Boeing Shelves Sonic Cruiser

[bookworm]

Boeing Shelves Sonic Cruiser (http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/021205/15/35g36.html)

Comments?

[Notso Fantastic]

Try a search for 'Boeing Sonic Cruiser' in the Tech Log Forum. Done to death there, and its demise accurately predicted!

I still can't work out what Boeing was doing wasting time on this impractical machine. The numbers never added up in any way. If it was meant to steal Airbus thunder- it never worked. I like Boeings, but they scored an own goal on this one. Sadly it has now removed all opposition to Airbus- a single supplier of equipment is anti-competitive.

[AlphaCharlie]

2 points:

1) How can the SC be referred to in the above article as a 'super-jumbo'. It seated 190-250 pax and it could in no way compete with the A380 in terms of size. It was a new concept designed to offer speed over long range.

2) How is the shelving of the SC a blow to the Boeing staff? Its not like the company is not offering a new aircraft. If it has shelved the SC it will offer Yellowstone - which is just as complex for Boeing to design because it will incorporate all of the new technologies that the SC was going to use, but instead use them for improved efficiency rather than speed!!

Boeing haven't scored an own goal, I can't see how they will lose face if all of the 15 airlines on the SC advisory group were saying we would prefer efficiency over speed - Boeing listened to them and is now about to build the airliner that its customers want!

Also, Airbus might be the ones to lose out overall. Boeing predicts demand for 500+ seat aircraft at 300ish over the next 20 years, Airbus places it at 1100. (Note however the 747 only sold 1300 aircraft in 30 years, so demand for the A380 is going to have to be very impressive if they sell 1100 in 20 years)!! If the A380 doesn't do well, Airbus will be saddled with a huge debt which will stop it from being able to compete with Boeing, who will have increased their market share of 100-400 seat aircraft sales!

[Torquelink]

AlphaCharlie, agree with your comments re SC / Project Yellowstone but I wouldn't share your doubts about the market size for the A380. Although it did take Boeing 30 years to sell 1,300 B747s, global traffic is likely to more than triple over the next 20 years - even allowing for 11/09 and consequences. As there is only so much point to point market fragmentation that airfield and ATC capacity plus time-zones and curfews will allow, there is likely to be very great demand for the largest people and freight movers to cater for this growth and beat congestion - in 2020 a B744 will have the same size relative to the then market as the A320 does to today's!

[Flip Flop Flyer]

AC,

When you spend a rather large amount of money promoting a concept, stick with that concept for well over a year, support it at every given chance only to back down 'cause it was still-born, that it my book constitutes a rather serious loss of face. More over, it makes Boeing look confused and without a sense of direction. In other words, the perceived opposite to Airbus.

Even if Boeing should proceed to develop and sell the "Yellowstone" aircraft, it will still leave them with a range of modern aircraft of .... 2 types; the 777 and Yellowstone. In the mean time, Airbus has a fully integrated product line and has stolen the top spot with the A380. Boeing are, unfortunate as it is, in dire straits at the moment. Back log for the 757 is virtually non-existent, same goes for the 767, the 747 basically only sells as a freighter and as older -400s become available for rebuild as freighters, that market will also deminish. The 717 is a horse nobody is willing to bet on. The 737NG still sells well, as does the 777. But with only 2 out of 6 types selling satisfactory, that is abysmal performance.

Whilst the Yellowstone might very well capture a large part of the market currently dominated by the A330, it will be a "stand alone" product as it is envisioned. As such, Boeing will be offering 3 individually competitive products but they will lack the commonality that is a major selling point of Airbus.

Sad thing is that Boeing has allowed themselves to fall so far behind Airbus. To catch up, they need the same integrated product range of modern aircraft that Airbus offers. For that to happen they have a very long way to go. This is not good, in my opinion, as the world needs at least two equally competitive aircraft manufacturers to ensure that the airlines receive the best value for money.

[AlphaCharlie]

Flip Flop

Don't forget though that the Yellowstone idea can be applied across the range of aircraft. It is a conventional aircraft incorporating modern systems, technologies and very advanced materials. Boeing can in theory apply all of this to their entire range of aircraft as they come up for redesign.

