Predictions for Boeings Next Move

Just when I thought nothing more could happen American Airlines pressurized by its operating costs has just put in a 50/50 order for A320/737. So looks like the Boeing customeris not as patient as the Boeing board thinks they are. And if they wanted to be market forces are dictating otherwise.

Sounds like mini 787 is going to be needed. But capacity and capital investment will be an issue

Well the 1000 and 800 are having similar issues wither uncontained failures on A380 and 787. RR may need to think next move very carefully. Fix the large trents or work on single isle.

Any news from Boeing? I know they just announced that they think India has a market for 1200 or so craft. But to be honest the gov had said it and started work on NCA

The size of the GE90 clearly indicates (to me at least) that it was made to be “upscaled” from the start. Once again, their all-new engine was able to be modified (ala RR) to cover the entire spectrum, something that RR could not do as easily because their RB211 rehash was pretty much maxed out at 95-98K.

You do that RR went on to develop the Trent 800 to make upto 110,000lb thrust in a prototype form. RR didn’t want to become a risk sharing partner in the 777X, GE did, and paid Boeing. RR lost out, and GE are making the money.

Can you please get it out of your head that every Trent has parts of the original RB211, it doesn’t, and each variant even has it’s own Type Certificate.

Oh, the GE-90 is also 1,800kg heavier than the equivalent GE-90! 😉

Thank you for your comment upon my sanity….I assume you have the qualifications to make such pronouncements?

I haven’t mention the WTO case and have made not pronouncements upon it. The articles I have read about it indicate that the judgments to date have been much different than what you indicate. At various times, both sides have claimed victory, and apparently with some legal merit. Your statements don’t seem to be vindicated by fact. You could post some links, then I could post some links and we could both claim victory.

Airbus and Boeing have different financing methodologies that share a few similiarities……the details can be twisted either way. At least you admit that Airbus receives illegal subsidies.

I note that you didn’t comment about the French polititicians comments that I referenced.

ThreeSpool’s comment was a breath of fresh air, he stated what everyone knows, that governments waste other people’s money to an appalling degree. For some reason, certain Europeans seem very sensitive to this fact, and get offended when anyone not from the continent points it out.

1) Frankly, I don’t know what you go on about (but I am not really surprised by your rambling, got used to it). The WTO was asked whether Airbus received illegal subsidies and the response was positive. It was also asked whether Boeing received illegal subsidies, and the response was also yes. There is no speaking of victory or or twisting anything. Those are the bare facts.

2) As mentioned, the European taxpayer makes money out of Airbus (because of the way funding for development is structured). No money lost there, so your call for an inquiry over lost funds does not make any sense. And thanks again for worrying about the European taxpayer.

3) Boeing is as much an extension of the US government than Airbus is of European ones. Boeing is a strategic company for the US, Airbus for some European States. On both sides, it will be ensured that a degree of control is kept on these companies. The US governments exerts some control over Boeing, its ownership cannot fall into foreign hands. When the US prez goes on foreign trips, he promotes Boeing wares.

Boeing is as much an extension of the US government than Airbus of Europeans ones. Again, sane persons have long recognised that fact.

Putting words in someones mouth doesn’t constitute brilliance in my view. For example, I never said that Airbus wouldn’t sell more A350’s….and thats just the start.

Yes, he is correct in the GE approach to changing the GeNX for the 748 mirroring. I never said that it wasn’t. But note that they had an all-new engine on which to do that, he hasn’t refuted that RR hasn’t developed an all-new engine in 30 years. Having new engines across a wide spectrum allows GE to dominate the market…..:)

Rarely needed because they run so long on the wing…..once again, I never said they NEVER needed any maintenance. Gosh, a guy can’t even joke around here!

The size of the GE90 clearly indicates (to me at least) that it was made to be “upscaled” from the start. Once again, their all-new engine was able to be modified (ala RR) to cover the entire spectrum, something that RR could not do as easily because their RB211 rehash was pretty much maxed out at 95-98K.

