The following article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer discusses the development of the 787 and other products. See:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/32 ... gin10.html
Interesting Article on 787 (and other plane) Development
Moderator: Latest news team
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
There is no doubt that the development of the Sonic Bust led to Boeing adopting technology for the 787 which has made that plane the best selling plane, and a potential, if not already, a game changer. But the reality is, the Sonic Bust, aside from giving Boeing the technology needed for the 787, was infact the biggest marketting joke in commercial airplanes. Boeing paraded around with this plane that no one wanted to buy, and in the process lost 2 to 3 years in developing a new airplane to compete against Airbus's successful A330 family of airplanes. The reality of this program is that it cost Boeing a few years, but the 787 sales have made up for that wasted time. So before we sing the praises of the Sonic Bust, lets not forget the negatives which at one point loomed larger to the company, and its apparent positives, which is the only thing people want to mention these days.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
I belleive that the crux of the article is that the Sonic Cruser was not a bust. Both planes were developed concurrently and presented to the airlines. The airlines were basically given a choice of speed or efficiency and they decided. To the outside world, the sexy Sonic Cruiser was the face presented to show a new and revolutionary concept. To the inside world (airlines), each was apparently given equal billing.
The article states:
"And hence, the 787 (which, as Wallace notes, was developed concurrently with the Sonic Cruiser, in part as a reference plane to the flashier model). It's far more conventional in appearance than the Sonic Cruiser.
"Which doesn't make the Sonic Cruiser a failure in terms of development or marketing. Quite the contrary. Boeing got a far better sense of what its customers wanted by trying one design in the market, then switching to another.
"The success of the approach can be measured by the strong market acceptance, in the form of orders, for the 787. Failure would have been to stubbornly stick with the Sonic Cruiser concept when there was a better alternative available."
By offering purchasers a choice (the stalking horse approach), Boeing was better able to ascertain customers real wants, thus the Sonic cruiser was not a bust, but a success!
The article states:
"And hence, the 787 (which, as Wallace notes, was developed concurrently with the Sonic Cruiser, in part as a reference plane to the flashier model). It's far more conventional in appearance than the Sonic Cruiser.
"Which doesn't make the Sonic Cruiser a failure in terms of development or marketing. Quite the contrary. Boeing got a far better sense of what its customers wanted by trying one design in the market, then switching to another.
"The success of the approach can be measured by the strong market acceptance, in the form of orders, for the 787. Failure would have been to stubbornly stick with the Sonic Cruiser concept when there was a better alternative available."
By offering purchasers a choice (the stalking horse approach), Boeing was better able to ascertain customers real wants, thus the Sonic cruiser was not a bust, but a success!
And IMO, that is a crock. Boeing can claim it was working on the 787 at the same time it was pushing the Sonic Cruiser, but the reality is, it was pitching the Sonic Cruiser until the attacks on 9/11 when companies felt that speed wasn't important, and that fuel prices and other costs were, which meant that Boeing had to dish the Sonic cruiser in order to follow a more convetional program, in the midsize market.More importantly, the program was nothing more than Boeing's lame attempt to combat the growing interest in the A380, and as I previously said, had Boeing just concentrated on the mid-size market with a 787 like plane during that time, with the technologies of the sonic cruiser, they wouldn't have fallen behind Airbus from 01 to 04.smokejumper wrote:
The article states:
"And hence, the 787 (which, as Wallace notes, was developed concurrently with the Sonic Cruiser, in part as a reference plane to the flashier model). It's far more conventional in appearance than the Sonic Cruiser.
Sorry, but this was a failure in terms of Marketing. The videos of Alan Mullaly pushing this plane are rather embarrasing, but Boeing did a lot to market this plane as an alternative point to point aircraft against the A380 Hub to Hub market strategy. Boeing lost this marketing campaign with the sonic crusier, but gained it back with the 7E7 and now 787."Which doesn't make the Sonic Cruiser a failure in terms of development or marketing. Quite the contrary. Boeing got a far better sense of what its customers wanted by trying one design in the market, then switching to another.
