Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RJMAZ wrote:The 797 engines will never appear on an Airbus aircraft, Boeing will prevent that from happening again in the contracts.
frmrCapCadet wrote:The big secret is whether or not the plane will be launched. Even Boeing does not know for sure yet - so neither engineers nor Airbus know.
morrisond wrote:Good post RJMAZ
BTW it's Northrup that's building the B-21
seahawk wrote:And with the close GE partnership, the engine could be on the test rig the day they launch. Boeing has learned a lot from the 787 and it different company today and they are serious about taking back the dominant role in the airliner market.
seahawk wrote:And with the close GE partnership, the engine could be on the test rig the day they launch. Boeing has learned a lot from the 787 and it different company today and they are serious about taking back the dominant role in the airliner market.
RJMAZ wrote:GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:Boeing could keep us all guessing and then surprise everyone with a public rollout of a flyable plane, only then making it public. There is no official timeline for such things.
Exactly.
If I was Boeings CEO with the full support of my shareholders all of my products would be developed in secret with non disclosure agreements on my customers and suppliers. I would rollout a flyable plane at the official launch with multiple airlines CEO's standing beside me with a huge 1000+ order book.
The competition wouldn't know what hit them. My aircraft would be alone on the market for many years before the competitions reply became available.
With Boeings amazing financial situation they can easily fund the 797 without any deposits or official orders from airlines.
QuarkFly wrote:Boeing launched the 777X in 2013. It will not be delivered until 2020 (if things go well)...and the 777X is a derivative of an existing aircraft, not an all new clean sheet design. Also, Boeing was working on the 777X since 2011 or earlier when Airbus announced the A350.
If the 797 is launched in 2020...plan on 2027 entry in service...if there are no development problems (there always are !!).
RJMAZ wrote:You have no evidence of this.
morrisond wrote:BTW it's Northrup that's building the B-21
RJMAZ wrote:You miss the point and the 777X is a bad example.
morrisond wrote:BTW it's Northrup that's building the B-21
RJMAZ wrote:
I would rollout a flyable plane at the official launch with multiple airlines CEO's standing beside me with a huge 1000+ order book.
RJMAZ wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:The big secret is whether or not the plane will be launched. Even Boeing does not know for sure yet - so neither engineers nor Airbus know.
You have no evidence of this. All the evidence points to the exact opposite.
Boeing is clearly delaying or limiting public information on the 797 to mislead Airbus. It is ridiculous for you to assume that Boeing is undecided if they will even produce the 797 at all.
Boeing will definitely be producing the B-21 bomber yet no public launch with photos or specifications have been made.
If Boeing was undecided if they will produce the 797 they would not have 1000 engineers building the thing.
If the Boeing fanboys want to help Boeing they should all start spreading rumours that Boeing has no business case. Airbus will hear all these rumours and think the 797 will not happen and not plan for a response.
I'm actually tempted to delete all my comments on this. And start posting that the 797 probably won't launch as the market is too small. It seems only a few members here can see the 797 is definitely happening.
morrisond wrote:According to Boeings financial statements - the last two years Boeing has spent about $3.1 Billion on R&D - for 2019 they are forecasting $4.1 Billion. Given that MAX is pretty well done (except for -10 minor Stretch) and 777X major engineering is done as well - what accounts for the big increase? Half or more of the $4.1 could be NMA work.
RJMAZ wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:The big secret is whether or not the plane will be launched. Even Boeing does not know for sure yet - so neither engineers nor Airbus know.
You have no evidence of this. All the evidence points to the exact opposite.
Boeing is clearly delaying or limiting public information on the 797 to mislead Airbus. It is ridiculous for you to assume that Boeing is undecided if they will even produce the 797 at all.
Boeing will definitely be producing the B-21 bomber yet no public launch with photos or specifications have been made.
If Boeing was undecided if they will produce the 797 they would not have 1000 engineers building the thing.
If the Boeing fanboys want to help Boeing they should all start spreading rumours that Boeing has no business case. Airbus will hear all these rumours and think the 797 will not happen and not plan for a response.
I'm actually tempted to delete all my comments on this. And start posting that the 797 probably won't launch as the market is too small. It seems only a few members here can see the 797 is definitely happening.
Planeflyer wrote:Let’s also keep in mind that BA’ s cash flow generation provides tremendous flexibility.
Revelation wrote:Planeflyer wrote:Let’s also keep in mind that BA’ s cash flow generation provides tremendous flexibility.
Indeed, but I think they are being super cautious. I think they really want to change how much revenue they get over the aircraft's life span. They're willing to play hard ball with the vendors till they get the kind of terms they want. If you look at the financials, Boeing Global Services had record numbers this year and is on a huge growth trajectory. The C-suite realizes now is the time to change the way the game is played, and if they can do that, they will capture decades of profits. On the flip side, if the vendors create their own profit lock in mechanisms they may never put the genie back in to the bottle and they will be remembered for giving away the family jewels. They realize it can all go badly if they try to do it all at the same time (see: 787) so they're being super cautious about working things out before they go full throttle.
morrisond wrote:Yes - impossible to know split between Commercial and Defense R&D spending of $4.1B for 2019
Planeflyer wrote:The digital design initiatives underway enable robust design and follow on services.
