Randy's Journal

All Comments

It's good to have competition - to give customers the very best in what they deserve. It's good to keep innovating your products - to stay ahead of the times. And it's good to keep doing what you are so good at over the years... 'Boeing: Building planes from the past, to the present and into the future'. It's enjoyable reading your blog, and your views of the aviation industry.

Chris T., Malaysia

This article confirms that Boeing's fuselage composite barrel for the 787 is the correct choice. The article also tells you implicitly that 777-300ER will dominate the market until 2016. Now, Boeing has one more year to think about 777-300ER replacement. Boeing has a lot of time.

G.

That was pretty interesting about the 20% more emissions from the Airbus vs. the Boeing jet. I'd be curious (even though it is small in comparison to the overall flight) is there a way to have pre-rotation of the tires before landing to 1) cut down on the rubber smoke and 2) elongating the life of the aircraft tire?

Brent B., Bellevue, Washington

With this new regulation from the FAA, is Boeing planning to replace the 747 with the world's largest twin engine aircraft? It seems like the next logical step. I imagine that Boeing is only really limited my engine size and thrust rating.

Kevin, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Are either of these two (too?) far-fetched concepts at all feasible? 1) Using aluminum with helium bubbled through it while molten to make an ultra-light metal for aircraft structural beams or using an insulating foam with helium bubbled through it to help make aircraft a little less heavier than air? 2) Building an aircraft like "Thunderbird 2" with the passenger/freight section in the form of a self-contained secure unit to be picked up by the aircraft. The passenger unit could be loaded elsewhere (city centre even) and transported out to the waiting aircraft to be picked up and locked in place.

Graham C., Luxembourg

Thanks for providing this blog. Finally, people like myself who are aviation enthusiasts the world over, can find some credible info, online, about the "insider" trends & info about airplanes from the most sought after airframe maker on planet earth: B-O-E-I-N-G. How awesome is that? I'll check the site on a frequent basis, now that I've found out about it....then onto Airliners.net.

Jason F., Ashburn, Virginia

I hope this isn't too far off topic, but I found your post about the closing of the Boeing plant in Long Beach, CA with the last 717. I happened to be there last night and was dismayed to see the beautiful "Fly DC Jets" sign dark. Do you know if there are any plans or efforts underway to save the sign?

John B., Manhattan Beach, California

John, the sign will indeed be preserved, and will be a prominent fixture as part of the Douglas Park construction project across from the factory. The building the sign is currently on is not occupied, so power to the building and sign is turned off right now to preserve electricity.

Randy Baseler

Congratulations with the 747 LCF DreamLifter and an interesting Blog. If this is what Boeing can do to a 747 then imagine what Boeing can do for present & future customers. Talk about a great product (the 747) supporting an even greater product (the 787). In today's competitive airline environment the DreamLifter and Dreamliner inherit similar characteristics to that of the Wooden Horse of Troy. Can't wait for the maiden flight.

Joe, Australia

With the latest FAA ETOPS announcement, why would any airline purchase the Airbus A340-500 or A340-600 now? Unless Airbus will be giving them away, which may be a possibility, the Boeing 777 family just became more valuable to any airline who is operating it now and in the future. With the Airbus response to a long range twin many years away in the A350 family, Boeing should enjoy a virtual monopoly with their own 777/787 family. Way to go Boeing for having the correct insight years ago.

Mark, Newport Beach, California

It will be great if Boeing could build a new 747 with the exact dimensions of the A380 or better. Boeing has the knowledge, finances and technological know how. Come on Boeing, what are you waiting for?

Roger J., England

I was wondering if the design engineers for the 747-8I ever thought about or discussed about making the center wing box area on the 747-8I out of light weight carbon composites? Can it be done? Is it possible to do it on the 747-8I and if it can be done, is it too late in the design and development process to do it? How about the area just under the center fuselage were the ram air ducts, landing gear, wing to body flaring is? Can those panels be made out of composites because it looks like it's just a shroud were the ram air ducts are? Then again, I am sure the design engineers have thought out side of the box and were open to any input from those at Boeing to make the 747-8I lighter. You know it will be great to finally see the 747-8I in flight testing and see the actual performance numbers and be surprised that this new 747-8I performs better than expected. Are the shrouds around the engines made out of light weight composites? Is it possible? Just trying to think of ways to make the plane lighter. I guess the 747 hump can't be made out of composites because of the expansion and contraction differences between composites and aluminum.

Tim, Baltimore, Maryland

What is my dream of the future 737 series? My 737RS (replacement study) planes have 6 different models. The smallest one carries about 100-110 in 1 class and the second smallest one is similar to 737-600 nowadays. They share the smallest and similar wings, which is smaller than the 737NGs nowadays. Then, the two models are close to the class of 737-700 and 737-800 nowadays. And the largest two are close to 737-900ER and 757-200. The largest two can have 4x2 main landing gears. This is my little idea about 737RS (replacement study). These sizes optimize the market needs and extend the 737 market. Hope that all of you share more about the new 737!

Glen L, Beverly Hills, California

In regards to Boeing vs. Airbus, I like and prefer Boeing probably because I am a citizen of the USA. I've flown other airliners like the L1011 to Hawaii but other than that I've flown basically Boeing products. As far as creature comfort, the elbow to elbow seating arrangement on a 737 can be annoying especially on flights longer than 2 hrs. The 757's are a lot more comfy because of the wider seats. I was curious on why can't Boeing just put a little tweak on the width of the fuselage to make the 737's a little more comfortable for passengers as well as I think more appealing to more airlines.

Andrew, Wasilla, Alaska

With the FAA abolishing ETOPS and allowing qualified Twin jets to fly over 5 hours away from a diversion airport, I feel Boeing's long standing vision of point to point travel with fuel efficient twin jets just got the biggest seal of approval Boeing could have hoped for, as if the market hadn't already spoken loudly enough with the 777s absolute trouncing of Airbus A340 product. I feel vindication is in the air, literally, for many people who have long argued that the steady but sure trend toward twinjets over 4-engined aircraft is here to stay.

Alexander R., Edinburgh, Scotland

I suggest Boeing has a party on July 7 to celebrate the fantastic 777 on the date 7/7/'07!

Richard M., Sydney

Many people ask, "What's next from Boeing?" I would say, "give them a break!" Boeing launched 737-900ER, 787, 747-8 and 777-LRF recently. Boeing is in no hurry to launch another product. The 737NG is still selling like hot cakes and 777-300ER does not have any credible contender until 2015. In any case, narrow-body is such a big market that you do not have any time constraint to launch a new one. You can offer a 737 replacement three to five years after a new competitor without any strategic drawback. The situation is slightly different for the 777-300ER, but Boeing has more than six years to think about its replacement. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of both.

G.

It seems as though Singapore airlines has decided to purchase both the A350 and the 787. Given the costs of operating two different fleet types it doesn't seem to make any sense to purchase two different aircraft of such similar capabilities. More astoundingly it seems that they plan to use the 787 for short haul service and the 350 for long haul service. Can you perhaps make any sense of their decision?

Brian, Virgina

This blog is a near-perfect example of what companies should be doing, but rarely do, to engage and inform the public that takes an interest in a particular line of business and a set of products. For every sort of industry there are thousands of well-informed observers and consumers whose intelligence and loyalty can be a decisive help in seeing that the work is done right, and that the news from both sides moves fast. Of course, there has to be a blogger who really wants an exchange among equals. That's where this blog works and so many others don't. Keep it going - you're becoming an example far outside aerospace.

Steve M., Redwood City, California

I cannot understand how anyone could accuse Randy or Boeing of bashing Airbus. Boeing (and Randy) have always kept a professional touch to their press releases and statements. Boeing even publicly congratulated Airbus on the maiden flight of the A380. Airbus has, to my knowledge, never once congratulated Boeing on any of its achievements. Instead, Airbus focuses on casting shadow on anything not Airbus. They publicly called the 787 a Chinese copy of the A330, when now in fact the A350 looks to be a copy of the 787. Both manufacturers make great aircraft, but when it comes down to it, Boeing is far more mature when commenting on their rivals.

Hans M., Hannover, Germany

The new Intercontinental fills a wide niche between the 350 seat (777/340) and the 555 seat (380) planes. It surprises me that more airlines have not signed up for the 747-8i since the gap is so wide.

Dennis, Virginia

What I like about the blog (all corporate loyalty aside) is that you put out the company explanation in a straight forward manner. It's good to see that, because I have come to expect nothing but a high speed spin cycle from the other side. I always thought that what Boeing lacked, as a non apologetic defense and explanation of the company and its position. I know its gotten morphed into political correctness, but there is more a washing out of companies and what they stand for. There is none of that in your blog. Airbus simply has no answer (but then they are just following you guys these days and maybe a look alike blog is more than they can even take!) If Harry Stonecipher had one thing right, it was you guys would go right after the competition, full tilt, no apologies and let the best company win. I think he put the spirit back into the company (or let Boeing know they could be proud of who you are and what you make and express that pride). So, keep up the good work, I look forward to checking in on a regular basis and even more so when the completion starts to rev up the PR machine.

Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska

Love reading your blog. I find it informative and entertaining. I am an aviation enthusiast and have been all my life. Have always been especially fascinated by the "big boys" (747's, DC10's, 777's etc. First thing I did when I moved to Seattle was drive to Everett to gawk at all the widebodies sitting out there! Don't take offense, but I can't wait to see the A380 in person. That being said, I am going to do everything in my power to be somewhere in the vicinity of Paine Field the day the 787 makes her maiden flight!! Please keep us "airplane junkies" enlightened as to the progress of this exciting new aircraft. We appreciate the info you provide on your blog - keep it up. If you happen to cross paths with your Airbus counterpart, ask him if he can start one too - LOL

Bob S., Kent, Washington

Bon jour to Boeing - I'm fully aware of the purpose of your website. To detract the honesty of innovation which America has predominated since the 1950's? Yes I am in support of innovation not standardization of your technical team, who continues to promote an old replica 747. Europeans have a vast knowledge of aerospace and aviation. Mr. Randy, we Europeans invented the airplane. By your nature of your culture everything is based on mass production. Not quality - as France, United Kingdom and Western Europe. Please do us a favor. You have to admit to defeat - yes, it happens to the best of companies including American cartels such as Boeing whom spot the MD-12 which Air France and KLM were interested in. Learn to say AIRBUS. I shall repeat learn to say AIRBUS - the leader of customized aircraft. Yes I find your website full of untruth regarding industry markets. AIRBUS has surpassed you on larger Jumbo aircraft. Boeing, the honest truth is the international market no longer belongs to Boeing, the lagger of 20th century technology.

Somanville, Lyon, France

I think it would be great if Boeing could install webcams for visitors to view planes outside your factories at Boeing and Paine fields. The information is already displayed on the internet in various places so it's not like proprietary information you are disclosing on your company/customers.

John, Los Angeles, California

It really has been a great year! Boeing's vision of the Future of Flight - it's starting to "lift" my Commercial Aviation enthusiasm to a new level. I visited the Boeing factory in Everett and flew on a B777-300ER for the first time, and I know won't be the last! B787 and B747-8I "Here I am" -Boeing keep UP these great airplanes.

Jorge T., Honduras

Congratulations for such a great order, hope to fly this Aircraft as a Pilot in some years. Lufthansa will have a great fleet with 346,380,748 and 787/350 all great Airplanes. Just a pity LH hasn't ordered some 777 - would look so great! Randy: I love to read your Blog it's always interesting.

Konstantin, FRA/Germany

I appreciate you and your colleagues at Boeing and congratulate you all on the fine job you've done putting Boeing in such a strong position in very challenging times. Thanks for your blog and very effective communications efforts throughout the year--I check it almost daily. While admittedly a Boeing cheerleader, your Company makes me proud as an American, a stockholder, and a 747 pilot.

