That's Why People's Opinion Doesn't Count Much

Well, to be fair some of the technology is transferable, for instance, on the sonic cruiser it would be critical to have a wing of reduced thickness:chord ratio. Therefore alot of work would have had to go into better wing structures (be they composite spars or whatever).

That work can also make for a thinner wing for the 787, improving the drag levels of that wing as well.

Infact a lot of the stuff , the barrels as i mentioned were also taken into the 7e7 , they had to reduce weight and make the aircraft very eff. to match its predecesors economy even at the higher speed. Also the electrical systems were first conceptualised with the 20xx and sonic cruiser projects before being passed on to the yellowtone research team. But most of the higher end work was done by bair’s team and the suppliers in the global partners , and hats off to them , being a part of the 7e7 and 787 from the start i can tell you that the ammount of challenges that boeing had to overcome were mind bogeling . While we only had info on production and supply lines but even then the production process , integration , working with the partners , improving each other , finding bottlenecks and dealing with them and recource allocations were all perfecly executed ( so far so good) and hats of to them for that . Having personally been involved with boeing ( ID , and BCA) i can tell you that boeing can sometimes be a very hard company to deal with specially the defence side of the company but it seems that the 787 has been blessed by the gods .

Well if you guys so insist , Hats off to boeing , mululy and co. for pulling the ultimate market trick of the century !! Smoke em with sonic cruiser while having a top mid sized aircraft all together . I guess they really caught airbus off guard , even when rumours started comming in 2002-2003 about 7e7 airbus still claimed in 2004-2005 that boeing would not go ahead with plans to build the aircraft !!

Well, to be fair some of the technology is transferable, for instance, on the sonic cruiser it would be critical to have a wing of reduced thickness:chord ratio. Therefore alot of work would have had to go into better wing structures (be they composite spars or whatever).

That work can also make for a thinner wing for the 787, improving the drag levels of that wing as well.

Well if you guys so insist , Hats off to boeing , mululy and co. for pulling the ultimate market trick of the century !! Smoke em with sonic cruiser while having a top mid sized aircraft all together . I guess they really caught airbus off guard , even when rumours started comming in 2002-2003 about 7e7 airbus still claimed in 2004-2005 that boeing would not go ahead with plans to build the aircraft !!

Biggest problem of the SC would be transonic drag rise and control at those speeds, additionally engine efficiency, high-lift devices on a highly swept wing, structural arrangement for high dynamic pressures. Nothing to do with a plastic barrel. Actually the fuselage was the only thing you can make quite conventional.

Absolutely 100% correct – while design tools etc have improved alot since the Concorde – the laws of physics and aerodynamics have not.

A well designed airliner cruising at Mach 0.85 will always be more efficient than one of similar age cruising at Mach 0.95.

And I think if Boeing and Airbus can agree on one thing, then that they don’t really need a third man in the arena of the 100+ seaters. Embrear knows that and is always busy saying they don’t want to enter the market. Bombardier scrapped its CSeries despite reasonable market outlook. China hasn’t produced anything yet and Sukhoi will lose Boeing support if the extend the “SuperJet” (what a bl00dy name) beyond 95 seats.

I don’t think the CSeries is totally scrapped yet – I know design work is still ongoing, and I know a decision is due to be made this summer (it was actually scheduled to be made end of March – but slipped back).

I also know Bombardier have recently announced investments here in one of the plants, that deal with composite structures – so its possible they are going to go ahead with it.

Interestingly, I have been told the problem with the CSeries is one of pilot unions – Bombardier want the CSeries defined as an RJ, that will result in lower wages (or more work hours or something along those lines) for the pilots, but the unions are trying to draw the line at 100 seats.

Well , if someone comes up and says that boeing Used the SC as a smokescrean for the dreamliner project or something to the tune is it unreasonable to expect the same person to point to some concrete evidence to his claims? Specially if the person involved is quite well respected and is considered well informed? I think that asking the other person to prove that they didnt do it is being hypocrit , because the mere lack of firm evidence that supports the theory that they did use it as a smoke screan is enough evidence to quash any accusation . I think there is no evidence of foul play , had boeing deliberately lied to their investors regarding the SC they would be in serious trouble because public companies cannot do that , and boeing in those days was being thoroughly investigated anyways so it was hard for this to slip under the carpet . There is evidence to suggest that the Project yellowstone ( Mother of 7E7) was well underway by around 6-10 months or so before the SC finally got canned but boeing could well be in the denial phase or be too embarace to come out and say that there sonic dream just crash landed and couldnt find any customers . Infact it was common knowledge to the insiders as well as some media people that the fate of the SC would be death , the clouds were looming large for about 6 months before boeing publically came out and killed it !

