Rand.

Technology Review (iirc), back in August (ditto), ran an article about Boeing being in a slow-death spiral b/c it was pursuing second-best alternatives compared w/ Airbus. The article argued that Airbus was pursuing true innovation, while Boeing was simply trying to do "more of the same, only better."

Duncan - why not jumbos? I bet that one major reason is that there are simply more of the smaller planes, so scheduling was easier that way. Also crowd control on two decks would be much harder.

Also, as usual, better is the eternal enemy of good enough. Its apparent that they didnt need jumbos.

If it takes me 7 hours to go from the East Coast to Heathrow, why would I care if the plane I'm on carries 200 people or 900 people?

Get me where I'm going faster. Flying is expensive, uncomfortable, tiring, and boring. The less time I spend doing it, the better.

As a contractor that has worked both with Boeing and Airbus, I can tell you that not only is this not a "dumb decision", but it will succeed. Japan is in several business deals with Boeing, and surprising as it may seem, within 10 years Boeing will have successfully dealt all of it's commercial airline manufacturing holdings to the Japanese. It will be a somewhat slow process, first moving the HQ to Chicago, now giving all wing manufacture for the 7E7 to Japan.
Airbus, government subsidy notwithstanding, will soon corner the market for passenger travel. Their planes are better designed, easier and cheaper to manufacture, and will fully penetrate the global market with impunity. These are not the only reasons. Boeing's corporate morass, coupled with the union stranglehold, has doomed the company for failure in the airline market.

If Boeing can make the 7E7 work, then there is hope. The most profitable, fastest growing airlines are all point to point low cost airlines. There is a lot of customers there. Easyjet, Southwest, RyanAir all come to mind.

As one poster stated, it is a strategy that airlines will have to decide on where the bottleneck is, at the gate or in the pattern. A smaller craft allows more flexibility in airport planning. A longer range aircraft gives more city pairs that airlines can serve. A larger aircraft reduces the number of flights that are required. A larger aircraft also increases the turn around time on the ground.

Regarding the "more of the same" comment, the 7E7 is not more of the same with the large percentage of composites that are proposed as well as the use of monolithic structures. Say what you want about monolithic structures, they are certainly controversial, but they are not more of the same. The aborted attempt at Sonic Cruiser wasn't more of the same either.

The 7E7 will present a huge leap in the use of composites if it goes as planned. This will payback in the future. It will represent a large technological lead for Boeing.

The 7E7 is attacking long range as well as short range routes. Boeing is slated to produce a 3500, 7800, and 8300 mile version. This gives flexibility to the customers who value flexibility.

I will agree that Boeing hasn't demonstrated a lot of backbone in the last five years. Everything I have written will amount to nothing if Stonecipher waffles on 7E7. This is my biggest worry.

The announcement for 7E7 is December 15th. If we go for it, I say there is a game afoot again. The game is essentially hub and spoke versus point to point. Which route planning strategy wins will determine which airplane wins.

If we don't go for 7E7, then I am pessimistic as my contractor friend in the previous post.

Regarding 9/11: Al Qaeda got sufficiently many casualties from their ground targets. They specifically selected long distance routes with full fuel loads. The additional juiciness of a 747 target wouldn't have added much to the damage that was inflicted on their enemy. They were pretty clinical about their planning actually.

Disclosure: I am a Boeing employee. Everything stated in my post is a personal opinion and not a corporate statement. All the information is publically available.

To the anonymous contractor who says that Boeing is selling it's production capability to Japan. Would you be willing to put forward a timeline or at least some intermediate observables? Obviously, having Boeing's production facilities in Japan in ten years would be proof that you're right, but do you have any ideas about what Boeing will do over the next few years in the purported Japanese move? One key factor seems to be that they have to start moving manufacturing capability to Japan (like the fuselage and wings).

A side point is that Japan seems to have an advantage on making composite materials. So perhaps this explains why they're partners in building the 7E7.

To Karl,

You already posted a link regarding the wing and fuselage. You seem to be asking questions for which you already know the answer.

Contractor may have been speaking colloquially when he said "dealt maufacturing holdings" to Japan. I doubt you will see a factory over there with a Boeing logo on the side. You will see the major structures inside the plant with Boeing part numbers on them. The end result is the same. The Japanese do the work. The Americans do not.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/flash.html
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/releases.html

Most specfically:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q4/nr_031120g.html

Since Boeing has stated that the 7E7 will be airborne in 2008, that pretty much gives you a timeline.

From:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/background.html

Authority to offer the airplane is expected in late 2003 or early 2004, with the first firm offers made to airlines in early 2004. Production will begin in 2006. First flight is expected in 2007 with certification, delivery and entry into service occurring in 2008.

Again, everything I have said is public information.

And one more thing. The nation which has the biggest advantage in making structures from composites is the nation that operates the most stealth military aircraft.

Whatever nation that happens to be will have to transfer technology to Japan to get them up to speed.

Now if we could just find a nation that has such a knowledge of composites. :)

There are companies that have their names on the stealth aircraft in service and then there is the subcontracting company that actually built the largest chunk of the planes.

Who might that be? :)

Qoute: "Airbus, government subsidy notwithstanding, will soon corner the market for passenger travel. Their planes are better designed."

Sorry but I don't think a airplane has a very good design if the pilot can simply move the controls in such a fashion as to snap the vertical stabilizer clean off.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/2002/may08/airbus.html