Mark H., Anthem, Arizona

Thanks for you insights on the terrific year that Boeing has had. All your fans from all over the world can't wait for the first flight of the Dreamliner and to see the magic 747 continue to grace the skies.

Chris G., Australia

I am curious to know why Boeing didn't come up a with low gross weight version of the 787-9 (a la the 787-3 derivative of the 787-8)? Such an aircraft would work extremely on trans-Atlantic routes for many airlines and save costs on landing fees. I would also like to know why the range was limited to 3500nm for the 787-3? I would think that around 4500nm would be optimum, allowing for Caribbean/upper South American routes from North America and bringing into range most of Europe, Africa and Central and South Asia.

Keith L., Ottawa, Canada

The 777 and the upcoming 787 Dreamliner incorporate fly-by-wire instead of the usual hydraulic controls. Will the new 747-8 also have fly-by-wire as well?

Han, Newport News, Virginia

Looks like the 737 replacement better seat over 200 at the top end.

Gary G., Sydney, Australia

I have noticed the 747-8i virtual mockup and noticed that the 747 which is so clamed as old fashioned airplane by flying barrel maker Airbus executives, has sharper and sleeker design. It is impossible the A380 to have better aerodynamics mainly in the front section. The 747 nose shape is similar to an arrow what is logic on a machine that is supposed to fly. Airbus folks seem to forget about air resistance when they projected the A380. Some of the older drawings show better aerodynamics. As Airbus tried to improve the rest of the design, they moved the shape of the front section to a stage prior to DC-3s conception. If the DC-3 was about the same size as the A380, the DC-3 would have better aerodynamics in the front section.

Cristiano A., Campo Grande/MS, Brazil

Wish you the best with 787 development in the New Year and hope you don't encounter last-minute teething pains like the A380.

Bankelele, Nairobi, Kenya

Now that Airbus has released all its claims and specs for the various A350 models, it's up to you (and Boeing engineers) to one-up them with your 787-1000 and future 777 models (hint: add more composite component as you are doing on the 747-8I...)

Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada

I must say I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog! Congratulations to the company on the Lufthansa order! Many of us on the Internet applaud your reasoned commentary, and your ability to be above attacking the competition. Keep up the good work! Something that aggrieves me (not about the blog!) is the move away from the traditional Boeing numbering sequence in the sub-versions. 787-8/9 and 747-8 seem quite illogical to me. I know all about the number 8 and the Chinese, but was that the only reason behind all of this?

Trent, Dublin, Ireland

The week running from 4th to 8th December 2006 quite rightly had the slogan of 'The Future is Now'. Congratulations on the stupendous order for the phenomenal Boeing 747-8Intercontinental! No doubt, this ultra-modern, efficient, economical and formidably capable 747 family will be around for many more decades to come. It is an airplane of superlatives, and I would expect the orders for both variants to continue to flood in! Playing off the pun of the 747-8, 'The Shape of the Future', I think Boeing can go even further when considering your industry leading Boeing Commercial Airplanes, and say, 'Boeing IS the Future of Air Travel!' Wishing you all the best for 2007!

Chris C., South Africa

Why is the forward "plug" on the 747-8 so much longer than the aft plug? Do the new engines or modified wing alter the center of gravity or center of lift?

Mark W., Houston, Texas

Remember the QTD2 on All Nippon Airways' modified Boeing 777-300ER? Boeing tested chevrons on the rear engine cowling. Is that patented? Airbus could take your ideas and simply put it on their Airbus A350XWB, which clearly already look like the Boeing 787. It's like using your ideas and stealing it and put it on their idea.

Andre D., Tacoma, Washington

The 747 is amazing... nothing to say! However, why is it that even though it’s no direct competitor to the A380, it still beats it on paper with superior operating economics?! Boeing beat Airbus in this section once again... to be confirmed as time goes by. If indeed after the 1st flight the 748 is still more economical than the Whalejet, then I expect the 747 to become as successful and iconic as in the 70s.

Maj M., Lausanne, VD, Switzerland

I saw your neat Website for the launch of the 747-8I and the cool video of it morphing from the current 747-400 to the 747-8I. My question is how much more does the new 747 wing is swept back than the 747-400? From the video morphing, it looks like Boeing not only swept back the wings more, but, there is more wing flex, but, I read that Boeing is making the inner wing thicker at the wing root. Also in the video, the vertical and horizontal tail is more curved. I was wondering if you ( if possible ) can go deeper into the technical aspects of the new changes on the 747-8I from the 400? And go deeper into the wing twist, aerodynamics that Boeing is doing on the wing? I know the new 747-8I will get many interior features from the 787, but, will it get the same good looking window panels that the 787 has? To be honest, the window panels from the 747-400 looks too 70ish.

Tim, Baltimore, Maryland

An order for 20 747-8's in a direct competition with the A380/A340 by Lufthansa says a lot about the product strategy of Boeing. Well done - keep it up. BTW -I don't find the attitude of the blog at all offensive. I don't think your willingness to cultivate and project a vision for your present and future is at all a problem. Perhaps difficult to accept by supporters of organizations prone to grand gestures in lieu of recognizing market needs. Having worked in the manufacture of parts for Boeing, GEAE, Airbus, N-G, Bombardier and Rolls-Royce I enjoy the insight into the current and long-term vision of a major aircraft maker like Boeing. Your blog does an excellent job keeping interested people informed. It would be refreshing to see someone within Airbus willing to present their market direction but it looks like they would be just as well served re-printing Boeing's ideas 5 years later and calling them "new".

Seth, Ogden, Utah

Congratulation, the long awaited 747-8I order came in. Maybe Cathay Pacific or Air France/KLM is next.

Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada

At no point does Randy "bash" Airbus. He simply details all the information in a very factual manner. The facts tell the truth and it accurately depicts Airbus as the underdog in this market. The truth hurts. Airbus is the company infamous for its rival bashing, not Boeing. Boeing has always publicly regarded Airbus as a viable competitor and has always referred to Airbus with respect. The same cannot be said for Airbus - Just this week a top Airbus executive compared to the 748i to a failed 1960's Ford. Such comments are unfounded, immature and inaccurate. As usual, I found Randy's article to be extremely informative and eye-opening.

Jan E., Heidelberg, Germany

On 6 Dec 2006, Lufthansa announced its 747-8i order and became the first airline to buy the airplane. This order proves at least two things. Firstly, a "serious" airline like Lufthansa does order 747-8i. Secondly, an A380 customer can decide to buy 747-8i. Boeing's strategy to put 747-8i's capacity exactly at 20% above 777-300ER/A340-600 and at 20% below the A380 is paying.

G.

As a frequent flyer who logs many international miles, primarily long-haul, business class, I have seen the window shade situation getting worse and worse. On some daylight flights, the shades are drawn within a minute or two of climb out, and on almost all of the daylight flights (i.e. Bangkok-Tokyo-Los Angeles, the shades go down from a few minutes to an hour or so after takeoff, and remain down for the entire grueling time (on one of two of my trips to the far east within the last 3 weeks, the shades were down the entire time (19+ hours)including a beautiful morning arrival down the California coast into San Francisco. It is frustrating to pay 8 to 10,000 dollars and not see such beauty.

Steve A., Washington, D.C.

I have enjoyed your journal, and I think that Boeing has done their homework on this plane [747-8] and the customers seem to agree. I think that you should install air refueling on all the domestic units sold. Both a removable off-loading boom and a receptacle.

Mike H., Boise, Idaho

I just saw the rendering of the Lufthansa 747-8. She is indescribably beautiful. A fitting tribute to Joe Sutter and a brilliant design. Are these the latest winglets? Sweet.

Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia

Airbus exec McArtor said that the only reason Lufthansa ordered the 747-8 was because Airbus stumbled on the A380. Not true. Lufthansa has said the 747-8 will complement their fleet - fitting in between the A380 and A340-600. The 747-8 will be ordered by more airlines whether it be the passenger or freight versions, so the world must get used to seeing more brand new copies of this wonderful airplane for decades to come.

Mark, Newport Beach, California

Thanks for the insight you provide into Boeing's thoughts every week! I really like both companies, but it is Airbus' fault to be in such major trouble right now, and I believe that the XWB is just not the right plane to pull them out of the mess they are in. I fully agree with your comment on the extremely long delivery time - considering how many resources Airbus has invested in the A350 already, it seems ridiculous that it will take another 7 years until first delivery. This means 7 rather comfortable years for Boeing: you can watch the 787 sell well, update the 777 (which will bring it very close the the 'superior' A350) and work on an all-composite 737 successor, which will secure Boeing's lead position for another 20 years.

Christopher M., Vienna, Austria

The launch of the A350 is healthy to the extent that it promotes competition between the two major suppliers of twin aisle aircraft. Imagine what would happen if one supplier dominated this market. At the other end of the scale - how long before the regional jets grow big enough to challenge the 737/A320 replacements? When will China get in on this gig?

Gary G., Sydney Australia

There is no way this is true! I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator.

Michael, Omaha, Nebraska

Actually Michael, Sir Richard has indeed used this quote many times - that the best way to become a millionaire is to start off as a billionaire and launch an airplane - although others may have said it as well!

Randy Baseler

Enjoy your blog and have a question. When you talk about overweight with respect to Boeing or Airbus, are you referring to an aircraft delivered without interior?? In the case of the A380 is it is 5 tonnes +/- with 550 passengers. What would it be with the seats required for 800+?

Len E., Indonesia

LOL, I have placed a 747 next to a picture of an A380 ... guess the subject says it all! Don't change the shape of the 747 PLLEEAASSE, it is just such an eye keeper!! What an awesome aircraft... as if it's got a life of its own, complete with a personality! Just LOVE IT!

Darryl, South Africa

Boeing needs to continue executing its business plans as effectively as you have been doing in order to maintain your well deserved poll position. Upholding ethics, customer focus and continued product development and improvement will continue to put Boeing in a formidably strong position to face the ever changing challenges of the 21st Century markets. You, Boeing, have achieved this magnificent position purely as you listened to the market and your customers, and strived to improve upon everything - hence forever new frontiers. Boeing clearly is all about working together and building the world's most advanced and finest commercial and military equipment. Every single BCA is an engineering marvel; breaking new technologies and innovations, and providing the most efficient, reliable, attractive, and capable airplanes to the market. You guys got the mathematics right!

Chris C., South Africa

Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793
The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.

A., London, U.K.

Regarding the 787/A350XWB comparisons: We all know that Airbus is comparing apples to oranges (like comparing their 270-seat A350-800 to a 242-seat 787-8, when they should be comparing it to a 280-seat 787-9). So, in response to Airbus's "Boeing PR" claims, Boeing should use this new term when talking about Airbus's lopsided apples-to-oranges comparisons: "Airbus Math." After all, Airbus's numbers just don't add up right. For proof, look no further than all those A380 delays.

Zachary M., Fort Wayne, Indiana

Some say that the delay of the A380 is not a problem since it won't have a competitor of its size for many years. However, two engines were developed for it, and their delay might be a problem. It seems like the Trent 900 and GP-7200 need to be in revenue service now to take advantage of their technological window. The more efficient GenX engine is poised to take to the skies in large numbers in the not to distant future.

Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia

Seems your recent comments echo what many aviation forums have been saying all along in regard to the A350XWB. http://www.fleetbuzz.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8793 The XWB raises more questions than it answers- and as you rightly point out, the A320 is marginally wider than the 737, yet the latter is the better seller- and by default, the 787 has stolen a huge march on EADS/Airbus- while it fails to address the superiority of the 777 family.

A., London, U.K.