Do you read what I wrote? I said clearly: They did not lie, they just did not mean it serious.
The B7E7 was underway since late 90s, as wide-body twinjet it was something something Boeing has on its hard drive ever since. Careful evolution is what makes aviation companies rich, not dramatic revolution.

Please specify what kind of evidence you expect, when even you as “insider” come up with nothing more than press releases and links from homeworkstuffs.com (yeah, google is a bitch some days).

You also failed to comment the scientific report from the DLR I linked.
Your comments about the ability of 12 engineers to do preliminary design up to a point where an at least basic design can be presented to a customer show for me a lack of understanding of aircraft’s design processes. It takes quite a lot of time to come to a point when you actually can – as self-respecting person – offer it to a customer. They didn’t have that time, and the wind tunnel model is a nice thing but totally inadequate to figure out low speed handling or detailed aerodynamics, stuff you need if you want to have a good guess on structural necessities.

Found something interesting, comments made after 2002 Farnborough airshow:

While Airbus fielded the smallest and largest of its range, Boeing remained aloof about exhibiting its products at displays, ‘it doesn’t sell airplanes’ said CEO Phil Condit. Pursued about the Sonic Cruiser project, Condit would only say that work was continuing on ‘a program that will have broad attractiveness and a long life’, but some in the industry argue that the the whole idea is a smoke screen for another type of aircraft altogether.

http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/farnborough.html

and
http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/sonic_cruiser.html

The Transonic Dozen.

well 2 were seen meeting up and shaking hands with mister weener at there favourite Resturant Ameica’s favourite Drive In – SONICS

More appropriate in this case, yes?

Well , if someone comes up and says that boeing Used the SC as a smokescrean for the dreamliner project or something to the tune is it unreasonable to expect the same person to point to some concrete evidence to his claims? Specially if the person involved is quite well respected and is considered well informed? I think that asking the other person to prove that they didnt do it is being hypocrit , because the mere lack of firm evidence that supports the theory that they did use it as a smoke screan is enough evidence to quash any accusation . I think there is no evidence of foul play , had boeing deliberately lied to their investors regarding the SC they would be in serious trouble because public companies cannot do that , and boeing in those days was being thoroughly investigated anyways so it was hard for this to slip under the carpet . There is evidence to suggest that the Project yellowstone ( Mother of 7E7) was well underway by around 6-10 months or so before the SC finally got canned but boeing could well be in the denial phase or be too embarace to come out and say that there sonic dream just crash landed and couldnt find any customers . Infact it was common knowledge to the insiders as well as some media people that the fate of the SC would be death , the clouds were looming large for about 6 months before boeing publically came out and killed it !

From the system i come from it is the duty of the accuser to actually come up with the proof/evidence to prove his point .
…

Only in a criminal prosecution. Civil disputes are decided on balance of probabilities. More appropriate in this case, yes?

…probably those dozen or so engineers. 😀

The Transonic Dozen.

let me distance myself from this….what i said was “MY THEORY”…so yes, i got no evidence but already back then I and many others got that feel. 😎

As to SEC, why should they come in? Even if this “THEORY” is true, they acted in accordance of bringing “value” to the share holders without doing anything illegal (letting your competititor to act with hubris, A380, is not illegal). They did their duty of “selling” the SC and if by chance airliners really liked it then we’ll see SCs flying around instead of 787. This doesn’t mean they have to be behind it 100%! I’m sure somewhere in boeing’s corner some engineer really hates the 787 and wants to see those SCs flying….probably those dozen or so engineers. 😀

For example you could say something to the the twelve engineers that started work in 1999 on preliminary design.

As it was merely a proposal in 1999 amongst many other proposals being dealt by boeing at that time as part of 20xx it wouldnt be surprising if they indeed assigned about a dozen engineers to look at it . Also teams were being formed to further expand the feild of work – They were setting up devisions which were to further work , getting partners onboard that would boost the work that they were allready doing . The technology developmental team was set up , and that indicated a clear expansion strategy from a dozen engineers , infact they had close to half a dozen partners lined up .

Do you have any indication for the last sentence or how do you conclude that they did that all?