The success does indeed come from the 787, but the Sonic cruiser was already dumped by Boeing at that time, so all the success of the 787, IMO cannot be and shouldn't be attributed to the failed sonic cruiser program."The success of the approach can be measured by the strong market acceptance, in the form of orders, for the 787. Failure would have been to stubbornly stick with the Sonic Cruiser concept when there was a better alternative available."
How can you say that, Boeing was not even working on the conventional design of the 7E7 until 2002, and put their hopes from 2000 through 2001 on the Sonic Cruiser. Boeing really thought it had something on that ridiculous and laughable program when in reality they had nothing. Lucky for them they were able to use the technologies of the Sonic Cruiser to develop what will be a real game changer in the industry.[/quote]By offering purchasers a choice (the stalking horse approach), Boeing was better able to ascertain customers real wants, thus the Sonic cruiser was not a bust, but a success!
I agree. I think the article is practicing revisionist history. Boeing announced their focus on the Sonic Cruiser in the same press conference that they announced the cancellation of the 747-X project. I remember thinking at the time that Boeing had to announce something to take the sting out of ceding the VLA market to Airbus. There was absolute euphoria at Airbus that in the game of chicken, Boeing blinked first in cancelling the 747-X.David747 wrote: And IMO, that is a crock.
Of course Boeing can provide concept drawings and marketing plans to show the 7E7 was under study at that time. But at any given time, there are many, many airplane configurations under study. I just don't believe that much effort was devoted to the 7E7 until the Sonic Cruiser turned into a bust.
By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly an airplane?
Exactly!DFW wrote:I agree. I think the article is practicing revisionist history. Boeing announced their focus on the Sonic Cruiser in the same press conference that they announced the cancellation of the 747-X project. I remember thinking at the time that Boeing had to announce something to take the sting out of ceding the VLA market to Airbus. There was absolute euphoria at Airbus that in the game of chicken, Boeing blinked first in cancelling the 747-X.David747 wrote: And IMO, that is a crock.
Of course Boeing can provide concept drawings and marketing plans to show the 7E7 was under study at that time. But at any given time, there are many, many airplane configurations under study. I just don't believe that much effort was devoted to the 7E7 until the Sonic Cruiser turned into a bust.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
In the late 90's, Boeing was being hammered by Airbus and needed to have a new product in order to reverse the feeling that it was going down the tubes. The Sonic Cruiser was a very sexy (oh yes, it was sexy and promised unparallel speed and time advantages) and incorporated innovative new ideas. Boeing did spend time and money defining a Sonic Cruiser proposal, but very little time was actually spent on developing it beyond the conceptual stage. They did, however, use this effort to define and start developing new technologies (composite construction, engine definition, configuration and airfoil designs, production and assembly techniques, world-wide production capability, etc.).
They also spent time and money developing an efficient, less speedy plane that was also shown to the airlines. This plane was used as a "stalking horse" to elicit discussion with the airlines. After touting both designs to the airlines (and the Sonic Cruiser was the Boeing publicly favored approach since it was a technological leap forward), they realized that the airlines favored efficiency over speed, so they started emphasizing the 7E7 (now 787). The result is history with 660+ sold before roll-out.
I just want to emphasize that Boeing did not spend much money on the Sonic Cruiser that was not applicable to the 787. The Sonic Cruiser did prove to be a useful tool; it gave Boeing a new focus on advanced technologies and generated interest in planes that incorporate these technologies. A failure? - no. It did its job as a stalking horse and got Boeing moving again. In this way, it was a success.
They also spent time and money developing an efficient, less speedy plane that was also shown to the airlines. This plane was used as a "stalking horse" to elicit discussion with the airlines. After touting both designs to the airlines (and the Sonic Cruiser was the Boeing publicly favored approach since it was a technological leap forward), they realized that the airlines favored efficiency over speed, so they started emphasizing the 7E7 (now 787). The result is history with 660+ sold before roll-out.
I just want to emphasize that Boeing did not spend much money on the Sonic Cruiser that was not applicable to the 787. The Sonic Cruiser did prove to be a useful tool; it gave Boeing a new focus on advanced technologies and generated interest in planes that incorporate these technologies. A failure? - no. It did its job as a stalking horse and got Boeing moving again. In this way, it was a success.