Thankfully he lectures on the duty of the GE director, I had no idea until what that guy did until he spoke up (sic). I’m wondering why he keeps fishing for a statement of what I do and my qualifications within the industry? As if that would validate or invalidate any statement I made. Whatever happened to considering a statement on it’s merits? Also, he hasn’t stated his qualfications, he asks continually for mine yet he provides none. I haven’t asked for his and really don’t care. Its enough for me to note that he hasn’t refuted my original main point, that only GE has successfully created all-new engines in the last 30 years, and that they have done so 3 times (counting CFM), while PW has floundered and RR has contented themselves with rehashes that have secured their place as number 2. My point seems a simple statement of fact, I’m wondering why it made him so angry?

I don’t think you need to ignore Amiga500, he has picked apart your opinion brilliantly. 🙂

It should be said that as good as GE/RR/PW are, they can’t have their finger in every pie.

I suspect the real reasoning for GE not wishing to develop an engine for the A350-1000 is that their cash cow is the GE-90, and it would not inspire confidence in airlines if GE are developing an engine that is going to surpass it. They are just protecting their investment, and plus, we don’t know what Boeing are going to do about a 777NG.

There are many more 787 orders coming and GE know it.

Poor Airbus.

Imagine not selling another A350 over the 30 year life of the aircraft. I guess they better just pack up and get out of that market segment now. :rolleyes:

Plus, they also use the GeNX as exclusive engine supplier on the 748.

Ooops. Different engine. Common core. Many common ancillaries.

For instance, the -1B is bleedless. the -2B has bleed. The -2B has a smaller fan along with one less compressor and turbine stage.

Development was obviously significantly shortened, so alot of the R&D cost could be amortized over the two production runs… much like R-R do with their modular trents (but apparently according to some that is a bad thing :rolleyes:).

plus spares (admittedly rarely needed for GE engines)

Rarely needed?

Wonder why Virgin America went with CFM for their NEOs after GE offered to substantially reduce maintenance costs then…

The 777 was always programmed to have follow on models…..the GE90 was built specifically to accomodate them……as anyone who has been around the industry for awhile knows.

Erm. Once again demonstrating alot of ignorance.

If the GE90 had been designed to accomodate those variants from the get-go, then they wouldn’t have had to mess around with their turbine stages and they wouldn’t have needed sole-supplier basis to ensure a profit (they were only expecting to sell 200-300 of the “mark 2” 777s).

Boeing went with GE because:
– GE were willing to go risk sharing
– P&W were in the doghouse
– R-R wasn’t greatly interested in paying out for sole supplier rights

GE is ignoring the A350 because of lack of engineering resources?

Yip.

Availability of engineering resource is dictating to the entire market right now. Everyone is affected. I guess you must not be in the industry, everyone within it is acutely aware of that little fact.

Lockheed getting rid of a few engineers over the coming months might change that a little from the supplier/airframer side. Won’t do much for the propulsion guys though.

I guess you know more about GE’s capabilities than that lying old GE aviation CEO.

Oh no, I never said that, you need to read more carefully.

He has a duty to do what is in the company’s best interests. If that duty involves being creative instead of telling the unvarnished truth, then he’ll do it.

I didn’t comment on the 787 orders because your statement was ridiculous. Thats generally what I do when someone says something gigantically stupid….ignore them. But since you seem to be begging for an answer……. There are many more 787 orders coming and GE know it. Plus, they also use the GeNX as exclusive engine supplier on the 748. The 748 and 787 orders combined, plus spares (admittedly rarely needed for GE engines) comfortably exceed 1,000 engines.

The 777 was always programmed to have follow on models…..the GE90 was built specifically to accomodate them……as anyone who has been around the industry for awhile knows.