No , I just laid out the things that need to be done as an aircraft transitions from a CONCEPT to Launch , you answer all those questions before you present them to the board seeking approval to launch and to start selling it .

Read my first sentence –

If the allegation is that boeing didnt have a through technical base and spent billions on testing and development , then i agree they didnt , the SC was cancelled before it got to that design phase

In other words they started on this path , did some work at lower level but then obviously stopped as they started pursuing other ventures which were more appropriate according to them .

Do you have any indication for the last sentence or how do you conclude that they did that all? One press release actually talks of wind tunnel tests, stating it were the first tests.

True –

Progress on the Sonic Cruiser continues as engineers put the basic design concept through initial low- and high-speed wind tunnel tests. These tests are an important milestone, providing additional information on the aerodynamic characteristics of the new airplane’s design.

Aren’t you surprised that no press release covers the most important question of aircraft design: “Which engine do we take?” Putting a high-bypass (BPR) engine on such an aircraft would be very tricky, possibly demand an elaborate intake. Lower BPR engines for civil use were not available. And engines take their time to develop.

Something was talked about –

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sonic-cruiser2.htm

One of the many unique features of the Sonic Cruiser is the placement of the twin engines. The plane’s engine housing will be blended into the rear of the aircraft. This is in stark contrast to the under-the-wing engine configuration of most commercial airliners.
To push the Sonic Cruiser to 0.95 Mach and possibly faster, Boeing will initially install two 777-class engines in the Sonic Cruiser. (Mach is the speed of sound, or about 740 mph/1,190 kph). However, Boeing is not being specific about what type of 777 engines it will use. One example of such an engine is the Pratt & Whitney 4098, which generates 98,000 pounds (44,452 kg) of thrust. The Sonic Cruiser will probably be slightly smaller than a 777 aircraft, which seats 305 to 394 passengers. The lightened load, in addition to the plane’s design, will allow it to travel at near-supersonic speeds.

The use of 777-class engines is likely a temporary fix until one of three major aircraft-engine makers — Rolls Royce, General Electric or Pratt & Whitney – – develops an engine specific to the Sonic Cruiser’s needs and configuration.

Also more on where boeing were by farnborough when the ann. were made –

At Farnborough, Walt Gillette, v-p and program manager for the design said, “We are making very good progress on the fundamentals required to create the Sonic Cruiser. These fundamentals involve the technology needed for the airplane, the processes needed to create the airplane, and the basic configuration exploration activities necessary to reveal the very best shape for the airplane.” Gillette characterised the current phase of development as a “learning” phase and said that progress is measured by how fast the team is learning about the technologies, tools and processes that allow it to create an all-new class of flying machine.

Advancements in computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the computer coding used to evaluate and develop the aerodynamic flows of structure, have been instrumental in allowing rapid learning on the Sonic Cruiser program. Gillette noted that a second round of wind tunnel tests continues to verify that the CFD coding is predicting performance to within 1%. “That means we can do a lot of learning before we ever get to the wind tunnel.” He said “We’ve looked at more than 25 wing planforms, 50 nacelle shapes and 60 fuselage designs in the past 16 months. We could never have done that on earlier programs.”

http://www.aviation-news.co.uk/sonic_cruiser.html

If they say they talked about something with subcontractor, I am sure they did.

No they did more then talk . They signed Agreements

Alenia – http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q1/nr_020212g.html
JAI – http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q1/nr_020129g.html
S Fokker – http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020724g2.html
GKN – http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2002/q3/nr_020724g3.html

At the time of its “design” and the cancellation in 2002, I think the majority of people in the industry just considered the issue emberrassing: hail a new concept, say it is the best in the world, stay unspecific about it in many ways, and then axe it and hail the new concept.

So what ? You respond to the market demand , if the market indicators change you change or else boeing would have been left with a product that wasnt exactly what the industry wanted , spent 10’s of billions and sold only 160 some and god knows if there would have been 2 year delays or so !! The point is that they invested quite a lot of time into this , they got partners ready , signed aggrements , identified technologies , did wind tunnel testing , came up with basic aero shapes and set forward on a path to further solve some issues , however at this stage the company wanted something else which was more in line with market demand so they switched ends , took whatever they could take from the SC program and turned it around ! You are crediting boeing has being cunningly genius and pulling off a perfect smoke screan but i dont see this as the case , they simply let sence prevail amongst the managment , listned tothe market , followed the correct path!!