Yawn! How predictable that Randy once again is here to bad mouth the competition! Come on, don't be so childish! This is a blog, not a kindergarten! Boeing is a great company that makes great products. However, with attitudes like yours no wonder we Europeans tend to weel revulsion at you Yanks!

Ivor M., Berlin, Germany

I very much appreciate your comments, especially this week's where you explain how AB is trying to slant the comparison. What I'm amazed at is how COMPLETELY AB has faltered...management, finances, design for manufacturability, manning and manufacturing efficiency, etc, etc. The challenges they face are much greater than BA faced with the factory issues in '98. What I don't understand about BA's behavior is why not go for the jugular? Especially if they decide this Friday to pursue the 350, why shouldn't BA proactively try to launch the 737 successor in '08 or so...when they're tied down engineering wise and financially? I'm sure there are might be issues around residual guarantees and others that I haven't considered, but it seems to me that BA is on the cusp of dominance for a decade or so given recent events...why not extend the lead even further? P.S. why you're at it why doesn't BA try to use composite technology to offer a competitive product to the ERJ family? The only way BA is vulnerable long term is from the bottom, don't let them get a foothold and don't make it easy for them to have the R&D dollars to develop composites.

Dick G., New York

For the 747-8I, maybe Boeing could satisfy both Emirates and British Airways with the same size airframe by extending the range with extra tanks similar to the 747-400ER for Qantas? One would hope that Cathay Pacific would get a few for the LAX to HKG route, glad that they don't use the 340-600 for that route anymore.

Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada

I just read in Flight International that this program when launched has slipped at least a year to the 2013 timeframe for the -800,-900. The -1000 is now scheduled for EIS in late 2015. Give me a break. If this variant is to take on the 777-300ER, I am sure this development is not making Boeing shake with fear. In 9 years time, assuming Airbus has no more slips, Boeing will presumably have already made plans for a 777 replacement that will obsolete this plane. Airbus will be playing catch up for at least the next 10 years or more.
Mark, Newport Beach, California

To me this new website [Startup Boeing] that you launched is a noble move. Not many people would contemplate starting a business in airlines, but here you are helping them. :)

Meikah D., Makati, Philippines

I do not recall the quote you attributed to Sir Richard, at least not in the form quoted, nor in identifying the originator. The quote as I recall it goes: "You can make a small fortune running an airline, of course, you have to start out with a large fortune". I am not sure, however, this sounds rather a Bethunesque like saying.

W.K.B., Newcastle, Washington

It seems to me that if you have to make a web site for a startup airline, then they have no business being in that business.

Gregory S., Anchorage, Alaska

Your answer on why the 747-8F has much shorter range that the passenger (higher gross weight) suggests that a freighter ought to have higher lift wing than a passenger plane. Are the wing designs different and are new freighters more efficient than converted passenger planes?

Doug H., Anaheim, California

Two comments: It sounds like Emirates is concerned mainly with only about 100-150 extra nautical miles of range over the baseline 8000 to fit its own guidelines for range/payload/winds. Would it really be that hard to increase the baseline range by such a small amount? Shortening the fuselage seems an awfully high price to pay for an axtra 250-300 nautical miles. I would think apart from efficiency gains, simply raising the take-off weight to 980,000lb and increasing the thrust of the GEnx engines to about 68,500 lb would do the job and then some (10,000 extra lbs of fuel) Second, I also notice that as the max T.O. weight has risen from 960K to 970K the specified engine thrust has remained the same, at 66,500lbs. It has been noted that even though the A380 has a lower thrust to weight ratio, its low-speed wing design allows it to avoid step-climbing to cruise altitude where the 747-8 still requires this, which is all the more reason to increase the thrust of the engines to possibly compensate for this wing efficiency disadvantage. I would think 68,500lbs (at 970K T.O. weight) MINIMUM with the same fuel consumption is reasonable, but would it be enough? It just seems that the 66,500 lbs x4 for a 970k plane is a very small increase (and an inferior thrust to weight ratio) versus 63,300 x4 for the 875k max T.O. 747-400. Here's to some big 747-8I orders coming soon (hopefully)!

John G., Colorado Springs, Colorado

My understanding is that composite materials such as CF and kevlar variants are subject to degradation when exposed to UV light over long periods of time. I also have read that in the higher echelons of racing (namely Formula 1) the composite structures have a limited lifespan of a few races until the tubs are no longer able to meet flex tolerances. Are these factors relevant to the composite structures used on the 787, or are they so much 'urban legend'?

Chris, Austin, Texas

Just curious if people in the marketing department have considered hiring Orange Country Choppers to design and build a tribute chopper to the 787. I think having the Discovery Channel film American Chopper working with Boeing on a bike would be a lot of fun to watch. It would be a great way to extend a "fresh" image of the '87. I enjoy the blog, keep up the good work!

Patrick K., Seattle, Washington

Congrats on conquering South America's biggest challenge to Boeing: TAM. This could be the beginning of a long friendship. Civil Aviation market is growing steadily here, not exactly the best time to delay the delivery of new aircrafts by years.

Ronaldo, Sao Paulo/SP, Brazil

In the Red Herring Magazine, Nintendo quoted that it would be flying in as many as 18,000 Nintendo Wii in each Air Freight as it tries to move 4 million Wii units to the US. It would seem to me that it would be an interesting promotion to fill the 747 LCF with Nintendo Wii. I estimate it would hold about 1 % of the 50,000 Wii units ($12,500,000 worth). I understand that the 747 LCF is in flight test and is not normally going to be used for "commercial freight" but to upstage the Airbus 380 freight (again) and have a holiday flair with Boeing helping Santa Claus make certain there are enough Nintendo games for the Holiday Season. If not possible, I hope this has at least provided a smile.

Timothy S., Saint Louis, Missouri

In a nutshell, is the 787 bleedless engine design more focused on energy efficiency benefits or other benefits such as humidified cabin air?

Ivan, Houston, Texas

Why doesn't Boeing improve its single aisle B737 to beat Airbus A320 family? I have seen a lot of times airlines prefer 320 over 737. Why don't Boeing use entire composite structure or do something different that it could readily beat 320 like the Dreamliner?

Musfequs S., Warrensburg, Missouri

I didn't get your post on Nov 1st. Even though you had mentioned before that Boeing will continue to improve upon the 777, now you seem to imply that further improvements on the 777 is impossible. "The cost of re-doing an aluminum fuselage design that is already complete, using another material set makes it pretty much prohibitive." As you know, A350XWB will be built entirely with composite. The A350-1000 will essentially drive a knife into the heart of the 777-300ER. I hope Boeing will respond aggressively before Airbus overtakes Boeing again.

Victor T., Santa Clara, California

Recently on Bloomberg, Airbus officials claimed that their Airbus A350XWB will be composed of 50% composites, challenging your Boeing 787. With the 50% of composites they can better attack Boeing's 787. Timing and amount of engineers might be their disadvantage, but technology and innovation is on their side, which out weighs timing, because they could see the Boeing 787 and improve their Airbus A350XWB. What is Boeing doing? I also remember that their Airbus A380 and A350XWB and A320E will be in the works together, while Boeing will be freed from juggling the Boeing 737RS and other planes. Also, what are you doing to tackle the supplier and weight issue?

Agustas A., Madrid, Spain

I can't say I'm impressed with the look of the new 747 LCF developed to support the 787 program, but I do wonder if there is a commercial market for this less attractive queen of the skies. Has anyone asked you to build one of these for them? Would you?

William D., Barstow, Maryland

Is it possible to do a mini BWB for 737 replacement? Could give big boost to range and cargo capabilities. On Combi modes, airliners could have a good, flexible, and small aircraft for passenger/cargo modes.

Pangestu A., Surabaya, Indonesia

Like other readers you mentioned in your Nov. 1 blog, it is also obvious to me that Boeing's 777's will have to be weight-reduced by a lot to keep up with the new composite planes. For example, your 787-10 is projected to have a MTOW of under 550,000 lbs and carry as many passengers roughly as far as a 750,000 lb 777-300ER. Those are pretty jarring comparisons! When it (eventually) comes out, Airbus's larger-model XWB A350 will be similar or larger than the 787-10, and unless the 777-300ER "slims down" by a huge amount, it will then no longer be attractive to buy and operate. The only way to get the 777's weight down a lot is by using a fully-composite airframe (and then you can slim down those 19-ton engines it currently uses, and the fuel used, too). All a very virtuous cycle, but impossible to do well enough while clinging to a mainly-metal airframe. Also obviously, you won't tell us what you are going to do about it, but I'm sure you will do what's needed when it's needed! Thanks for your blog, it is entertaining and it often delivers the news ahead of everyone else...

Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada

I wanted to comment on your blog about the 747-8I. You said that this airplane can fly the same amount of miles when it's fully loaded. A Dutch website (www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl - it's all in Dutch) posted some news about the same subject. They actually told people that this plane will fly 'less' miles then the original model. What is true?

Bas N., Amersfoort, the Netherlands

Would it be possible to offer the 747-8 Intercontinental with a 9-Abreat Economy Class? I think much of the hype that the competing A380 gets is based on the premise that it is more spacious - that it's 10-abreast Eco Class will be so much wider, in seats and aisles, that the 747. I like the space I get on a 777 - that is something that no Airbus product can match. But can we see that kind of cross-section on the 747? How will one seat less affect the economics of operating the 747-8i?

Jun L., Manila, Philippines

I read the other day that Boeing was discouraging buyers from multiple color schemes on the engine nacelles for the 787 because of excessive fuel burn due to the drag generated by the point where the paint lines meet. Why not just clear coat the nacelles after painting? We used to do this with custom paint jobs in the 80's. Could the additional paint weight that much more? Just wondering.

Rick D., Huntsville, Alabama

I understand you have no plans for a 1000 passenger BWB craft, but how about one to supplant the 737? I have read that you are considering a 2-aisle replacement. This sounds like a wider fuselage than the current "tube" so perhaps BWB in which the fuselage becomes a lift body? Doing a BWB 737 would be a good way to start; a small and simpler aircraft at the beginning of your learning curve. Also, is it true that if BWB works aerodynamically and otherwise then it will be much more efficient than the current "tube" designs because the airframe drag will be only about what is needed to maintain lift? If so, why isn't Boeing pushing hard now in this high-fuel-cost market to make BWB work ASAP not only on commercial craft but also military ones, such as the new tanker?

Christopher D., Plainfield, New Hampshire

Can't help feeling that the 747 is finally fulfilling its destiny of being a dedicated freighter (originally on the premise that SSTs would take over passenger duties). Given that the 787 killed off the original A350 as a derivative - is the 787-8 Intercontinental itself too much of a derivative to make a successful passenger plane? I acknowledge that the potential market is much smaller.

Gary G., Sydney, Australia

Giving aircraft sub-models designators like -8 and -9 rather than the more traditional -200 and -300 seems to have been embraced by the industry. Why the change?

Patrick J., Aberdeen, Scotland

We dentists have experimented with composite structures on our patients for decades. Dental people are also very interested in material sciences. If fascinates me that you are taking what we use for tooth colored filling materials and fabricating an airplane. Is the new 787 more of a self cure composite or is it heat or halogen light cured. We also had great problems with durability. How have you conquered that in terms of the temperature extremes in flight?

Jack R., Hudson, Ohio

It's my understanding that the 777 would be in competition with the A350, 787-10 maybe. The question is on everybody's mind. What will Boeing do with the 777? Especially do to the recent rumors of the A350 going the direction of an all composite fuselage. Leap Frog DeJaVu? BTW-IMO Don't make the mistake of Airbus A350-airbusdoesnotknowwhatitis with the 747-8i and 787-10. Cancel the 747-8 pax version, cancel possible 787-10 and put the money into a 777 Dreamliner.

