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.

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.

Anyone know why Boeing did not buy the C series from Bombardier ? If it was for sale why pass it up ?

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.

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.

Lord Bracken

I think even despite EVAC requirements the Air lines would do 4-5-4 :}

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.

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.

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

Boeing finally did not buy into Embraer as well. They had great plans.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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". :O

This is a current article about the 787
program.

https://www.aerotime.aero/27357-boei...7-issues?v=amp

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.

No problem 568...there are several articles.
If that's not an example of gone to pot then nothing is!

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.

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.

In the last few weeks the 777X was delayed by a further year due to issues with the actuators for the folding wingtips, and over 100 airframes were removed from the order-book..

The 767 tanker programme is still having major problems and costing them a fortune.

The 767 and 777 freighter programmes are fine but they’re very low volume, and the 767 needs to cease production in the coming years for civilian use due CORSIA.

747-8 programme losing money on every airframe.

787 programme dogged by expensive errors since the beginning. It was hoped they’d about break even on the current order-book before the latest issue, which may take billions more to rectify.

They really, really need to MAX to get back on its feet without any major hiccups or the civilian operation is in a major catastrophe.

Basically, the company is a slow motion train wreck.

As aviators, I was lucky to have flown jet transport aircraft of all ages.
That said, there are also many engineers in the background (TD I am referring to you and your cohorts) that are also largely unrecognized to this day as they represented the true meaning of "professional".
I agree that the "train wreck" has been in motion for a long time, which started before the launch of the 787.

Having had a relationship with Boeing as a customer since moving into Technical Services in 1990 I can relate to that. Thirty years ago Boeing was the epitome of customer service. The downward spiral seems to have coincided with the move of corporate HQ to Chicago. Since then it has been a continuous round of cut-cut-cut and from a service point of view we began to have to pay for support services. Drawings needed for repairs were no longer available except at a cost for "intellectual property". The customer engineering departments (Renton and Everett were separate) became distant and we lost the personal contacts that we previously enjoyed within the ATA centred support staff. It is noticeable that the same can be said for all aerospace companies headquartered in the USA. Heavily subsidised by defence contracts, the Defence Department has stepped in to restrict supply of technical data and procedures have been imposed that delay the supply of spares. Airbus on the other hand is open with their data, support services, although not as personalised as we knew thirty years ago, are reasonable. Boeing needs to be split into Defence and Commercial and the Pentagon's grip on services removed.

Is this through some paranoia that the technical data or spares might otherwise end up in Iran/Russia/wherever is politically incorrect today ?

Maybe Boeing should just give up international sales and only market to US carriers. From what Calhoun said about Ethiopian/Indonesian pilots, they seem to be thinking in that direction anyway.

Or Enron?!
The constant bleating by the Modern MBA CEO's about "enhancing shareholder value" etc is just a precursor to a rapid decline in competitive production of a product the customer actually wants.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ErqiMaEpG7VbuK

"If people would shop based on value and comfort instead of ticket price, we wouldn't have this problem".
Tdracer, very true.

There was an interesting note on Flight Global about Megit now providing 737 “cockpit indicators” whatever that is. I assume whoever is providing those instruments is either unable or unwilling to continue to do so.

It got me thinking about Boeing’s supply chain. My understanding is that Boeing is hated by suppliers because they would continually grind them on costs and whipsaw the providers to their advantage, including dropping long time suppliers to save a few cents.

I am guessing that Boeing’s clout with the supply chain is now considerably diminished and the sweet deals they used to be able to demand are going to be a lot harder to get. Since the round of MBA bean counters in the C Suite have outsourced almost everything, Boeing seems to be completely reliant on 3rd parties to provide parts, and their ability to bring work back in house is pretty low.

I wonder if in the long run their inability to control construction costs which then starves R&D is what ultimately sinks the company.

Your comments are quite valid regarding suppliers.
Has Boeing sold enough 787's to "break even" which undoubtedly hurts R&D for future programs.
When the 747 first started it's life this placed Boeing in a very difficult financial position.

It seems like it. Consider how long this process, since the merger with Douglas, has gone on. Slow and steady, and now with probably a whole new set of executives and managers, long-steeped in the "new" philosophy. It would probably take just as long, if not longer, for the company to change from where they are, especially when they don't particularly want to.

I actually wonder if the owners of Boeing (which is basically Wall Street, representing pension funds and other big investors) want them to change, and spend money on doing so. Certainly from the way that Calhoun continues to toady to Wall Street it looks like it, with just odd sidebar comments for public consumption. Aviation takes so long to develop products nowadays and get a return, and notably takes far longer in doing this than a generation or two ago when things got developed much faster, that it has ended up being beyond Wall Street's horizon.

I do ponder if some clever calculations have not been made that there is more to be gained for their pension fund clients by continuing to milk dividends, do stock buy-backs, etc, and then just write off what remains or expect to sell it off in bits, rather the make the substantial, very long-term investment to sort things out, just asset-stripping the company. Such investment needs are possibly only worthwhile beyond the last column of their spreadsheets. They would not be the only prominent high-tech company to have gone this way over time.

With Boeing being a strategic national asset, I doubt the US government would let it go to the wall. The export income, jobs in the supply chain, defence equipment etc would mean that .gov would have to step in with some form of rescue package up to and including nationalisation. I can't see Air Force One being an Airbus or COMAC aircraft.

Big Pistons Forever

You do wonder how much money of a 737 goes into boeings bank account as they have sold of almost all the manufacturing of parts and have no control over the prices per part anymore
Which manager would come up with the idea to let the fuselage be build by a 3rd party ? Someone who did some business school ? Can you get 737 fuselages somewhere else and have them transported ?

Still dont understand why they are not working on an updated 757 and offer that to clients instead of the overly stretched and dated 737

Just because ryanair doesnt want to pay for gates or stairs ?

Update on the 757 on the wikipedia:

That paragraph of the Wikipedia article does not correctly reflect the Reuters article that was cited as the source for the statement. The Reuters article was talking about a new aircraft of a size similar to the 757, not a re-engined 757. I have heard and read from several different sources over the last decade plus that Boeing scrapped the tooling for the 757, so the factory would have to start from scratch if they actually decided to reuse that design for additional production.

krismiler

But then take the likes of IBM or GM, nowadays just a shell of their former importance. How many computers are made in the USA nowadays ? Things rise and fall in the world.

Dave,

Tooling for the 757 was scrapped and I believe TD confirmed this in another thread.

A 2019 dated report that Charleston had a slipshod safety culture, not news, but added color.
The 'It was discussed with the FAA' line appears to have been the preferred get out of jail card back then, probably less effective today.

etudiant

I think one problem is that the FAA is tasked with both regulation and promotion of flight...also, it's a tombstone culture.

To be fair, commercial aviation is the safest mode of travel. The accidents are dramatic and tragic, but quite rare, considering the number of people and distances covered.

The promotion part is no longer true.
I don't recall exactly when the 'promotion' part was removed from the FAA charter, but it's been decades...