14 replies to this topic

[Scalpel4]

I'm writing a paper on Boeing vs. Airbus, focus on Boeing. The question I am to answer is - "How does Boeing battle it out versus Airbus for supremacy?" I have several thoughts and points of view already, but I want to open up this discussion. Perhaps you thought about something I didn't?

If you were in charge of Boeing, what would you do? Feel free to post whatever you like.

POINT OF ORDER, this is NOT an Airbus or Boeing FLAME thread, so keep it civil and preferably somewhat intelligent.

[HADC10]

If I were head of Boeing, I would keep the 717, or design a more fuel efficient version to compete w/ the ERJ-190

[Fly_Germany]

that sounds good.. personally i think Airbus goes for the more economic side with the same design structures etc... and boeing gets a lot more creative with new futuristic intresting designs that introduce an entirely new species of aircraft (if theres such thing). Thats all that really gives me the feeling of difference, Airbus keeps the same design (jsut look at the A330 and A340= just longer and more engines) and boeing seems to me as a trend setter (like the 747= A380 etc..)

Hope that lot of words makes sense.. Good luck with the paper!

[sawilson1971]

Boeing should scale down the 717 and rebrand it as the boeing Regional Jet offering 60 to 95 seats. It should use as much B737NG cockpit and systems as possible and apply for cross cockpit rating for flight crews. A further stretch of the 737 to offer up to 220 seats and 4000nm range should be a world beater; especially as crews could be cross-trained and certified from a 60 seat BRJ flying 45 minute hops to flying JFK LHR. This would be of significant economic value to airlines. With the RJX Dornier 728 and future Large Canadair jets being canned their is definatley a market. Get into it before airbus shrinks the A318 further into the Airbus RJ.

A further expansion of the 737 should be possible. I think it should be re-modelled into a 180 to 200 seat four engined ultra long ranged aircraft capable of flying from smaller airports in cities across the world. A route it could be put into service could be Berlin to Vegas.

A separate project would be a 1000 seat aircraft (2 or 4 engined) of a range of up to 4000 nm with a quick turn around time. It could be used profitably on routes where capacity is needed where further flights cannot be operated such as JFK to LHR.

Regards

Steve

[Tump]

If I was Boeing I would not look at the regional market at all. There's no real money there for Boeing.
If I was the CEO of Boeing I would put full energy into the two current projects of the 787 and 748. Marketing the 748 better as they do now could improve the sales.
Also I would slowly start researching into a 737 successor. And keep that perhaps secret, like some bizjet manufacturers do. This of course to gain advantage over Airbus and the other competition in terms of knowledge (research). Being technologically a few years ahead of someone is VERY important.
And being technologically ahead of someone explains why I have much faith in the 787. It introduces composites into commercial aviation (glare on the A380 could also be considered to that though, just its being used in a relativily lesser extend) and a new effecient production method. Of course, it all remains to be seen, but with years of research, planning, calculating et cetera there isn't exactly much that can go completely wrong. Not with now-a-days technology.

I would certainly NOT re-open the 717 line, and wouldnt make a smaller 717 either. Remember, the 717 is already a short MD90 with different engines. That means it has relativily a lot of weight (per seat). Making an even shorter 717 will make that worse, and absolutely not competable with the CRJ700/900 and EMB170 family. Also, the regional market isnt exactly one that is booming. The European regionals are doing just fine with a nice growth, but they got all the planes they desire already, and the US regional market.... well... lets say 9/11 is still leaving its marks there. Just no good. Its not without reason Bombardier stopped the C-series :eureka: . If there's no demand, or the market is already satisfied with an advanced product, one would be mad to enter that market.

So my view on Boeing:
Dont go regional (counts for both airbus and boeing)
787 and 748 will serve the market of 200 to 400+ seats. With the current 777 in between.
current 737NG will do for the next decade, after that a replacement for the 130 to 200 seat market. (73G - 739ER)
767 line wont remain open for another decade, probably will close in a few years, apart from the tanker-deal with USAF.



And for Airbus,
pff... I would certainly try to market the A380 even better as they do now, cause Im afraid they wont sell an awful lot of those after the current initial orders. And fix the A340 or close the line!
Also, I think Airbus certainly needs to look at a new family of aircraft. Not upgrades of the current family. Perhaps the should go like boeing, but then design an all new A370 plane for the 200 - 300 seat market and build a family around it, like they started 35 years ago with the A300.

[Russ]

I have a couple questions.

first, what do you mean by supremecy? There are multiple metrics youcan choose. Airbus likes planes ordered, because they have more on order. B likes order value because of the higher price per plane sold.

Second, what time frame. It takes 5 -10 years for any changes to be delivered.

Thirdly, what market segment?

Fourthly, what are the technologies that could make a difference and why?

[Tump]

I have a couple questions.

first, what do you mean by supremecy? There are multiple metrics youcan choose. Airbus likes planes ordered, because they have more on order. B likes order value because of the higher price per plane sold.

Second, what time frame. It takes 5 -10 years for any changes to be delivered.

Thirdly, what market segment?

Fourthly, what are the technologies that could make a difference and why?

I cant awnser the first three of course, I just took the next 2-3 decades as my time-frame and just the general stuff going on in the commercial divisions of Boeing and Airbus.