From the system i come from it is the duty of the accuser to actually come up with the proof/evidence to prove his point .

For example you could say something to the the twelve engineers that started work in 1999 on preliminary design. By chance I am in aircraft design and so I see the tremenduous amount of work necessary, the loops and many other things. Basically a team of twelve would need a dozen years to come to a point where the basic issues are identified and the business case can be set up.

If the allegation is that boeing didnt have a through technical base and spent billions on testing and development , then i agree they didnt , the SC was cancelled before it got to that design phase , most of the money is spent after product launch ( as a indicator roughly 90% of 787’s 6 billion odd allotted was spent after it got launched) Most of the pre launch money is for product verification , wind tunnel testing ,model conceptulaizaiton , basic performance parameters , finding correct production balance , finding the partners , working with the partners , Risk assesment , Study of alternatives , Figuring out Design milestones , getting everything ready , rallying customers etc etc The SC acheived many of those but was terminated before it could fulfill the others .

Do you have any indication for the last sentence or how do you conclude that they did that all? One press release actually talks of wind tunnel tests, stating it were the first tests. While you can maybe do some more CFD on a conventional aircraft, most design tools will be unreliable near the speed of sound where aerodynamic modelling is toughest. The regular talk of “modern design tools” is an indication that they did not invest the money for the real design tools (transonic windtunnel-hours are pricey!).

If the allegation ist boeing used the SC as a smoke screan then you dont have any evidence to support your hypothesis and it is up to the person that provides the theory to proove it right . The Lack of factual evidence is MY EVIDENCE in this case !!

I not obsessed and actually don’t care much about your opinion in this case, as I am pretty sure that you won’t buy it whatever I do. But the complete lack of any real sources, sketches, anything is a clear indicator. I found something more elaborate from the DLR (German Aerospace Research Center).
PDF
Funnily, the figure you posted recently with the local Mach numbers is from that very study, it is not from Boeing. :diablo:

Boeing cannot be not serious and claim to be serious this would get them in trouble with the SEC for lying to the investors . Even false press releases can land a CEO in jail technically , they have to be very careful . Lucky? Maybe boeing got lucky with 911 as they started to listen to the voices inside there managment which were right . Both ? probably , they had atleast 3 publically revealed concepts at that time , and going for one finally doesnt mean that the other 2 were smokescreans !!

I am not saying that they technically lied. If they say they talked about something with subcontractor, I am sure they did. I don’t think the press releases were fake. I say that the “development” was kept very superficial with low resources spent on it while much more resources were invested into the B787 preliminary design. And that was the reason for the SC: to be unsuspicious. They talk to Spirit Aerosystems about a composite fuselage? No problem, they want to fly higher and need a stronger fuselage. Turns out, they didn’t want to fly higher but have more differential pressure at conventional altitudes. Many system issues are pretty much independant of the airspeed or Mach number (electric brakes).
Aren’t you surprised that no press release covers the most important question of aircraft design: “Which engine do we take?” Putting a high-bypass (BPR) engine on such an aircraft would be very tricky, possibly demand an elaborate intake. Lower BPR engines for civil use were not available. And engines take their time to develop.

Technically, nodoby needed to lie, they just did not say that the whole program was not meant serious from the start, which actually needs not to be communicated to the lowest level.
I am not accusing Boeing of violating any law.

At the time of its “design” and the cancellation in 2002, I think the majority of people in the industry just considered the issue emberrassing: hail a new concept, say it is the best in the world, stay unspecific about it in many ways, and then axe it and hail the new concept.

Your neither can prove the opposite

From the system i come from it is the duty of the accuser to actually come up with the proof/evidence to prove his point .

If the allegation is that boeing didnt have a through technical base and spent billions on testing and development , then i agree they didnt , the SC was cancelled before it got to that design phase , most of the money is spent after product launch ( as a indicator roughly 90% of 787’s 6 billion odd allotted was spent after it got launched) Most of the pre launch money is for product verification , wind tunnel testing ,model conceptulaizaiton , basic performance parameters , finding correct production balance , finding the partners , working with the partners , Risk assesment , Study of alternatives , Figuring out Design milestones , getting everything ready , rallying customers etc etc The SC acheived many of those but was terminated before it could fulfill the others .

If the allegation ist boeing used the SC as a smoke screan then you dont have any evidence to support your hypothesis and it is up to the person that provides the theory to proove it right . The Lack of factual evidence is MY EVIDENCE in this case !!

