Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Will Boeing Become The Next McDonnell Douglas?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Will Boeing Become The Next McDonnell Douglas?

Old 25th Feb 2021, 16:13
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Róisín Dubh
Posts: 1,250
As I recall, the 787 was launched to compete with the A330 family, and the A350 was launched to compete with the 777 family, so comparing 787 vs A350 isn’t exactly apples with apples.

It is interesting when you look back at the incremental growth in 767 to A330 to 78X in particular, and then compare that to the shrinking of the top end of the market with VLAs going the way of the dinosaur. 777X is on shaky ground with all the delays and the current economic climate, A330neo also in trouble. 778, A35KULR for project sunrise and A350neo with the new Ultrafan are all on the backburner, and we must not forget the widebody market was already soft for years before COVID.

It was already looking like Airbus had the golden goose with the 321neo variants pre Covid, and that might be even more true afterwards. The A220 faces scale of production costs, and we already know about Boeing’s problems. The 320 family might be the only commercial passenger jet making any money for the manufacturer for a few years to come.
Una Due Tfc is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 19:28
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,408
To me having batteries of that make up is tantamount to carrying fireworks...I mean most likely the fireworks won't ignite but if they do... it's hopless and you're going under. If he gel matrix that separates the anode and cathode breaks down you will be in St. John The Divine in no time... perfect cell separation during a breach seems like a dream.

PS there was an article about the phenomenon of matrix breach but I'm not sure if it's in my ACS collection or my Sigma Xi collection.

Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 25th Feb 2021 at 19:43.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 23:24
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 210
Anyone know why Boeing did not buy the C series from Bombardier ? If it was for sale why pass it up ?
fitliker is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 23:33
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,181
The DC10 and L1011 had 2-5-2 seating configuration in economy with certain airlines. This seems to have fallen out of favour and gone to 3-3-3 or 3-4-3 with newer types.

At the lower end, Airbus seem to have the edge with the A320 family. In the middle, Boeing would have the edge with the B787 IF they had built them properly and not had a continuing series of problems since they were introduced. At the top, Airbus seem to have the edge with the A350 being more modern than the current generation of B777s and not having experienced the problems of the B777X.

For the next few years the reality will be totally different to what airlines and aircraft manufacturers had planned for. Long haul premium travel via hubs using large aircraft will be replaced by economy travel point to point using smaller aircraft. The A321 is well placed for this market as it can easily do short haul, medium haul and the extended range versions are nudging long haul distances.

Airbus may have known better than Boeing how good the B757 was, and decided to cater to that market. The current situation has left them in a better position then they could have imagined, turning a niche market into a mainstream one in which they are the sole contender.
krismiler is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2021, 23:56
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Age: 75
Posts: 246
I think lithium ion batteries are madness in an aircraft as they suffer from thermal runway very difficult to contain as once burning they need total immersion in water to remove the heat. Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) are very safe and do not catch fire a far better choice and starting to be produce for light aircraft.
horizon flyer is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 02:01
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,408
Lord Bracken

I think even despite EVAC requirements the Air lines would do 4-5-4
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 03:18
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 86
I can’t completely fathom your obsession and fearfulness of this one bit of technology. After all, lead-acid batteries are capable of thermal runaway and potential explosion. And as for fireworks, 200,000 pounds of Jet A would certainly light up the night sky.
Commander Taco is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 05:33
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,408
NiCads too, but without further explanation...I just don't believe that Li ion batteries belong aboard aircraft, especially giant batteries. No I'm not afraid of jet fuel, that part is nonsense. I had 3 undergrad majors, one of which is in chemistry so when I read journals dealing with the circumscribing conditions that can cause a complete runaway; I really don't want to fly with them aboard.The only thing that could console me about Li ion batteries is if there were a powerful fire suppression system installed with it.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 08:15
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Denmark
Posts: 46
fitliker

One of the major reasons it was for sale was due to the tariffs imposed by the US on the C-Series, and that was down to lobbying by Boeing. I'm certain that they would rather have burnt down their factory than sell the program to Boeing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/boei...17-9?r=US&IR=T
piperpa46 is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 08:50
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,325
Boeing finally did not buy into Embraer as well. They had great plans.
Less Hair is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 09:35
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,671
krismiler

We have heard this one constantly from the Boeing marketing department; reality is of course different. The 787 was billed as a "hub avoider, point to point" aircraft. Look how they got used once delivered. Every mainstream operator was operating them out of their own hubs. About the only exception, compared to their route structure, was Norwegian - and look where that got them.
WHBM is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 20:45
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,790
WHBM

"We have heard this one constantly from the Boeing marketing department; reality is of course different. The 787 was billed as a "hub avoider, point to point" aircraft. Look how they got used once delivered. Every mainstream operator was operating them out of their own hubs. About the only exception, compared to their route structure, was Norwegian - and look where that got them."