But as to your fourth question,
think of technologies as new materials, especially weight saving strong materials, glare, composites, maybe some new metal alloy soon, who knows? Also, though I left his out, things can change on the flightdeck, in bizjets there's a new hype going on with easy cockpits (maybe easy isnt the right word, but at least they are designed to reduce workload). Or think of new engines, that perhaps run on a different kind of fuel. Look at that brasilian crop duster that flies on ethanol . Or the fact that they are looking at installing electric engines on the gear to taxi with. Saves fuel. Just name a few other technologies as well if you like. In the end, any new technology can make a difference to improving economics of an airplane (and often enviromentally too). And with new technologies a manufacturer can build a better product, which often sells better too :eureka:

[sawilson1971]

Re: And for Airbus,
pff... I would certainly try to market the A380 even better as they do now, cause Im afraid they wont sell an awful lot of those after the current initial orders. And fix the A340 or close the line!
Also, I think Airbus certainly needs to look at a new family of aircraft. Not upgrades of the current family. Perhaps the should go like boeing, but then design an all new A370 plane for the 200 - 300 seat market and build a family around it, like they started 35 years ago with the A300

Their certainly is a gap in the market here. With the A300, A310 and the 757 out of production a gap in the market exists in the 200 to 250 seat market. A quick fix would be to shrink the 767/A330 or again to stretch the 737/A321.

Regards

Steve

[Tump]

I think from Boeing's side the close that gap well with the 787-3. From Airbus side though....

But at the meantime, A332's (250 seat) are still being ordered and delivered, and there are quite a bit of 2nd hand 767s available, to fill the gap till the 787-3 arrives.

Another stretch of the 737 (739!) or A321 isnt really technically possible. I mean, the 739 has quite a low angle before a tailstrike can happen, thats why Boeing reduced that risk by enlarging the approach speed. (For tailstrike on landing). I mean, how fast do you want to go with the 737-1000? Nose down approach?
The A321 is on the other hand already different from the A320, if Im not mistaken it has a strengthened belly to support the weight, I think more strengthening is needed for another stretch, but Im no Airbus mechanic . Oh well, if Airbus really wishes to close the gap Im sure they are lookin at something.

[Russ]

I think from Boeing's side the close that gap well with the 787-3. From Airbus side though....

But at the meantime, A332's (250 seat) are still being ordered and delivered, and there are quite a bit of 2nd hand 767s available, to fill the gap till the 787-3 arrives.

Another stretch of the 737 (739!) or A321 isnt really technically possible. I mean, the 739 has quite a low angle before a tailstrike can happen, thats why Boeing reduced that risk by enlarging the approach speed. (For tailstrike on landing). I mean, how fast do you want to go with the 737-1000? Nose down approach?
The A321 is on the other hand already different from the A320, if Im not mistaken it has a strengthened belly to support the weight, I think more strengthening is needed for another stretch, but Im no Airbus mechanic . Oh well, if Airbus really wishes to close the gap Im sure they are lookin at something.

I think that the goal for both compaines is to decrease operating costs per flight. Neither the 787 nor the 350 are being produced for capacity but for improved effiency. Streching the current airframes gains very little in the marketplace.

[Scalpel4]

FYI all, writing the paper this week. I'll submit it to Miller when done for anyone who wants to read. LAST CHANCE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION!

[gizgiz]

Boeing should:

- Squeeze down the A320 family and produce more fuel-efficient, fly-by-wire controlled and slightly longer range 737's. This market is enormous, and Boeing's 737 orders have gone down from its major peak before the NG's came out - and 319,320,321 orders have skyrocketed...get that market back
- Stop 717 production - there really is no need for these anymore, especially with a New 737 NG (as proposed above) and Airbus counterparts.
- Continue on with composite material, cockpit technology and cabin comfort research, and apply them to the 787, 748, maybe even the new 737's as said above

Begin research on hydrogen-powered planes. This is a new idea I'm toying with myself - with H2 powered engines, it saves companies from tapping as much airport water (as these engines, as their "waste product" do make pure H2O). It also could reduce sound pollution, and would be especially well-received around airport neighbourhoods. Also, these engines don't need to be refueled - all that gas up there! Even if it does need a bit of help on the ground, it's a lot less expensive for airlines to do refuel a plane with oxygen than with kerosene.

Best of all, it doesn't pollute the air!

[Coeurlion]

Oil companies wont let that technology go public.

[Russ]

Boeing should:


Begin research on hydrogen-powered planes. This is a new idea I'm toying with myself - with H2 powered engines, it saves companies from tapping as much airport water (as these engines, as their "waste product" do make pure H2O). It also could reduce sound pollution, and would be especially well-received around airport neighbourhoods. Also, these engines don't need to be refueled - all that gas up there! Even if it does need a bit of help on the ground, it's a lot less expensive for airlines to do refuel a plane with oxygen than with kerosene.

Best of all, it doesn't pollute the air!

There are major problems with H2 such as lower energy density which will make it a very long term solution. It will have no impact on the A vs B market for a long long time.

Also you have to remember that other parties have as much influence over this issue as the companies themselves. The Engine manf drove the 787 for as much as the composite gets the headlines. Without the new engines the 787 is a marginal improvement over current models.

And the airlines have influence over future directions that cannot be ignored. reference the sonic cruiser. In the dicussions that I have read, unless the manf can get a 15% eff increase in the next gen of A32x/B73x, the airlines are not going to replace their current fleets. And the problem is that there is no engine that will get them there.

The move to the 100 passanger market has stalled for years because there is nothing that would provide a competitive advantage over existing models. Expect them to continue to study that issue to death. There isn't a huge ROI in that market for these companies.

[Russ]

Oil companies wont let that technology go public.

Wrong, Oil companies are some of the leading researchers in this field. Who do you think owns all the distribution infrastructure? They make money if they sell gas or H2. Refining has been a low margin business for decades so nothing to protect there and exploration has become more expensive and risky; so H2 would be a better investment. And this would remain a petrochemical based economy (think plastics) so their current cash flow would not be threatened for a lot longer.