The size doesn’t matter, from the aerodynamic point of view a 400 seat SC is not much different than a 100 seat SC.

I agree the size doesnt matter however i was merely stating that most of the customers who would have been interested would be replacing 767’s and A330’s so they would be the SC’s direct competitors .

SEC?

Securities and Exchange Commision

Press release talks of initial wind tunnel tests in late 2001 (which indicates that no tests have been done before). Surfing through the press releases I recon that Boeing more or less constructed its supplier base for the B787 in 2002, but talked about the Sonic Cruiser all the time. JAI, Alenia and Spirit are all featured.

787 studies began when it was clear that the 20xx concepts were not going to work for the market place , it basically fed into the existing research while comming up with things of its own . The SC idea was just that Idea , it wasnt formal because they never got to the point of maturity where they could launch . You suggest engine suppliers but there are other key partners that didnt come aboard , this wasnt because the project was a smoke screan because they hadnt finished adding partners yet , as i said they still had 12-14 months of preliminary work to do before they could launch it like the did with the 7E7 that would have been the time that they would have rallied the partners on board . Maybe it was the lack of Partner support which lead to the SC demise , but as things became more clear after 911 it was stupid to with the project as for many it had been all along ! 911 could have been a catalyst for boeing to make the descision but the SC was a shaky prospect even prior to that with one faction in boeing ( Lead by Mululy) supporting it while there were other factions which either wanted a direct A380 competitor and still others which wanted a more 787 type of set up . Factionalism exists even today , being a consulting partner ( My employers) with boeing i am aware of those factions , and factionalism is very high now because they are to decide on the Y1 and Y3 fate so it is not surprisng . It could well be possible that boeing had a concept 7e7 all along just as they had a concept 74X as a part of the 20XX project , and it is FACT that post 911 the 7e7 concept gained more favour at boeing , and the 20XX project virtually got absorbed into the much larger Project yellowstone . Project yellowstone was a culmination of many design studies , some done on the SC while other done without a specific platform in mind . What boeing had was a 40 billion dollar plan to overhaul its entire portfolio in 2 decades and take over the market lead . The faction within boeing supporting this idea gained tremendous favourtism from top brass and even CEO became more favourable to it which was adrift from his earlier liking to the SC . Smoke screan? An excellent theory but cannot be verified by evidence . Boeing cannot be not serious and claim to be serious this would get them in trouble with the SEC for lying to the investors . Even false press releases can land a CEO in jail technically , they have to be very careful . Lucky? Maybe boeing got lucky with 911 as they started to listen to the voices inside there managment which were right . Both ? probably , they had atleast 3 publically revealed concepts at that time , and going for one finally doesnt mean that the other 2 were smokescreans !!

Seconded!

And spending less time in, & getting to, airports would save time more efficiently (i.e. without the fuel burn) & more comfortably, than saving flight time.

Concur.
The terrorists actually won as we are burning our time waiting to get checked. Somebody recently estimated the annual costs of extra security (assumed 30 min extra time @20USD per hour) in excess of 15 billion USD per year just for lost time.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was scheduled for 8th July.

[remember – this is a British forum :diablo: ]

If I was Boeing executive I would shot the guy who came up with the idea. Better be unspecific. In Europe the date trick doesn’t work anyways

8th July 2007:
US: 07-08-07
Europe: 08-07-07

Are you sure about that? I thought it was scheduled for 8th July.

[remember – this is a British forum ]

😀

787 rollout 7/08/07

Are you sure about that? I thought it was scheduled for 8th July.

[remember – this is a British forum :diablo: ]

…
@ faster flying: I opt for 2in more between the rows instead.

Seconded!

And spending less time in, & getting to, airports would save time more efficiently (i.e. without the fuel burn) & more comfortably, than saving flight time.

IIRC boeing PR after a while just started using Mach .98 instead of .95-.98

See:
http://www.boeing.com/news/feature/concept/factsheet.html
It says .95 to .98
I guess they didn’t really figure it out. More speed, more drag. With best design for transonic, drag rise can be postponed to M0.93 or even .95. Boeing engineers obviously found another sweet spot close to Mach 1. On this sweet spot the whole SC concept was based.

Also IIRC the SC was 200-250 PAX aircraft so a 767 replacement.