My main concern with the A380 is that real demand for 500+ seats is not likely to come until 2015 onwards. At this time, Boeing may well have reentered the UHCA market (they have always said that they don't believe there is sufficient demand for the A380 at present, but the day will come). In which case, an airline in 2020 will be offered a) the A380 which is 25 years old in design terms or b) the Boeing UHCA which providing it isn't just a 747 stretch will be considerably more modern and therefore considerably more efficient. Also, Airbus have always said that the Asian-Pacific market will provide 45% of demand for the A380 - why then if these airlines are supposedly so desperate for the aircraft have only SQ and QF ordered the aircraft. (97 orders to date, SQ and QF orders don't account for 45%. Why are the Japanese airlines not interested in the aircraft?)

One final defending comment for the SC - its operating costs were reported to come in at about 2-3% below those of the 767-300ER. So in practice they don't save the airlines any money. With the economic downturn in economies and the airline industry, airlines need to be saving money everywhere they can, therefore Yellowstone won over the SC at this time. Airlines were also worried about seat sales on the SC as tickets would be more expensive than on a 767 due to the SC's reduced cargo carrying capacity (major source of airline revenue) and fewer pax on board due to a different first:club:economy seating ratio. Also, the SC didn't continue recent trends of reducing fuel burn/pax and reducing sfc. Any aircraft which doesn't beat its predecessor in terms of environmental issues won't be popular with activists and governments which in turn puts pressure on airlines not to buy them!

[Flip Flop Flyer]

AC,

I agree that some Yellowstone technology could very well be transferred across a range of aircraft types. Airbus did the same thing, starting with the A320. The first A340 flew in in 1989 I belive, the latest rendition of which flew last year. It takes a while for new technology to be implemented across the board. It takes even longer when you have to develop an entire product line; in Airbus' case it's 18 years and counting. If and when the Yellowstone takes off, which is at the closest around 3-5 years, and until the product line has been fully developed it might very well be 20 years from now. If Airbus does what Boeing did over the last 20 years, namely very little, they might risk falling behind as Boeing are now. Maybe they'll have learned the lesson they tought Boeing, one would imagine so, and not allow that to happen but continue developing.

And why Asian carriers are not buying the A380 ? There are probably 2 reasons. One being traditional Asian convervatism, the other US arms support or sales and general support on the international stage. Plenty of examples of that.

The claim that the Cruiser would only burn slightly more than a '76, well. Since the aircraft was a marketing stunt more than anything, that statement might as well have been made by a jock in sales rather than an engineer.

Finally I will very much doubt that Boeing has the resources to develop both a family of Yellowstone aircraft AND a 747 successor. It seems they are on Yellowstone course, so Airbus will most likely sit on the +500 seat market for a very long time to come. Perhaps as long as Boeing had the market with the '74?

Interesting discussion mate. And should we start calling Yellowstone for the Boeing 808 ? :cool:

[Torquelink]

From what has been published, it seems that Yellowstone technology advances are primarily in propulsion, materials and systems rather than in revolutionary aerodynamics. If this is so such advances could be incorporated relatively easily into upgrades of both Boeing AND Airbus products i.e. Airbus are unlikely to be left behind. And more Asian carriers not ordering A380? - watch this space. Iro SC the one argument that seemed quite persuasive in favour of this aircraft was increased product differentiation. BA's recently espoused long-haul business model of focusing on F and J classes at the expense of Y on smaller aircraft in order to generate yield premiums is bedevilled by the fact that apart from offering more seat pitch/bed and free caviar the premium pax is not getting much for a fare 10 times the cheapest Y class alternative. But put him in his own aircraft which will deliver him to his destination ahead of the hoi polloi and he'd likely pay even more of a premium and if the sm cost was the same as a 767 the airline should make a killing. But maybe there just aren't enough routes like this to generate sufficient sales to justify the programme.

[moggie]

Well, what a surprise!!!!!

(For those living East of Shannon that is Irony - which is NOT like Goldy and Bronzey but made of Iron.)

[ironbutt57]

Hate to say it being a yank and all,...but I feel that Boeing has "GM" disease..just as American auto manufacturers lost the plot in the late 70's and early 80's, and failed to address the needs of the overseas markets, so has Boeing failed as well...fine products, but in too many cases missed the target, and the sonic cruiser was a failed attempt to draw Airbus into a war of financial attrition..."star wars" so to speak....training costs, and differences are easily written off in the US, and due to union contract constraints...etc etc are not as much as an issue...but just like the lack/refusal of GM and others to provide right-hand drive cars to the world cost them dearly, Airbus' foresight in developing fleet commonality has given them the upper hand over the Boeing philosophy... the Boeing product is argueably better...but is it convienent? remember who decides which airplanes are acquired...not pilots is it?