While proving a resurgence in its ability to capture new programs, Boeing’s win of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer also may mark a turning point for the business model at the company’s defense division.
Much as commercial aero engine companies moved years ago toward selling their powerplants below cost to secure marketshare, with the intent of making money later on aftermarket services, Boeing Defense may be headed in the same direction.
Boeing, however, is far more diversified: its commercial aircraft backlog stood at $433 billion at the start of the year, while Boeing Defense was sitting on $50 billion in work, according to the last annual regulatory filing. In addition, the corporation has set a target for the year-old Boeing Global Services division to reach $50 billion in annual revenue by the early 2020s, and it is already around $15 billion.
Boeing's fledgling Global Services division saw 17 percent YOY growth, from $14.6 billion to $17 billion, bolstered by a fourth quarter in which the acquisition of parts distributor KLX helped the segment achieve revenue increases of 29 percent YOY.
Boeing executives spotlighted the company’s turn toward services in July. “This is a bigger market in the long term than the aircraft market,” Boeing’s chief commercial aircraft salesman, Randy Tinseth, said during the Farnborough Airshow. “We only have 7% [services] market share, so what a great opportunity as we grow to expand our share.”
Part and parcel to achieving those margins has been Boeing’s supply chain squeeze, the Partnership for Success program, and it came into play with T-X. A year ago, Boeing chose Triumph Group as a key supplier for Boeing’s bid. That selection came as Boeing was finalizing a master contract arrangement with Triumph, as has been done with several other Tier 1 and 2 providers. Triumph is in the midst of a restructuring and streamlining in part to profit after meeting Boeing’s terms.
The degree of cost-cutting implied by Boeing’s bid for T-X also may hit at other technology breakthroughs. In 2015, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported on the “Black Diamond” project within Boeing, which sought to transform its defense production system with low-cost manufacturing techniques.
“Naturally, Black Diamond played a role,” Merluzeau says. “The per-unit price demonstrates near-‘Scaled Composites-like’ costs.”
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that if Boeing wanted to take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak little details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare. Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
PlanesNTrains wrote:GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that if Boeing wanted to take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak little details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare. Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this will never happen. Happy to be proven wrong.
Revelation wrote:PlanesNTrains wrote:GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that if Boeing wanted to take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak little details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare. Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this will never happen. Happy to be proven wrong.
I don't think it's even possible given the current BCA set up. They were able to produce the P-8 Poseidon at BCA in Renton on its own line but I think the sensitive bits were installed by BDS at KBFI. Basically most of BCA does not work with the kind of security procedures needed for this kind of thing. I highly doubt the necessary equipment could be purchased and the product could be built to the point of roll out, never mind first flight. KPAE is a public airport and there's not much Boeing can do to prevent members of the public from taking pictures.
On the other hand, I think there is a tiny but non-zero possibility that NMA itself is a disinformation campaign being used to hide NSA development. Tiny, but non-zero till proven otherwise.
PlanesNTrains wrote:GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that if Boeing wanted to take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak little details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare. Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this will never happen. Happy to be proven wrong.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that Boeing could take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak few / misleading details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare? Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
Revelation wrote:On the other hand, I think there is a tiny but non-zero possibility that NMA itself is a disinformation campaign being used to hide NSA development. Tiny, but non-zero till proven otherwise.
PW100 wrote:Revelation wrote:On the other hand, I think there is a tiny but non-zero possibility that NMA itself is a disinformation campaign being used to hide NSA development. Tiny, but non-zero till proven otherwise.
Sort of Sonic Cruiser hiding 787 . . . ?
Revelation wrote:morrisond wrote:Yes - impossible to know split between Commercial and Defense R&D spending of $4.1B for 2019Planeflyer wrote:The digital design initiatives underway enable robust design and follow on services.
I think we can put it together by researching the T-X.
AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... me-changer ; free registration required ) says:While proving a resurgence in its ability to capture new programs, Boeing’s win of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer also may mark a turning point for the business model at the company’s defense division.
Much as commercial aero engine companies moved years ago toward selling their powerplants below cost to secure marketshare, with the intent of making money later on aftermarket services, Boeing Defense may be headed in the same direction.
Basically, for T-X the push was to spend the time up front (even building and flying two prototypes) to convince themselves they could offer lower prices up front to gain access to aftermarket profits later. I think much of the large amount of R&D spending went in to the (virtual and physical) tools needed to produce these prototypes and validate the results, along with the work needed with the supply chain to make sure the pricing was sound.
Now I'm not saying that BDS and BCA will follow the same business models since their markets work differently, but I am saying they are both strongly motivated to find new business models that capture more of the product's lifetime revenue.