Roy D., Sarasota, Florida

I have read the section in your blog about the possibility (or not!) of imprinting an airline's livery into the carbon fibre of the 787's fuselage. You said that this was not possible, but what about anodized aluminum? This is a tough, hard wearing finish that would save weight. I understand that any new operators of the aircraft would have to paint over the old livery (as would the original airline if their livery changes) but this would be an incentive to buy new! Hope you get the 787 out on time, and I'm looking forward to seeing it fly!

Felix C., London, UK

Is anyone going to think outside the box on changing how people are packed onto long haul planes? There is a lot of density at seat level but nothing occupying above seat level. I would be overjoyed at having Japanese capsule hotel style tubes, and they could be packed all the way to the ceiling. I think you could even fit more people that way!

Roger B., Santa Cruz, California

I see the airlines using their old paint jobs on a plane or two. How about Boeing painting the brown and gold for on the 737er as on the first 737. How about the fat red stripe and black under the cockpit for the 748 rollout?

Ted C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia

The 747-8I uses 241,590 litres (less allowances) to deliver 467 pax 14,800 km = 28.61 pax-km/litre. The A380-800 uses 310,000 litres (less allowances) to deliver 555 pax 15,000 km = 26.85 pax-km/litre. Your plane uses less. It now depends if the reduced freight capacity leaves yours attractive to the airlines.

Ivan C., Oakville, Ontario, Canada

It is no surprise to learn that potential 747-8I buyers wanted a few more seats so that the passenger version would be the same length as the cargo version. Speaking of the freighter, the clear advantage of lighter structure than A380F and having a nose loading door is manifested by the 40+ order it has already accumulated. And the orders for the passenger version will follow since it is the natural replacement for the current -400 operators. In the Pacific sector at least, 744's fly near capacity almost all year round. Additional ~50 seats will fill up if 8I was available today. In short, "If you design it right, they will buy."

Yungsun H., Los Angeles

The newly extended 747-8 Intercontinental, allowing for 467 passengers is closer to the A380 with 555 passengers. The 747-8 is within 84% of carrying the 555 passengers of the A380. I can't imagine this news will make the newly replaced Airbus administration feel confident. Why would an airline pay so much more to buy an A380 that carries only 88 more passengers? Adding to the problem of buying an A380 is the ever-delayed delivery date. The 747-8 will be a success and it is a clever addition to the Boeing line. It further paints Airbus into a corner.

John K., Eugene, Oregon

In this article, Flight International reports that "Boeing opts for larger passenger variant but Dubai airline would rather see it build original longer-range proposal." I think the currently proposed 747-8I's range is about perfect, the dash-eight stands for EIGHT thousand nautical miles. You have to keep the 8-conomics right.

G

I had read that Emirates actually preferred longer range in the new 747-8I over more seats, whereas British Airways wanted more seats and less range. What will Boeing's response to this be? Would you offer two different 747s? Perhaps a high capacity 747-8 and a long range 747-9?

Eugene, Los Angeles, California

I work at GKN Aerospace - Monitor Inc. on Long Island. Just a quick note to say keep up the good work on your blog. I can't tell you how many times we check back to see if you've updated the site. We look forward to your 'take' on subjects. Thanks and GOOD JOB!

Steve B., Long Island, New York

Randy, you can't leave Boeing! I wish more of the Boeing types were as vocal and knowledgeable as you are. I read where Airbus doesn't know what to do about your blog. Just keep it up! I still think Boeing has played a huge part in convincing Airbus to build the 380. "Ahhh, the old sucker play!" The recent news concerning the versions of Catia is almost too ridiculous to believe... After all, it IS their software. Wasn't the 777 built without a mockup using Catia? I look forward to the blog every week, perhaps you should write twice a week for us news-starved Boeing fans.

Wes C. Arab, Alabama

I regularly fly both airplanes [737, A320], both in the cockpit and in the cabin. While many never discuss comfort of the pilots, it is a fact that the A320 series cockpit is 'bigger' and therefore more comfortable, with more room to work. As for the passenger cabin, people can quote statistics all day. But the fact that the sidewalls are more upright in the Airbus makes the window seat definitely more comfortable. Otherwise, you really can't tell any difference between the two interiors, in my opinion. As emphasized here by Randy, management of airline operations like on-time performance, flight attendant courtesy, passenger amenities are the things that really matter the most. And like any other business, the delivery of those things to the customer clearly varies in importance between different airlines. Certain airlines are more successful than others simply because they tend to focus on the most appropriate things like placing customer satisfaction and safety before everything else. Customers notice this difference and when offered adequate choice, they will spend their money where they perceive the best value, which is not always the lowest fare.

Ken W., Renton, Washington

I'm on my 16th year flying the wonderful 747. If it's possible to have a warm relationship with a machine, then I guess I'm guilty. The admiration I have for the airplane is enhanced further by the new 747 models on your "drawing boards" and I congratulate Boeing for its adaptive and innovating, pilot pleasing engineering over the years. Simply marvelous.

Manny P., Wellington, Nevada

I'm a long time Boeing stockholder. Regarding the 737 replacement, I have a suggestion that is outside the box, if you will. Design the new 737 with 1 larger engine but keep 2 small engines inside the main frame of the aircraft, that would be deployed in event of main engine trouble, that could fly the plane in a slow flight condition for say 500 miles. I don't know if this feasible or not but I like to think outside the box.

Tim C., Southampton, New York

First, I love your blog, and as a stockholder it really helps me to see Boeing's future. I also enjoy the bits about you, such as your picture down in South Africa and how it was funny to be from the northwestern most point of the continental United States. You are an engaging and interesting executive. Keep it up. I know Boeing doesn't actually manufacture and install seating. Nonetheless, I wanted to know if Boeing is taking into account that people are getting bigger and heavier. It seems that with the number of seats that you can squeeze into a plane being airlines priorities, has any consideration been made to make sure real people can fit in these seats? And if a person needs two seats, how to make the two seats comfortable? And if people weigh more, then I assume the airline cannot take on as much freight. Does that space then go unused? Thanks for your input, and keep up the blog!

Carol C., Sacramento, California

Congratulations to the Boeing team for listening to the customer and giving them "what they want" not "what we think they want." Making both versions of the 747-8 the same size will undoubtedly reduce complexity in the manufacturing process thereby reducing cost and risk as the program ramps up. I, like many of Boeing's fans out there, are looking forward to the day when Boeing announces that first big 747-8I order.

Hardy M., Orange County, California

I've perused comments of my fellow bloggers about the proposed darkening capability of the passenger windows in the 787 - and want to express my "two cents" on this issue. When I fly I ALWAYS book a window seat; booking my flights months in advance, to have a good window seat! Obviously, I enjoy the views through my window; even watching for passing air traffic! (Perhaps my fellow bloggers have seen the "air to air photos" posted on web sites including airliners.net) .I shoot photos of major topography / land features, as well, including Mt. Rainier. It's a contradiction for Boeing to offer the largest window ever available in a commercial jet but then allowing cabin crew to control when / if the passenger ( aka me !!! ) can enjoy the view outside the window!? When I fly I don't sleep! My rationale is simple: I don't pay good money to sleep - I can sleep when I reach my destination! I WANT TO ENJOY THE VIEW - THE EXPERIENCE - WHEN FLYING! I can sleep anytime - flying always has and always will be special to me! One of your bloggers reports that he is an "international road warrior" who prefers a dark cabin. All he need do is don an eye mask, close his eyes and he'll see nothing! United Airlines - and others, I'm sure - has eye masks available in their amenity kits. I've seen some passengers who use their blanket to cover their heads, when they want to sleep. During my career in the US Air Force I caught numerous "hops" (free of charge flights) on C-141 and C-5 cargo haulers. These aircraft had NO WINDOWS - except tiny portholes in doors and emergency exits - that their "hitchhikers" could look through! I can assure you, my flights on these airplanes were loooooong and boooooring! I'll have to avoid flying on the 787 if you make it possible for cabin crew to control and dictate when I can look out my window! I just won' pay good money for a bad ride!

Joe B., Warner Robins, Georgia

Been a fan of this blog for about a year now and admire your straight forward style. Much of what you have written in the past seems to be proving out. Here's my question. Is the weak dollar really that much of a problem for Airbus, or just an easy scapegoat for the political leaders?

Ron, Boston, Massachusetts

My students are interested in your site very much. I always aspired to understanding of each student and should visit your site. Now I understand what so pulls them to you.

Alberto A., USA

I work for one of the largest 747-400 Combi operators. (If you look at my location, you'll be able to guess which one ;-)). In our 744 fleet we only have 5 full pax aircraft. The other 744's are all Combi's. Is Boeing also considering a Combi version of the 747-8? That would really make my day!

Frank V., Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

If anything is to be said about the stretched 467-seat Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental, it is that there could be no better way to indicate the huge amount of flexibility and design potential this phenomenal airplane is capable of! And as you correctly said in the Blog entry, Added Revenue, what is even more outstanding is that despite this fairly substantial jump in seating as well as revenue cargo capacity and airframe size over both the -400 and the initial 747-8I, the costs are significantly lower than the -400, and the range is still at the 8,000nm mark! That in itself is truly remarkable. The 747-8 airframe is clearly a very efficient, and optimized design. No doubt that, as Boeing has clearly been listening to its customers and continuing to advance the Queen of the Skies, orders for the -8I will definitely begin to flood in soon! As for the 747-8F - Most definitely the freighter of the future! Simply, the 747-8 is an ultra-efficient leviathan that is set to rule the 400 plus seat market for decades to come.

Chris C., South Africa

Why is it that avionics have not reached the reliability of consumer electronics? Seems like a great marketing strategy would be an airplane that you never needed to look under the hood, I mean carpet (EE Bay access hole). This seems like an emperor's new clothes observation. I realize that operating environments are harsh - but it begs the question why we need to service some things in the first place... I can buy a Wal-Mart TV that will last 10 years for $200.

Richard M., Everett, Washington

You mention routes out of South Africa to illustrate that traffic spreads when smaller planes are involved. That is most likely true, but you don't mention the political changes in South Africa since 1991 allowing the growth in air traffic between South Africa and the rest of the world.

Thomas W., London

I enjoyed your latest article regarding the state of affairs at Airbus. Thanks for taking the high road on your opinion of Airbus. It's easy to criticize an opponent when they are down and you chose not to. Good form.

Bruce, SeaTac, Washington

In spite of the set backs that Airbus has had we need to make sure that "Launch Aide" is not in the equalization for their next Jetliner. Do you hear me Jim M?

John L., Tucson, Arizona

I have to commend you on how well written your response was to the A380 program. I love it when an executive does not bash a rival. Peter

Peter S., Scottsdale, Arizona

A very classy statement on a difficult topic. From my perspective, you are quite correct with respect to the need for strong competition being for the betterment of all, be it Boeing or Airbus.

Erik H., Redlands, California

Kudos for not basking in the difficulties of others even if it is the competition, Boeing will be stronger because of it.

Ron B., Boston, Massachusetts

I have thought that Airbus was facing terrible loses over the A380 program. Now EADS is slowly facing the fact that all of their A380 mistakes are catching-up with them. Expect more EADS problems soon. Airlines can't be expected to wait long for the delivery new planes. Expect many A380 orders to be cancelled or EADS will pay penalties for the damage caused by the delays. Airbus has three new planes being worked on now; the A380, A350 wide body, and the military transport M400. They don't have enough engineers to do all of this work = mistakes.

John, Eugene, Oregon

It would appear that Airbus has finally hit the wall. Many observers had predicted that they would suffer a major catastrophe because of the lack of communication within the organization. It's now evident that the proverbial "left hand doesn't know what the right is doing" is true. The disclosure that the CAD systems in France are different to the ones in Germany, and can't communicate in the same software language is incredible, and are the root cause of numerous problems in assembly. A valuable lesson, you should never let political appointee's run multinational companies, way too much conflict and a demonstrated lack of communication.