GE is ignoring the A350 because of lack of engineering resources? ?? I’ll just stop replying to you now…..we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I guess you know more about GE’s capabilities than that lying old GE aviation CEO. You’ve convinced me with your flawless logic. You’ve been in this industry forever in unbelievably responsible positions and I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect…..gosh I wish I knew as much as you…..you’re like the cool big brother everyone wishes they had.

Amiga is so knowledgeable that he knows more than the head of GE aviation?

And you assume he is openly telling the truth?

What age are you?

Perhaps they (GE) knew they were gonna get sole source on the 200LR and 300ER way back in ’95? Perhaps they know a lot of things that we don’t.

They had no orders for the mk2 777 – thats the key thing. Your basing an argument around orders before committing to a design.

Its a ridiculous argument that doesn’t stack up whatsoever.

I note you didn’t bother commenting on their 787 orders being significantly less than the 500 apparently required to commit to a program… :rolleyes:

I’m wondering Amiga, since you are so knowledgeable, if you would care to inform those of us among the great unwashed as to why GE is not interested in the A350? The head of GE aviation is leaving that airplane totally to RR, which one would think would please you.

GE aren’t looking at the A350 as they are looking at the 777 upgrade.

Engineering resource isn’t finite. They cannot support GenX (admittedly moving from NPD to CPD), Leap-X, an A350XWB specific program and a B777 specific program with their design methodology.

Surely that would be blatantly obvious to anyone with any idea of the industry…

Amiga is so knowledgeable that he knows more than the head of GE aviation?

Perhaps they (GE) knew they were gonna get sole source on the 200LR and 300ER way back in ’95? Perhaps they know a lot of things that we don’t.

I’m wondering Amiga, since you are so knowledgeable, if you would care to inform those of us among the great unwashed as to why GE is not interested in the A350? The head of GE aviation is leaving that airplane totally to RR, which one would think would please you.

Amiga

Leave the Moderation to me, thanks 😉

Also, you have to remember people may not be as knowledgeable as you, the level of knowledge on this forum is generally of a high standard, but we do get new members here all the time, some with little or no experience of aviation, or the aviation industry at all. So to that end we have to show a little more respect and engage in meaningful discussion (what we’re all about), if we can’t do that then we may as well switch off the lights on the way out.

Dean

Amiga500

Have a little more respect for your fellow forumites.

Deano – there is a difference between arguments, and coming out with tinfoil hat theories* – those are the realm of the chest thumping nationalistic kiddies in the military forum are they not! :diablo:

*Unless people around here seriously think Airbus/RR would sell 500+ frames/engines at or below cost “just to get the production line moving”. :rolleyes:

Edited: CoC Rule 15

Yet only ~360 787s have been sold with GE engines so far… :rolleyes:

The 777 entered into service in 1995. By 1997 there were still only 320 odd orders (shared between 3 engine manufacturers for those variants). Wonder why GE committed to the GE90 with such a paltry orderbook.

He is spouting pure rubbish. Lapped up by someone gullible enough to not even bother searching out such basic facts to verify the foundations of their argument.

No doubt you’ll respond with some rubbish about the warmed over RB211 – which has somehow managed to capture approximately 37% of the 787 market against GE’s latest and greatest. Well, if Rolls-Royce are still selling engines designed in the 1970s, does the fact they still get so much market share not reflect rather poorly on the mighty General Electric?

If they cannot recoup costs on 250+ airliners (500 engines) assuming 50% market….

I’m sitting here reading a copy of Aviation Week’s Shownews for the Paris Air Show for June 20, and on Page 84 it has a quote from David Joyce of GE Aviation that, “there is no business case for the a GE engine on an A350-900.”

Apparently, he doesn’t want to poach orders from the 777-300ER, on which the GE90 has sole supplier status. He said that, generally speaking, an engine manufacturer needs at least 500 orders or 1,000 engines to make a business case to invest in a new widebody engine. There are not yet enough A350 orders for GE and RR to split the orders and each make a profit.

I wonder if he is “serious?” Or is he is spouting “rubbish?” Over to you, Amiga

I think they will need geared system for the open rotor to allow bigger fans spinning at lower speeds allowing them to have hollow rohacell or x-cor inners and reduce risk in case of a blade failure.