The size doesn’t matter, from the aerodynamic point of view a 400 seat SC is not much different than a 100 seat SC.

Thats a very entertaining theory , and it would seem very “street smart” however i dont know how credible it is . Infact no one knows if such was the case . If any one did have evidence then i believe the SEC would like to take a good look at it .

SEC? :confused:

Your neither can prove the opposite, namely that detailed design work was started, given that the Boeing leaders really thought about commiting themselves to the SC.
The lack of market prospective, the enormuous technical risks, the sensitivity to fuel prices, the environmental problems with noise and high-level emmissions, the incompatibility to traditional manufacturing processes, the incompatibility to traditional family concepts, the issues in airport compatibility and finally the lack of any useful engine made the concept a no-go from the beginning.

Charts and texts on the Boeing webpage are shiny and tell us many things, but it does not address any of the issues I raised above. The statement is always “… it will …”

And here directly from Boeing webpage:

In 1999, a team of about a dozen engineers first began significant work on this new design. By fall 2000, they had developed an airplane that looks very much like the current design concept. Additional resources were added to the effort, and it soon became clear that a revolution was at hand.

In early 2001, resources again were added to the effort. Discussions with airlines in North America, Asia and Europe in the first quarter of the year confirmed the design offered exactly what airlines and passengers are looking for: the ability to fly quickly and directly to their destinations while avoiding time-consuming and costly stops at major hubs — a concept known as point-to-point service.

They started with 12 (in words: twelve) engineers and added resources in early 2001. That says all. Preliminary design of an aircraft already involves thousands of man-hours, for conventional aircraft.

Press release talks of initial wind tunnel tests in late 2001 (which indicates that no tests have been done before). Surfing through the press releases I recon that Boeing more or less constructed its supplier base for the B787 in 2002, but talked about the Sonic Cruiser all the time. JAI, Alenia and Spirit are all featured.

was supposed to cruise at M0.95 to M0.98

IIRC boeing PR after a while just started using Mach .98 instead of .95-.98

Also IIRC the SC was 200-250 PAX aircraft so a 767 replacement.

A380″ At least that’s what i felt like what Boeing was doing at the time, simply playing dead by claiming point-to-point is better while offering a more expensive airframe for point-to-point (SC) when i do believe they know 10% faster doesn’t make any sense, waiting to bait Airbus to think “Boeing has absolutely no clue with their ‘inferior’ product. You can easily loose 10% of fligth time by sitting at the gates! Wasn’t that too obvious to Airbus as a ruse?

Thats a very entertaining theory , and it would seem very “street smart” however i dont know how credible it is . Infact no one knows if such was the case . If any one did have evidence then i believe the SEC would like to take a good look at it .

interesting, i seem to recall an interview with one of Boeing’s vice presidents leading the SC and he said that SC actually is slightly less efficient in terms of comparing with what a theoretical aicraft with the same technology flying at ~M0.82. I recall him saying something on the order of getting that extra 10% faster would require each passenger to pay roughly 20% more and they found that most airlines after post 9-11 decided that it’s not worth it to today’s frequent flyers (that’s what the SC is targeting) and it’s not fast enough to give an extra trip within 24 hours on all the major routes anyways….so no go. But, yes, especially the fuselage is all the hype about the SC and it was turned into the 7E7 technology. However, I do personally believe all of this is a ruse by Boeing to trick Airbus into continuing ahead with the 380. Recall plenty of articles in the early 2000s cautioning airbus’s potential hazard in locking up a huge part of their R&D on a product and leave no extra cash for badly needed improvements to the existing fleet during…….. around this time! In the end, yes, it seems like Boeing (so far) had a slightly better crystal ball! Boeing seems to play the “Oh Airbus we dont’ know what we’re doing so please come and put us out of our misery with the A380” At least that’s what i felt like what Boeing was doing at the time, simply playing dead by claiming point-to-point is better while offering a more expensive airframe for point-to-point (SC) when i do believe they know 10% faster doesn’t make any sense, waiting to bait Airbus to think “Boeing has absolutely no clue with their ‘inferior’ product. You can easily loose 10% of fligth time by sitting at the gates! Wasn’t that too obvious to Airbus as a ruse?

At that time arrogance established at Airbus, then there were several years were Airbus outsold Boeing. At that time you had to convince people that Boeing will not go out of business. Today it is other way around, mainly triggered by A380 delays and the A350 woes, while the latter will turn out to be healthy medicine.