Ken T., Vancouver, British Columbia

Randy, it's come to my attention at a major airline finance conference, that the vast majority of the 200+ aircraft financiers present preferred to have total control of their window shades. Since these financiers are also frequent flyers, don't you think there is some useful information here for the Boeing Company? In fact, 60% wanted total control of the shades and only 26% were willing to accept the flight attendants setting upper and lower bands of opaqueness (7% had no opinion and 7% wanted the flight attendants to control the shade). This is not a slight preference, but a HUGE preference. The silent majority has awakened and has spoken. What do you have say about this? There is still time to do the right thing before 787 EIS. Take that shade switch out of the galley and do the right thing - full control for paying customers!

Doug R., New York

I wonder when Boeing will announce the 787-10 , and what added benefits it would bring to the table as compared to the competition which exists in that sized market currently and in the future (with the XWB-10).

Gaurav, India

ATW reported http://atwonline.com/news/other.html?issueDate=9%2F29%2F2006 that "A350 XWB entry-into-service date appears to be sliding 6-12 months owing to the ongoing A380 wiring difficulties." If this news is true then the 787 won't have any contender until 2013. In other words 787 will be alone in its market segment during the first five in-service years. It also means that the 777-300ER will dominate its market segment at least until 2015. Time is money and Boeing has a lot of it.

G

When comparing 1990 and 2006 please remember that South Africa was heavily sanctioned at that time, few countries could do business with them and as such, international air travel was not in such big demand - hence the low frequencies. Regarding today (2006), where only a third of the frequencies are served by the 747 - a third of 168 is still a lot more than the 28 in 1990.

Johnny N., Denmark

As a Boeing field service rep assigned to Anchorage, I want you to know that your Journal is just one more way for me to stay in touch with company news and progress. Although I am on the Military side of the Boeing house (F-15's) I find your thoughts on new commercial aircraft development, processes, innovation, and strategies very informative.

Tom M.., Anchorage, Alaska

Just read about the 747 "XLB." Here's an idea, take the original short hump fuselage and put the 140" plug in it instead of plugging into the long hump. I never liked the hump so close to the wing in the 744 and the old 748i.

Ted. C., Mt. Vernon, Virginia

I continue to read and enjoy this blog and have begun to see how much aviation has changed. The 787 program seems to signify a large part of this change. In particular, the idea of composite construction seems vital in taking the lead in the air so to speak. What occurred to me is whether Lockheed would consider getting back into commercial aviation since they are quite advanced and experienced in composites. (Any joint venture possibilities with anyone?) Secondly, it occurred to me that Airbus will need two new families of aircraft to compete against the range offered by the 787 and 777 programs. It should be interesting to see if they do this. As you are aware, they will remain competitive in many ways.

John D., Auburn, Alabama

Just a quick suggestion for the designation of the 737NG successor...something borrowed from McDonnell Douglas. How about BCA-10, BCA-20, etc. The old designation scheme will seem to have run its course if 797 is applied and although providing a link with Boeing's rich heritage, IMO it won't convey the revolutionary "new-ness" of the 737s successor, but is more evocative of an "evolutionary" development. Hope this makes sense. (Also a lot easier that "A350-800XWB". think of the poor media!) Really love this blog and the opportunity to make gratuitous contributions!

Lumberton, Texas

Like Joe Sutter, I went through Narita many years back (about 1985). As we were taking off, I looked out and saw nothing but 747s. (Maybe 3 that were not out of 29). I thought, boy, that sure tells you where the market is. A great memory and glad to think about it again.

Greg S., Anchorage, Alaska

I, like everyone at Boeing have been scrambling to get definitive data on the new A350XWB family. My comments may be premature but I think the comparison between the 789 and the 358XWB is a valid one. They both have the same published MTOW of 245t, yet the 789 is a larger aircraft, flying more payload over a greater distance (8,800nm v 8,500nm). Yet they weigh the same. This would have to put the A358 at a serious disadvantage and I wonder what the real comparisons will be like between the 787-10 and the A359XWB? To me, it seems as if Boeing is the company pushing the technological boundaries here, particularly in reference to the composite fuselage. I wonder why Airbus hasn't gone CFRP with their fuselages yet? I can only assume they can't see the value in it or they don't have the technical know-how to efficiently produce this type of fuselage. In fact, the only real advantage I can see of the XWB family over the 787 is the extra fuselage width. Even this seems to be very minimal (5-7cm in critical areas) that will make very little difference in a 9-abreast twin-aisle airliner. It is apparent that Airbus is not really challenging the 787 family with the new 350XWB, but the 777 family. However, in this case, it should be more appropriately called the XNB (extra narrow body), as the fuselage width difference between the 777 and the 350XWB is significant (the difference between 9 and 10- abreast).

Dale C., Melbourne, Australia

Maybe Boeing should look at building the 767 Tanker (if it comes into fruition) in Long Beach as a replacement for the C-17 jobs. I also think they should look at putting the 787 next/gen engines on the ship as they way to cut fuel burn and amortize costs.

John L., Tucson, Arizona

I too am leery of the prospect of giving flight attendants control of the window shading range. While we may be able to see out the window during the daytime, what I am concerned about is seeing out at night. The flight attendants will probably assume on night flights that everyone will want to sleep and dim the windows a great deal. I personally greatly enjoy night viewing, especially for the tremendous view of the night sky you can get from an aircraft. But if you dim the windows even a little bit, that may become invisible. What a tragedy that would be for those who have never seen the milky way or a truly dark night sky except from an airplane.

Daniel, New Jersey

In this discussion thread http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2966986/ somebody asks, "Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The 787?" The question should have been, "Is The A350XWB Really A Step Above The previous A350?"

G

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. More and more customers have been ordering their 737s with winglets, for good reason as they can save quite a bit of fuel. Now it seems Airbus is realizing they are at a disadvantage. They are testing large winglets on the A320! See http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1085626/M/

Will W., Everett, Washington

It is interesting to note that the 747 was developed with 'bet the company risk' around management of both Boeing and airline executives that understood their business and that their vision as to what it would mean to the future. I would think the 787 program has some of the some importance as that technology will be shaping the future at Boeing commercial aircraft. Joe Sutter's insight is an inspiration. Please add to your blog any additional comments you may glean from Joe.
Jim H., Wichita, Kansas

I was quite surprised by the comments you received by people who want to keep their window shades up no matter what. I'm one of those international road warriors who likes the cabin dark during long flights. Truth be told, on most intercontinental flights there's nothing much to see anyway. I have observed that moreso on US carriers, there are always one or two individuals who leave their windows open and their lights on all the time. And as you wrote, only one open window in a darkened cabin ruins it for everyone. This new window dimming system of yours sounds like a great idea. It keeps the cabin dim, and still lets the window guy get his views.

Jim R., Chicago

I have just counted the total orders of the 777 family. The figure is quite impressive: in July 2006, 851 units have been ordered. At the same time, 576 have been delivered. If we assume that Boeing delivers on average 44 airplanes per year, the remaining 777s to be delivered represent 6 years of production (up to 2012). If Boeing decides to go to the one thousand mark, it has to keep the line open up to 2015, just about the right time to introduce the 777-8 and the 777-9. One can speculate about the size and the range for these airplanes. My guess is that both will have a range of up to 7,900 nmi, the -8 will seat about 335 pax and the -9 will be a 400 seater. This size fits well between the 787-9 and 747-8i. Although both will be bigger than the current 777, they will be much lighter.

G

I think Airbus engineers are quite capable - it's Airbuses managers that screwed up. I think the A380 is the most serious mistake, that Airbus ever made - not only is it not selling well, it also prevented Airbus to offer a competitor to the Dreamliner. I'm from Europe (lived in the US for 4years), but I'm still cheering for Boeing. And Boeing really should offer the B787-10, so Airbus won't be able to sell its A350.

Luke, Nova Gorica/Slovenia

Recently Rolls Royce changed the name of its Trent 1700. First: Trent New Generation, Current: Trent XWB. What shocked me is that if Boeing wants an engine from Rolls Royce for their Boeing 787-10 (because they examined their competitor incorporating the ideas from the Boeing 787 and made it better) they would persuade Rolls Royce make a new engine that doesn't carry the title of "XWB", because it represents Airbus' A350. However, the engine will probably come later or after the Trent XWB, and ultimately delaying the Boeing 787-10 until 2013 or Late-2012? Boeing can ask GE to make a more efficient GEnx for their Boeing 787-10 (Which is about the only possibility) and also delaying the Boeing 787-10 or design their Boeing 787-10 with use of bleed air, which is not revolutionary. Airbus wants Boeing to suffer and that's fact. If I were Boeing, I'd watch out and make a decision now! Seriously, Boeing is getting a beating! The Airbus A350XWB is more efficient, the engines has a high-thrust rating (I don't know why it makes a difference), the windows will be larger than Boeing's 787-8 and has a better humidity point and wider fuselage, the Airbus A350XWB is easier to check or review, the Airbus A350XWB has a better range, and the Airbus A350XWB is considering the LCD-windows. Talk about competition! But Boeing could retain its position: -Boeing 787-10 or Boeing 787-9 (Even larger windows), since they are still not frozen. -Boeing 787-10 and -9 with bigger fuselage, like the Boeing 777 (Since it's going to be defeated anyways) -Boeing 787-10 should have more efficient engines than on the Airbus A350XWB I got to say, Airbus has trapped Boeing. Their new tactics are pretty smart. Is there any ideas to counter my opinion, because I can't think of any.

James A., Seattle, Washington

I heard that CBB is closing down due to the insufficient amount of the customers. Many carriers seemed to be happy and I thought many people were happy with this service as well. Yet Boeing says it is not profitable hence ditching the service. I think this is sort of going against the time really. If people are satisfied why ditch it? I think this very un-Boeing thing to do. I also have a suggestion, is the one digit (According to Boeing) usage problem due to the lack of the device that customers can get access to inboard? Because as far as I know in the most airlines that has CBB, you need the laptop to connect to CBB service. So I was thinking, may be renting these internet capable devices on board might change the situation? I heard that there are about 1 tonne of water vapour in the normal aircraft cabin, and the reason why cabin humidity is kept low is to increase the payload by getting rid of some of these humids? Is this true? And I was wondering that if this means that it will affect the efficiency of 787 since it has more humidity than current airliners.

Joo-Mann, Sydney, Australia

I recently heard that the 747-8I will be stretch to the same length as the freighter version. It would be kind of odd if the passenger and the freighter version have different length. With the galleys being move to the crown level for additional seats, is a great idea, just as my prediction. That is great news, one would hope that the designer don't forget to add more wash room since there are increase amount of passengers. Adding additional value by having the same wing box for both versions for future freighter conversion, great plan! Since I am a fan of the 747, it is nice to see this plane flying for many years to come, and let's hope that the airline order enough of them so that it is not so difficult to catch a ride on one. While living in Vegas, I am still required to do a connection for many international flights, but I don't mind if I could get on to a 747, especially the 747-8I. For Asian carriers, one could always guarantee for a 747, but not European carriers, its hit or missed. What I don't understand is why traveling to Europe would require me to connect through the east coast, especially the airline I flew have network and connections in LAX and SFO and they had 747 stopped at those two airports, but on the east coast, I had to get on the others' plane?

Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada

I really enjoyed your interview with Joe Sutter. I finished his book a month or so ago - really a terrific read. Please continue to interview Joe as much as possible in the future.

Erik H., Redlands, California

It is sad to know that Boeing will be closing down this service [Connexion] by end of this year. I wonder if Boeing have tried to market this service to China, as I believe that China may have big market for this service!