Airbus has given a specific date that they now forecast A380 to turn a profit.
I would fully expect them to issue further announcements in this area, as press releases or financial reporting statements.
Them currently moving from re-couping 50% to 55% of investment over the last year isn`t that note-worthy a press release.

Re: Open-Rotor engines, check this NK-93 link
Direct link in Russian, though the commenters provide some clarity in English.
Basically, they are going thru with development of late-Soviet open-rotor design that doesn`t have an intended platform application, but they plan on using the tech in a different platform around 2020 (improved with carbon fan blades, etc). That could co-incide with their `Ecojet` wide-body (as intended application?), but would also put Russia in a good position to participate in possible Western open-rotor designs to power the A320/737 class replacement. Will be interesting to see how future JVs develop with Russian engine houses. SaM`s 146 product on Superjet is underwhelming, not helped by being late, but that provides an existing JV structure (with Snecma). Saturn has also shown good relations with Pratt, although they were burned by US export restrictions, but I believe SaM points the way forward to JVs in addition to their `fully indigenous` programs. GTF technology similar to Pratt is also within their PD-14 development schedule, so integrating with such an approach will definitely be within their expertise.

Thank you for your comment upon my sanity….I assume you have the qualifications to make such pronouncements?

I haven’t mention the WTO case and have made not pronouncements upon it. The articles I have read about it indicate that the judgments to date have been much different than what you indicate. At various times, both sides have claimed victory, and apparently with some legal merit. Your statements don’t seem to be vindicated by fact. You could post some links, then I could post some links and we could both claim victory.

Airbus and Boeing have different financing methodologies that share a few similiarities……the details can be twisted either way. At least you admit that Airbus receives illegal subsidies.

I note that you didn’t comment about the French polititicians comments that I referenced.

ThreeSpool’s comment was a breath of fresh air, he stated what everyone knows, that governments waste other people’s money to an appalling degree. For some reason, certain Europeans seem very sensitive to this fact, and get offended when anyone not from the continent points it out.

I would agree that the profitability of the 787 program has been hurt.

I don’t believe the A380 will ever be profitable, but I confess that we don’t really know and I doubt we ever will. If I were a taxpayer in the EU and therefore directly supporting the Airbus programs, I would want to know, it seems rather amazing that there is not more transparency.

On a related note, there is an interesting column from Pierre Sparaco in the most recent Aviation Week, whereby he quotes some French politicians basically saying that Airbus is a government entity.

Yawn, yawn, yawn.

Notwithstanding facts, the same usual arguments. Case now settled by the WTO this spring (which confirmed what every sane person recognised long ago), both Boeing and Airbus receive illegal subsidies.

I take it that as an american taxpayer who therefore pays for Boeing, you are going to ask for a public enquiry into the 787 development fiasco and as to whether it will generate a profit???

Now, given the way Airbus receives public support (new planes partly financed with public aid, money paid back by Airbus when the new plane start selling, once loans entirely paid back Airbus continue to pay money to governments on any unit sold – meaning that Airbus pays to governments more than the loans it received), the taxpayer has so far made a hefty profit in this endeavour. Hardly a cause for the taxpayer to revolt.

If I were a taxpayer in the EU and therefore directly supporting the Airbus programs, I would want to know, it seems rather amazing that there is not more transparency.

The Airbus A380 would come far down the list of wasted money in the EU. :rolleyes:

I would agree that the profitability of the 787 program has been hurt.

I don’t believe the A380 will ever be profitable, but I confess that we don’t really know and I doubt we ever will. If I were a taxpayer in the EU and therefore directly supporting the Airbus programs, I would want to know, it seems rather amazing that there is not more transparency.

On a related note, there is an interesting column from Pierre Sparaco in the most recent Aviation Week, whereby he quotes some French politicians basically saying that Airbus is a government entity.