It's a tad unfair to blame Boeing or the 787 for failing to create demand where none existed.

But "hub bypass" doesn't have to mean direct flights between two non-hub points. Even if one end of the route is still a hub, it may then become possible to avoid a hub at the other end.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 21:37
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,671
Well that's certainly what Boeing marketing implied, with their guff about "avoiding the crowds at the hub". Maybe they should have said "Avoiding the crowds at one of the two hubs you might have used if your journey is one of the few that connects at two hubs, but otherwise we're going to sell the aircraft to be used on routes replacing the 777 or even the 747, like the one that moaner WHBM on PPRuNe took LHR-IAD, which used to be a 747 route for the previous 50 years".

It's not surprising, though. The aircraft, even the 787-8, is quite a bit larger than a 767. If a "hub bypass" route didn't support one of those, why should it then support a 787. It's notable how many of BA's onetime long-thin direct 767 routes, like to places in Africa, actually got picked off even during the 787s lifetime by passengers deserting for hubbed operations through the likes of Dubai or Istanbul.
WHBM is online now  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 22:34
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,181
For the next few years, the B777 and A380 will be too big for hub airlines to fill and maintain reasonable connecting times. The B787 could become a hub aircraft as well as point to point. With its smaller size and long range it could open up routes which couldn’t support a larger aircraft and allow all important frequency, twice daily B787 instead of daily A380.

EK were badly caught out by the pandemic with an all mega wide body fleet. QR less so as they could substitute smaller types.

Hub airlines are usually able to undercut airlines flying direct routes, if the savings are worthwhile they will get pax.
krismiler is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2021, 22:44
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,790
WHBM

"Well that's certainly what Boeing marketing implied, with their guff about "avoiding the crowds at the hub". Maybe they should have said "Avoiding the crowds at one of the two hubs you might have used if your journey is one of the few that connects at two hubs, but otherwise we're going to sell the aircraft to be used on routes replacing the 777 or even the 747, like the one that moaner WHBM on PPRuNe took LHR-IAD, which used to be a 747 route for the previous 50 years".

Missing out any stop on a 3+ leg route isn't to be sniffed at.

BA, for example, were certainly using the 787 (pre-Covid) on several routes that would previously have required a transfer over an intermediate hub. The fact that EDI or GLA traffic would still need a domestic transfer over LHR doesn't invalidate the argument.

I only have vague recollections of the Boeing marketing campaign, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include an assertion that "you'll never see this aircraft at any hub airport".
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2021, 19:42
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,408
This is a current article about the 787
program.

https://www.aerotime.aero/27357-boei...7-issues?v=amp
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 02:27
  #57 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 223
PA,
Thanks for the link.
In that article there is also an additional issue;

Quote, "In the latest, unrelated to the aforementioned issues, blow, the FAA mandated checks on 222 US-registered 787s. The agency identified that bilge barriers in the forward and aft cargo areas of the Dreamliner were either damaged or disengaged, as potentially, a fire in the cargo compartments “could result in the loss of continued safe flight and landing of the airplane.”

It isn't clear if the bilge barriers were part of a production issue which brings into question QC or lack thereof.
568 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 06:23
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,408
No problem 568...there are several articles.
If that's not an example of gone to pot then nothing is!

Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 28th Feb 2021 at 07:29.
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 16:10
  #59 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 223
PA,
At least these issues were caught before a major catastrophe.
Can't say if the airframes that were found to be at fault were a combination from West and East coast!
I would say without doubt that this also raises the issue of Corporate responsibility at the highest level.
568 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2021, 18:31
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: victoria
Posts: 3
Boeing was simplywas a failure of a corporate culture framed by monpolistic positions in the industry over thirty years. The failure of the max design was the culmunation of a slow decline of competative Boeing. It stalled the investment in the new 2026 design to put product extension in place to stall the decision to borrow on a declining balance sheet. In management terms this is was coffin corner for the future of boeing some years ago. Weak management in bed with government national pride saw an ever increasng tax dollar subsidy which produced less than competative designs.

The future break up the company. New management,new culture,bring forward new designs,continue to develope manafacturing capability and models. A deal should have been done long ago to scrape alll max and derivitive designs like MD before it blead the company dry. It should have manufactured unde license a commuter embrar design until it could bring on line its 2026 model.

It is a classic political mistake to hang onto the max family relying on the us tax dollar to subsise the company until it would make a profit again in 2024. It is clear the new CEO cant save this company.Selling subsidaries will just plug the holes but the boat will sink without a new beginning and a scapage scheme which passengers can have faith in.
trickii1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.