Yuen P., Singapore

Nice job on the Weight Watchers post, Randy. You guys maybe have better sources than me but using published figures and some informed opinion from my old boss (who broke me in as a weight engineer at Garrett many moons ago) I see much in the A380 to be apprehensive over. In fact, I blogged about it myself back in February of this year in my blog http:cornponepapers.blogspot.com. I'd probably buy you the lunch of your choice if I had the actual scale figures from the all up, passenger equipped A380 and some CG range information. I've been a little brusque with you guys in the past mostly because I'm a former Douglas worker, so I'm sure you'll see the value in a back of a cocktail napkin weight analysis done by a guy who's definitely not in the pay of either Airbus or Boeing-not that I wouldn't like to be.

Robert L., Des Moines, Iowa

It is always amazing and amusing to read on how the Airbus A380's head of marketing continues to slam the Boeing claims with regard to the 747-8 variants versus the A380 variants. Airbus is making it very clear that they are convinced Boeing is virtually lying about the promised efficiencies and economics that the new 747 offers and that Boeing is grossly over-exaggerating the A380's weight problems. Airbus also continue to say that the 747-8 is an 'old', inefficient design which now has a minor tweak to the wing, and does not offer significant passenger growth over the current -400. Airbus simply have brushed off the latest 747, and have attempted to destroy Boeing's fine reputation in the process. Firstly, there is nothing minor about having an aerodynamically all-new, aft loaded, relofted and re-twisted supercritical wing that is able to hold more fuel, be far more efficient and quieter and still allow the highest economical cruise speed of any current or future passenger and freighter airplane. The wing has inherent stiffness, it is lighter and employs the better high-speed planform than A380's and Airbus are currently struggling with the A380's wing limit problem. Go figure! For Boeing to give Airbus the benefit of the doubt with the A380 wing being all-new, is very lenient. Now, if Boeing were lying about the 747-8's economics and efficiencies - in Airbus's clouded eyes - wouldn't that mean that Boeing is going to destroy their own credibility? Very amusing as it seems Airbus has not thought there comments and claims through very well. The 747-8 role in Airbus's view is to compete directly against the A380. Well, if an airline requires an efficient airliner that seats above 500 seats comfortably then the A380 is the answer, but for the majority of the blue-chip carriers, the 747-8 is the answer for a significant increase of revenue and size from the 747-400, whilst offering drastically lower operating costs, trip costs and much greater efficiencies. It is in this role that the 747-8 competes against A380 - 747 is far lower risk, higher reward, greater flexibility and completes Point to Point travel. As for the 747-8F, I personally think Airbus have quietly admitted to themselves that Boeing no doubt has the right airplane. Quite simply put: 747-8 is the shape of the future!

Chris C., South Africa

I am not impressed by the electronic shading proposal for the 787 windows. I am one who likes to look out the windows of an airplane for the marvelous views. Having to shade the entire window would not provide the ability to block the sun while maintaining partial views. Also, nothing quite so frustrating as when the attendants force everyone to pull the shades during a day trip in order to show a movie. Will they have the ability to do this remotely for all windows whether you like it or not? I think the shading proposal is the answer to a question no one asked. Yes, I know it might save a little weight, but it is one more thing to make flying just a little more unpleasant.

Del, Seattle, Washington

Given that a 747 or 777 is built around an aluminum frame how difficult would it be and how much weight would be saved by "re-skinning" with the same material that is being used for the 787? It would seem to be relatively easier to make pre-molded sheets vs an entire fuselage? Just a thought. Would this be at all practical?

C.W.K., California

Is the 747-8 passenger going to have the same internal features as the 787 such as the electronic window shading? You have spoke so much about the 787, but, very little about some of the features on the 747-8.

Mike C., Long Beach, California

Airbus claims for the A350XWB-800 just don't add up. The 8-abreast A350-800 had a (stated) MTOW of 245t and a (stated) range of 8,800 nmi. Now Airbus wants us to believe a jet with a wider fuselage, bigger wing, heavier wing and landing gear at the same MTOW will fly only 300 nmi less than the smaller jet? Nonsense. I'm thinking 1,000+ nmi is more like it. I think a blog entry refuting the Airbus claims for the XWB is in order.

Robert R., Everett, Washington

Because I have mostly flown on Boeings, the first thing I noticed when I finally flew on a wide body Airbus was the inward sloping interior, cutting off shoulder room and overhead baggage room. A bad first impression. I asked myself what Airliner Executive would board this plane and order it? But they do. The original A350, with that sane interior, logged a mind baffling 182 orders. Then there is the 747-8. It is a make sense alternative to the Airport unfriendly and engineering nightmare A380, and yet, instead of A380 losing orders, SIA just ordered 9 more while the 747-8 Intercontinental is yet to log a single order. Last years wide body sales advantage and this years overall sales advantage that Boeing enjoys is about the first trend that makes sense since this rivalry began. Never-the-less, Airlines buy Airbus even when they fall short. This is why I believe the Airbus camp is giddy over the XWB. The XWB might actually be a worthy of the sales. Airbus doesn't see the 10 inch wider 777 as a threat to the XWB because they figure the 8 across seating will give more comfort than the 9 of the 777. As far a performance claims, they'll make can make whatever claim they want until it actually flies. Perhaps the Boeing answer is a 777-8 with 8 across seating, larger windows, and that awesome 787 interior. Of course, this is easier said then recommended. But that would knock over the Airbus execs.

Greg B., Portland, Oregon

Your quote: "The 787 is the first commercial jetliner of the 2nd century of powered flight." Enjoy your column but, I don't understand this time claim in respect to the currently flying A380, unless qualified as the first "Boeing" jetliner of the 2nd aviation century.

Rene H., Seattle, Washington

I bought Boeing stock when it was fairly cheap a few years back. I had faith in Boeing's ability to build new and efficient product. It appears that my faith was justified, based upon the current share price. Also, Airbus appears to be just one more example of failed European industrial policy. The A320 has sold well, although I prefer any 737 model or DC-9 development to travel on. The A300 is a really efficient medium size twin. After that, what else has Airbus done in its 35 or so years of existence? The A380 is a joke, nobody wants the A340 and the 330 is dying as well. The A350 remains no more than an artist's conception. Go Boeing!

David G., Monroe, Ohio

Recently, Boeing sent me a e-mail regarding the new and revamped "newairplane.com". I glanced on a product to long to be a Boeing 787-9, could this be a elusive preview of the Boeing 787-10? How do you plan to counter the Airbus A350-1000? Obviously, the lucrative 777 market is losing its share to Airbus already, do you plan to counter that? As said "It's better to replace then allow your competitor to eat the market", and since the -200/-200ER will soon get punched out by Airbus' A350XWB-900, do you plan to revive the legacy of the Boeing 777? Such as, importing the ideas into the Boeing 787-10? Obviously, as we know it, the Airbus A350-900 might have a chance to crush Boeing's 777-200ER, but it's not wider. Again, will you import the great aspects of the Boeing 777 into the Boeing 787-10, such as a larger cross-section?

Andre, Seattle, Washington

Ok, Randy, the cat is out of the bag, according to the Boeing sales orders, "2" orders are showing up for 787 BBJ's. So, some of us, are quite curious as to what these 787 BBJ's are going to look like. Any chance of a sneak preview?

Mike C., Long Beach, California

I'm glad I stumbled across Randy's blog. I saw some comments about the A350XWB vs. the 787, in particular regarding SQ's intentions. Given Airbus's track record in on-time delivery and R&D vs. that of Boeing, I'm actually shocked that Tony Lim would even consider another order. The signal to the market by Emirates even weighs clear! The lucrative new long-distance and Moscow routes that the Asian carriers all acknowledge is a growth-market will surely propel great sales of the 787. I'm glad you have this blog and marketing tool present, especially since I myself am even considering to become an employee of Boeing!

Eric G., Cebu City, Philippines

Enjoyed your August post-Farnborough post. But you did not mention that the A350XWB will likely provide full control of the window shades to those who pay for them -- the passengers! This could be a key marketing advantage versus the 787 and the dictatorial control that Boeing is giving to the flight attendants to plunge the cabin into near-total darkness during daylight flights. Electronic window shades are great -- giving control to FAs is not. My trip home from Farnborough was a window seat in BA Business Class -- four windows, under my full control, fully open, all the time. Daytime flying the way it is supposed to be! Do I mind shutting my shade? Darn right I do. Have not been hearing much in the last year about engine swapping on the 787 -- is this becoming the folding wingtip of the 787? A neat idea at program inception that ultimately gains no traction over the life of the program and quietly fades away? And thanks for the DreamSpace at Farnborough -- not only was it by far the coolest space figuratively (with phenomenal displays and a fantastic 787 mock-up), it was the coolest space literally in that sweltering hell called the 2006 Farnborough Air Show.

Doug R., New York, New York

J/24 sailboat spinnaker poles could make a nice graphic demonstration showing how much stronger carbon fiber can be than Aluminum. The J/24 class specifies the weight of the spinnaker pole but not it's material. Carbon fiber poles are virtually indestructible and can be abused with impunity. The loads on similar aluminum poles have to be carefully balanced. A nice video demo would show a straight tubular aluminum pole (with an "A350" sticker?) sailing in a heavy wind with bending and compression loads. It would fail spectacularly - at least folding up and possibly completely breaking in half with the ends flailing about. A carbon fiber pole (with a "787" sticker) of identical size, shape and weight would be shown under identical conditions and be obviously nowhere close to damage. The visual point to be made is that a properly built carbon fiber structure will be dramatically stronger than a similar aluminum structure of the same size and weight. The accurately implied point is that an aluminum A350 will have to sacrifice strength and durability to match the 787's weight.

Doug H., Huntington Beach, California

It seems that Airbus has made several serious miscalculations. In the past several years they have developed three different planes at the same time. The jumbo A380 has taken most of their engineers. At the same time they developed the A350 [first version] and this effort took extra engineers they didn't have. The A350 was pieced together from older and smaller airbus models. The Dreamliner was selling more planes than Airbus expected. They added a few new composite parts and borrowed the new engine from the 787 Dreamliner. At this time, more engineers were working on the new military transport; the M400. Ever hear of the M400? Between the three new planes, they didn't have enough engineers to work on all the planes at the same time. The first version of the A350 has been thrown in the trash and redone with a copy of the 787. The A380 has problems and delays. Now parts of it are being re- designed and it is late. It seemed to be overly grandiose and close to being impractical. It was designed to be the largest passenger plane in the world and to show the superior engineering. It showed that a design needs to work well and sell enough planes to show a profit. I think they need to sell 250 A380's to break even. They have orders for 159 and there are no new orders. I have the strong feeling that Airbus might be in serious economic trouble within a year. They can make 'happy talk' about their clever designs, but they have made too many mistakes. The mistakes are piling up now into an economic melt down.

John K., Eugene, Oregon

I am more and more convinced that 737 replacement will happen if and only if you can sell them at a very low price. It means that not only the next generation narrow body aircraft will be more efficient; its production cost must be significantly lower than that of 737. The 737 replacement must also be simple to operate and robust. So, the four key words for 737 replacement are: Affordable, Robust, Simple and Efficient. In other words, it won't be available before 2015.

G.

I just heard the announcement of the new Airbus A350XWB and rushed to the Airbus site to take a look. My question is how come the supposingly A350XWB, a derivative from the A380, with 787 engines would look identical to the 787 Dreamliner down to the winglet?

Rob, Las Vegas, Nevada

I only recently found your Blog on the web, and I find it excellent. Anyone who reads your blog would be well aware it's just another facet of Boeing marketing, but still your Journal is like a breath of fresh air compared to the usual bland corporate communications. The 787, with its high fuel efficiency, is just the right plane for the times I really wonder about the heavy use of advanced composites, though. I'm familiar with the basic technology, though I have no contact with aviation applications. As I know, it is still very difficult to routinely fabricate an item the size of a 787 fuselage section out of such materials. And Boeing is planning to build 20 to 30 787s a month - wow! Talk about audacity! I have no doubt Boeing's experience and sheer engineering muscle will be able to overcome the problems EVENTUALLY, but you sure are taking a big risk with delivery schedules and your reputation. I suppose that's why Airbus is taking a more conventional approach, even after the latest iteration of the A350-XWB. If you can pull it off, 787 will be clearly superior to the A350XWB, but if you fail, or take a long time to get it right, Boeing is going to get very badly hurt. Wish you all success.

Kit K., Penang, Malaysia

How about some recognition to Eclipse Aviation and the certification of its new Eclipse 500? The Eclipse 500 is every much a "game changer" in its marketplace as is the 787. Both are pioneering new methods of construction and will bring their operators new levels of efficiency and affordability. Additionally, I would be curious to get your take on the emerging air taxi business and what it means to companies like Boeing and Airbus.

Greg, San Diego, California

The 737. From 'Fluffy' to Next Generation, this airplane family continues to ink its self into the record books and continues to be one of the most impressive commercial airplane stories ever! A phenomenal airplane that will without a doubt continue to fly strong and mightily for many decades into the 21st Century! The 737 Next Generation is an airplane of superlatives and a true workhorse of the domestic and regional fleets. The 737 is a solid, sturdy machine that was and is built right. Boasting the highest dispatch reliability, a 3% -7% operating costs reduction, and a maximum maintenance reduction of 22%, over the A320 family, as well as boasting the most efficient design, and ground breaking technologies such as the blended Winglets, this airplane has got to be, without a doubt, the mainstay of any airline, company or private owner. The Boeing 737 Next Generation fleet is the only airplane family to cover the market fully, and offers unique models, such as the 737-700ER and -900ER. Flying faster and higher, yet far more fuel efficient with lower trip costs over the competition, is what makes this 737NG unstoppable, as well as all the other phenomenal Boeing Commercial Airplanes! Congratulations of the 2000th delivery of the 737NG, and may there a few thousand more deliveries of this unique airplane!

Chris C., South Africa

So, Farnborough Air show has finally come to an end. Overall, I'd say it was quite splendid. I was most excited to see a 777 in EVA Air's gorgeous livery on display. (thanks for letting a Taiwanese airline participate by the way) As a matter of fact, 777 is my absolute favorite airliner. Though I've only flown on it once with Singapore Airline, it was my most memorable flying experience ever. As such, I'm glad that Boeing will be improving the 777 further. Although there are those who consider 777 to be dead with the looming threats of A350 and B787-10. I for one believe that if Boeing can keep on rejuvenating its decades-old 737 and 747 to bring new lives into them, I don't see why they can't do the same with their relatively young flag ship. On Airbus front, it seems they've finally decided to get serious with their mid-haul long-range wide-body family by announcing the A350XWB. However, I'm still not all that impressed with Airbus and their new jet. For much of its elements seemed to have borrowed from Boeing's Dreamliner. (it's truly just a "me-too 787") Indeed, when I first saw the new A350, my first reaction was: "who painted the 787 in Airbus's livery?" Also, bigger windows, higher cabin humidity...etc, why to those features sound awfully familiar? So no, there's nothing about the A350XWB that makes it technologically "a leap ahead" of the 787. Nonetheless, though I have my doubts and criticisms regarding Airbus's ambitious claims and performance targets, should they really deliver the A350XWB on-specs and on-time, it'll most certainly provide a formidable opposition to 777 and 787. Therefore, better no take A350XWB lightly Boeing. As you've admitted before Randy, Airbus is a tough competitor. P.S: You're definitely right Randy. Air shows are just short sprints in this VERY LONG marathon of commercial aviation contest. And I expect 2006 to be another excellent year for both Boeing & Airbus.

Yurey Y, Taipei, Taiwan

I'm watching enthusiasm build for Boeing products, and I'm hoping the wave of mandatory pilot retirements will carry me into a Boeing for Air Canada in the next few years. But I start to wonder: the same generation of baby boomers who are hogging all the pilot seats are also building the airplanes. Sure the lack of a mandatory retirement age will soften the blow, but given that a lot of experienced skilled tradespeople are set to retire in the next few years, and given the modern preference of university over trades for smart high school graduates these days, what is Boeing doing to ensure that you'll still have the people to build all the airplanes the world wants?

Aviatrix, Canada

Boeing should not rest on its laurels and allow Airbus to pull a leapfrog on them. The 777, 737 and the 717 should have been designed using 8 technology to really level the competition. We all know Airbus will do what it does best and that is seek taxpayers in Europe to fund its projects. Airbus seems more concerned about sales rather than innovation and technology. If Airbus wants to compete, simply Randy, all Boeing needs to do is raise the bar just a little higher. Convince the manufacturers to make the engines even more efficient. I put my money on Boeing to dominate for the next 10-20 years.

Kevin, Miami, Florida

I currently reside in the beautiful port city of Bordeaux. A world-famous city if you ask me. Even our own Airbus A380 crossed the city. However, I'm very disappointed at the "new" Airbus A350XWB when it's generally based upon your revolutionary Boeing 787. I would not call the Airbus A350 revolutionary. Anyways, does Boeing plan to produce the 787-10? As what Airbus done to you, will you "leapfrog" them? They're fuselage is wider than your 787, but you may make it wider. Airbus also stated that the windows will be the largest in the industry, do you plan to counter that with the 787-10? Hopefully, the Boeing 787-10 range will exceed the Airbus A350XWB. Hopefully, you'll do very well with the upcoming Emirates order.

Thomas K., Bordeaux, France

I will love to see Boeing retake the lead from Airbus. Please try hard to please customers and work hard to get new orders from United, Delta, American Airlines and British Airways, US Air and many others .. Ten row across 3-4-3 will be wonderful.

Desmond C., Indianapolis Indiana

As Airbus has just launched their 5th (6th/7th??) iteration of the A350, I wonder how they are going to pay for the $10B development costs. We know the US will fight tooth and nail against anymore launch aid. Airbus is assuming they will have it ready for service in 2012. But they have many issues to resolve in the near term before they even think about starting production. In addition, 2012 is just about the timeframe Boeing will introduce their replacement for the single aisle family. Airbus will be playing catch-up for at least another 10 years. Also, they can kiss the tanker contract goodbye if they get more EU handouts.

Mark, Newport Beach, California

I am glad you guys have continued to take the high road in the pitched battle with Airbus for the 200-350 seat market. Comments about the 787 being a cheap Chinese copy of the A330 have come back to bite Airbus in the back end. Provide a superior product to the market and the airlines will beat a path to your door. Kudos to the Boeing team for doing just that! I am looking forward to watching Airbus struggle with Boeings future launches of the 737RS and 777"NG" while they are still trying to hit breakeven on the A380 and hit an impossible 2012 EIS for the A350XWB.

Rainer, San Clemente, California

I have over the past couple of months been reading the rhetoric coming from Airbus on the 350, but now with the 350XWB and all the superlative claims "best in class" etc. I have to say something. Much of the efficiency is weight related and if the new 350XWB has a higher internal cabin pressure and larger windows and the fuselage is still aluminum then it makes the statement "more efficient than the 787", even more suspect. With the higher internal pressures and larger windows the skin thickness, skin stresses will be higher and will need to be increased and fuselage weight will go up. Weight increase is very sensitive in the fuselage due to the large surface areas being dealt with. The density between aluminum and composites has the composite being about 43% lighter from a one on one material comparison. The newer light weight aluminums are approximately 7% lighter than standard aluminum materials. If you take a fuselage of approximately 125 feet long and 234 inches in diameter, a thickness increase in the fuselage skin of .010 inches will increase the weight approximately 1,100 lbs, using standard aluminum (that's the thickness of a little over three pieces of paper). A last note, even if the skins were the same thickness the composite skin is a lot lighter than the aluminum skin in the area of thousands of pounds. You need to compensate in many areas to make up for the inefficiencies in the fuselage. Airbus claims don't hold water.

Rich K, Bear, Delaware

I have been annoyed at the loose use of the terms, game changer, leap and even "me too" I saw a FedEx publication that called the A380 freighter a "game changer". While I think it's an impressive capacity increase for FedEx, it's not a game changer in that its just larger size for the existing game. If the can structure worked, they might be better off with two 777s (supposedly the can structure for a 747 does not work for them). It's certainly costing a lot to gear up for the A380. The Leap from thing by Airbus is also eyewash. Its not even "me too" technology, it's the old stuff wrapped in a phony package. Me too would at least be using an all composite airframe, and they are not coming close to doing that. And by the time they do, Boeing will have an experience advantage in its use, application and improvement (or refinement). So, keep beating up on them. For those of us that follow the industry, I am wondering if it would be possible to come up with a passenger count template that would be applied to pax count comparisons? Something that used a 2 or 3 class seating arrangement, how wide the seats are (and how many) as well as pitch or spacing. Along those lines, I think some kind of revenue generating figure that would take into account maintenance (reduced hopefully in the case of the 787), cargo capacity and its overall fuel burn. It seems to me that you add those all up, you have something that's 30-40% better than existing, not just 20% of the fuel efficiency. I think you could then squash any slewed comparisons. I also looked at the latest A350, and it left me wondering about how wide it was and what it gets. You can't get any more seats in it, 5 inches across at 9 seats is literally nothing, and its not as wide as a 777 (which I keep thinking is its only real market). It makes me wonder if it actually gets launched (which I have wondered all along).

Greg Schmitz, Anchorage Alaska

You said that the Airbus A350 didn't make sense? Surely it made sense to Singapore Airlines since they ordered 20 of it?

Noel, Moscow

Has there been any talk of a Corporate 787?

Mike C., Long Beach, California

It is a common census that you don't need be the best to win. And never doubt about the power of your opponent. Reading the Randy's articles in his blog (excellent in my opinion), I've got the impression that Boeing forgets that sometimes things just don't go as we wish. You can just take a look about the recent Airbus selling and you'll understand why. This text has been taken in Flight Magazine website: "Airbus closed its order gap on rival Boeing during the Farnborough air show after declaring firm agreements for 90 aircraft, plus commitments for another 92." This is not a question about when or where you and your rival will "leap" each other. It's a question to ensure the customers won't "leap" you and by from another company. Take it in mind!

Harilton Rodrigues, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Singapore Airlines earlier in the year had an Intention to buy 20 Boeing 787. At the Farnborough Air show SQ also has an Intention to buy 20 Airbus A350XWB. I really don't understand this connection of buy two different types of planes. I have seen the A350XWB and it personally looks like a 787 which doesn't look nice. Does this design of the A350XWB show that Airbus has really no way of competing with the 787? I think Airbus is desperate to compete with the very successful 777/787, but Airbus has killed the A330 and A340 family simultaneously with the range and passenger capacity. Very ironic family kills family. I want your opinion: Which Aircraft is gonna work better.

Yashveen, Cape Town, South Africa

Has Boeing ever thought about running two separate lists for counting aircraft orders? 1 is the way that Boeing currently keeps track of aircraft orders, the other, is the way that Airbus keeps track of aircraft orders.

Mike C., Long Beach, California

I noticed that you mentioned that Airbus has chosen to put up the new A350 against two of Boeing's products the 787 and the 777. I think that you are wrong about that. It is just that the strategy of Airbus is to build a new plane ranging from 250 - 350 seats. Boeing's strategy is to address the 220-310 seats with one product (the 787) and 290-365 with another product (the 777). In the end it is a question about which product best suits the airlines needs. For an A300 or A310 replacement, the A350 would not be relevant. The A330 would be though it is a generation behind the 787. Similarly if an ultra long-range plane is the requirement, the A350-900L would be a good choice. Boeing would have to decide whether to improve the 777-LR or launch the 787-10. So it's a question about positioning. Looks like Airbus has abandoned the 200-250 seat market just as Boeing has no competitor to the A380. The 747-8 has some 1000 seats less. The only plane which I can see as in direct competition to each other is the A320 vs the 737 family.

George, Guangzhou, China

As a native in the city of aerospace in France, I think Airbus over exaggerated their plane. First, the plane is a carbon-copy of Boeing's 787. They claim their windows are larger, and copied the phrase said by Boeing's Mike Bair: "The windows will be the industry's largest". Their plane is NOT more fuel efficient than the Boeing 787 n several reasons. And the range of the Boeing 787 exceeds the A350XWB's range, their plane is not even close and they stress that their plane has more range than the competition, when the Boeing 787-9 has a staggering range of 8,900 nm, compared to their 8,500 nm. A 400 nm difference. Sorry Airbus, but Au revoir!

Phillppe D., Toulouse, France

I LOVE the large windows for the passengers and the new shades. I'm curious, Randy, if you can tell me if they've come up with a shade solution for the cockpit in the 787. It's frustrating to have to put up newspapers in the cockpit of the Boeings I've been flying so far (727,737,757,767,777). Please tell me that the pointy end of the airplane also has a bit of 'high tech' when it comes to shading as well. Thanks! Kent

Kent W., Exeter, New Hampshire

All the talk about the 787 Dreamliner is making those of us in business and in the private sector very excited. It's interesting how our countries officials and the private sector will utilize significant resources on machines that satisfy our "right now" appetite. We are always wanting something to go faster so we may get more done, be more comfortable and rest able so that we may live in luxury and more importantly we are willing to waste no cost. If there is a major catastrophe or terrorist/nuclear attack would Boeing be willing to fly the Dreamliner to devastated areas to evacuate people?? It is important for companies like Boeing to be truly socially responsible and they will see a true incline in their stock and growth. I am no analyst I am not even an educated businessman I am only a young man who believes in the American spirit of togetherness to achieve great things and saving lives is the most rewarding thing someone can do.. How will Boeing play an active role if the west coast was hit by an earthquake or hurricanes threaten the livelihood of the gulf coast? The truth is these things WILL happen we just have no idea when. I hope the Boeing executives commit themselves to social and corporate philanthropy.

M.

As threatening (or not threatening) this new A350X is wouldn't it be in Boeing's best interests to look into further improving the 787? ...just to keep on top of things.

Sam

I expect that Airbus will shortly announce a two model program like Boeing did with the 757/767. Yes they very well know their offering of the A350XWB does not and will not compete with the 787. It's very much targeted at the 777 and with "Bleed Air" and Composites it will give this wonderful airplane a tough battle in the 300-400 segment. What these guys do know how to do is get an airplane launched by whatever means (call it launch aid or what ever they will do it) I bet you will see Airbus launching two models within the next year. Yes their Engineering/Production organization is stretched thin with the A380 but they will find a way to give Boeing a run for the money by launching two new planes. Yes, Boeing's assessment is correct that they cannot beat Boeing with one new mouse trap. So how do we as a free market fix airbus? How about big tariffs on their planes?

John L., Tucson, Arizona

At the Farnborough Airshow, Airbus proudly displayed their new product, the A350XWB. This was not the airplane that the industry was waiting for. All they did was take the original A350 & added some pretty lighting to it. The industry is looking for the A350XE (extra efficient) or how about the A350FS (fuel saver). This is what the 787 is all about, an aircraft that will save the industry money in efficiency & fuel savings & will also provide passenger comfort. Airbus, I think it may be time to go back to the drawing board, again.

Mike C., Long Beach, California

I lived my entire life about 3 miles from Kennedy Airport. I watched every airplane in production today fly over my house over the past 20 something years...the loudest was the Super Sonic Transporter. Woke me up every morning at 7am. This new Model (787) will be another amazing site to see when it flies over my house.
Richard D., New York, New York

90 years of innovations in aviation...WOW! Surely that would be a monumental day for Boeing. I send my regards and congratulations. Happy birthday Boeing and best wishes for continuing successes for many years to come.

Yurey W., Taipei, Taiwan

Hey Randy: I hope you knock 'em dead at Farnborough!! Isn't it nice to know you were right all along about the bright future of point-to-point air travel?

Cheryl A., Seattle, Washington

Thanks for posting your tremendous CMO presentation. Not only is Boeing availing itself of the latest aviation technology in its airline products, it is exploiting the latest communications technology (the power of the blog) to give industry outsiders unprecedented visibility into the commercial airplane market and a greater appreciation for the art of deciphering such a complex market. I'm certain that I speak for many in voicing appreciation for your journal.

Bernie S., Centreville, Virginia

As an employee and shareholder, I have the successful delivery of the first 787 in my daily prayers.

Charles C., Southern California

Randy, I just read the market outlook and it is truly remarkable. I was wondering if your analysis took into account projections for the various military derivatives such as C-40, P-8A MMA, 767 Tanker etc. Is BCA committed to building and supporting these aircraft as well?

Tom H., Renton, Washington

Seems to me that airline policies are significantly slowing the boarding process by allowing passengers carry too much luggage onboard. I'm surprised that the airlines haven't collaborated on a restriction for only one small carry-on.

Glenn B., Bothell, Washington

You laid down an excellent wide-body-long-range ("WBLR") product strategy several years ago. The result of your WBLR strategy is now apparent.
The only thing you need to do now is to keep on executing this strategy with strict discipline. Although you haven't made public your intention concerning the 777, your blog entry of 7 July 2006 gives a hint of what you may do to the 777.
Bravo for your clear WBLR product strategy!

G.I., France

Your Journal is always a delight to read. Can you give us a preview of what Boeing has in store for the Farnborough Air Show? Thanks!

Ken W., Chicago, Illinois

I know that the answer to this is quite simple, but why does the passenger version of the 747 have nearly twice the range as the freight? Is it because the TOW is that much heavier; does it fly at a lower altitude? Assuming both jets land with an "empty tank" and a full load of passengers vs. a full load of cargo, the passenger jet would be a continent ahead of its freight twin. Why?

Edward L., New York

I suspect you've already considered this, but Boeing has a week of its own next year - in July. From July 2 through July 8, you'll have: 7-2-7, 7-3-7, 7-4-7, 7-5-7, 7-6-7, and 7-8-7. I'm sure your PR folks could come up with something clever to take advantage of this.

Brad V., Richfield, Minnesota

The Leapfrog article is well taken and interesting, perhaps a bit too much of a jab at the to-be-configured A350/70 (not that I am an Airbus defender). But the other point that Airbus has made publicly is that because 787 is essentially sold out until 2012, or some distant date like that, having a product that won't arrive until 2012 is not that big a problem. That is, if I were to order a 787 today, I wouldn't be able to get my hands on the plane until 2012 anyway. So Airbus doesn't nearly have as much to lose in redesigning the plane, if it means a better product. It sounds reasonable to me, what do others think about this argument?

Edward, San Diego, California

I have been following the 787 closely and your remarks about leapfrog are spot on. While Airbus may have an incremental improvement with their design, it won't be a game changing improvement over the 787. But apparently they aren't even targeting the 787 but the 777. Perhaps a redesign of the 737 first and then the 777 with composite fuselages using the techniques and lessons learned from the 787. Don't stop innovating and trying out new techniques. While the press made a big deal out of the bubbles in one of your test sections a thinking person realizes that not pushing the technology envelope only leaves you behind, i.e. McDonnell Douglas and Airbus today. Building for pride leads to downfall, Lockheed (L1011) and others. The airlines need to get a handle on reducing the time from the Departure curb to boarding at major airports like LAX. No wonder more people are using private jets and leased time. Boeing shouldn't ignore this as it is better for all of us not to have unnecessary increases in smaller planes just because it is such a pain to get on a commercial plane.

D.S., Anaheim, California

There is a historical chance to beat Airbus once and for all. I hope that you can use it!

Peter G., Boulder, Colorado

I can't believe my eyes when I read this discussion thread at airliners.net "Donnelly told Aviation Daily that an engine for the proposed A350 would need to be about 10 percent larger than the GEnx". Gee! This engine is NOT for the A350. This engine will have the right size for 777-8 and 777-9. One can think that Boeing has already started to consider improving the 777 family. Lighter, bigger and better!

G

Class act this one. Always good to see one taking the high road. I hope Mr. Leahy is reading this one! :-)

Lumberton

Randy, You are a class act and a credit to your profession. In my business I too always talk of my competitors with the respect they deserve. I am a Boeing advocate my self but you bring us all a dose of reality on the developments at your competitor. With progress will comes problems and it can, and will, happen to both of you. Jerry Steele

Jerry S., Tucson, Arizona

First of all, WOW! Very well done Randy! I thoroughly enjoy reading your journals as they are both very informative and persuasive, in addition to not being very...should we say "offensive"? Don't get me wrong, I'm neither pro-Airbus nor pro-Boeing, (I'm a fan of Lockheed actually because they build most of my favorite jets. E.g. F-16, F-22, SR-71...etc) both companies build fantastic aircrafts and I had fond memories of flying on all of Airbus and Boeing's airliners I have the fortune to come across thus far. In any case, I think I'll leave comments more regularly in the future, that is...if you don't mind of course. For now, I'd like to ask you just one more question. Given how Airbus tout their quietest cabin in the sky onboard the A340 on their homepage it makes me wonder... Then, how can the 777s possess smaller noise footprints than the A340 as shown on Boeing's website? I have not flown on an A340 yet, so I can't really do any comparison. But aren't those two facts contradicting to each other? Lastly, regarding Boeing's prediction of point-to-point flights for the future... Personally, I think there's a twist to it. For instance, on a 10 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Seattle) then yeah, I don't want to make a stopover at somewhere like Tokyo. On an 18 hours flight (e.g. Taipei ~ Miami) however, I'd rather take a shore leave at somewhere like L.A so I can go stretch and walk around. Thank you for taking time to read through my comment. Best regards!

Yurey W. Taipei, Taiwan

I'm a fan of your blog. Just wanted to comment on your post regarding the challenges of building very large aircraft. Do you think Airbus underestimated their ability to develop the huge A380, or do you see their recent issues as inherent problems that could not have been foreseen?

Mbwana, Stanford, California

I have to admit it is very nice to see a straight and level Boeing response to the problems that Airbus is having. Instead of taunting them and gloating over their problems, the response was respectful and forward looking. While I am a Boeing fan, this makes Boeing seem even more professional compared with what could have been written. Keep up the good work.

Peter B., St. Charles, Illinois

Syntroleum (SYNM) just signed a contract with DoD to provide 100,000 gallons of synthetic jet fuel. This is an ongoing effort being conducted by the USAF using a B-52. SYNM has other activities ongoing such as in South Africa where for more than a year they have been conducting tests and evaluations using synthetic fuels. SYNM has processes to convert Coal to Liquid Fuels, Natural Gas to Liquid Fuels, and BioMass to Liquid Fuels. They are also developing in joint partnerships large scale production facilities. Does Boeing have research or test and evaluation programs in synthetic jet fuels for all military and commercial aircraft Boeing manufactures? The technology is here. The only question is when will it be deployed to consumers, and for what price. The belief is that it could be a lot cheaper than hydrocarbon based fuel products. The SYNM web-site has presentation materials that explain it further. Fuels developed from the Syntroleum proc

Randy's Journal

Leave a comment (Name, email and comments fields are required.)

All Comments

Leave a comment
(Name, email and comments fields are required.)