They are working from a position of strength:Boeing, however, is far more diversified: its commercial aircraft backlog stood at $433 billion at the start of the year, while Boeing Defense was sitting on $50 billion in work, according to the last annual regulatory filing. In addition, the corporation has set a target for the year-old Boeing Global Services division to reach $50 billion in annual revenue by the early 2020s, and it is already around $15 billion.
This article is six months old, whereas https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/01/3 ... 8-revenue/ says:Boeing's fledgling Global Services division saw 17 percent YOY growth, from $14.6 billion to $17 billion, bolstered by a fourth quarter in which the acquisition of parts distributor KLX helped the segment achieve revenue increases of 29 percent YOY.
Seems they are ahead of target.
The first article says:Boeing executives spotlighted the company’s turn toward services in July. “This is a bigger market in the long term than the aircraft market,” Boeing’s chief commercial aircraft salesman, Randy Tinseth, said during the Farnborough Airshow. “We only have 7% [services] market share, so what a great opportunity as we grow to expand our share.”
So everyone involved knows where things are heading.
It doesn't look good for vendors:Part and parcel to achieving those margins has been Boeing’s supply chain squeeze, the Partnership for Success program, and it came into play with T-X. A year ago, Boeing chose Triumph Group as a key supplier for Boeing’s bid. That selection came as Boeing was finalizing a master contract arrangement with Triumph, as has been done with several other Tier 1 and 2 providers. Triumph is in the midst of a restructuring and streamlining in part to profit after meeting Boeing’s terms.
The squeeze was on for T-X, as it almost certainly is for NMA.
It is largely enabled by using new technology in the production/manufacturing space:The degree of cost-cutting implied by Boeing’s bid for T-X also may hit at other technology breakthroughs. In 2015, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported on the “Black Diamond” project within Boeing, which sought to transform its defense production system with low-cost manufacturing techniques.
“Naturally, Black Diamond played a role,” Merluzeau says. “The per-unit price demonstrates near-‘Scaled Composites-like’ costs.”
Hopefully the business case will close and we'll learn more about what role all of these things play in the NMA program.
Planeflyer wrote:PW100 wrote:Revelation wrote:On the other hand, I think there is a tiny but non-zero possibility that NMA itself is a disinformation campaign being used to hide NSA development. Tiny, but non-zero till proven otherwise.
Sort of Sonic Cruiser hiding 787 . . . ?
Highly doubt the disinformation angle. BA being publicly traded just does not work w blatant untrue statements.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that Boeing could take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak few / misleading details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare? Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
Newbiepilot wrote:Planeflyer wrote:PW100 wrote:Sort of Sonic Cruiser hiding 787 . . . ?
Highly doubt the disinformation angle. BA being publicly traded just does not work w blatant untrue statements.
Very true. The CEO can’t mislead investors on an earnings call.
GEUltraFan9XGTF wrote:I completely agree that Boeing could take a "military style" approach to NMA if they want to: develop in secret, leak few / misleading details, and then roll out a few prototypes to much shock and awe. Imagine roll out a few days before Paris and then flying one or two copies to Paris to much fanfare? Completely possible. And perhaps necessary. Something Leahy would also totally respect.
JayinKitsap wrote:Revelation wrote:morrisond wrote:Yes - impossible to know split between Commercial and Defense R&D spending of $4.1B for 2019Planeflyer wrote:The digital design initiatives underway enable robust design and follow on services.
I think we can put it together by researching the T-X.
AvWeek ( http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... me-changer ; free registration required ) says:While proving a resurgence in its ability to capture new programs, Boeing’s win of the U.S. Air Force’s T-X trainer also may mark a turning point for the business model at the company’s defense division.
Much as commercial aero engine companies moved years ago toward selling their powerplants below cost to secure marketshare, with the intent of making money later on aftermarket services, Boeing Defense may be headed in the same direction.
Basically, for T-X the push was to spend the time up front (even building and flying two prototypes) to convince themselves they could offer lower prices up front to gain access to aftermarket profits later. I think much of the large amount of R&D spending went in to the (virtual and physical) tools needed to produce these prototypes and validate the results, along with the work needed with the supply chain to make sure the pricing was sound.
Now I'm not saying that BDS and BCA will follow the same business models since their markets work differently, but I am saying they are both strongly motivated to find new business models that capture more of the product's lifetime revenue.
They are working from a position of strength:Boeing, however, is far more diversified: its commercial aircraft backlog stood at $433 billion at the start of the year, while Boeing Defense was sitting on $50 billion in work, according to the last annual regulatory filing. In addition, the corporation has set a target for the year-old Boeing Global Services division to reach $50 billion in annual revenue by the early 2020s, and it is already around $15 billion.
This article is six months old, whereas https://www.aviationtoday.com/2019/01/3 ... 8-revenue/ says:Boeing's fledgling Global Services division saw 17 percent YOY growth, from $14.6 billion to $17 billion, bolstered by a fourth quarter in which the acquisition of parts distributor KLX helped the segment achieve revenue increases of 29 percent YOY.
Seems they are ahead of target.
The first article says:Boeing executives spotlighted the company’s turn toward services in July. “This is a bigger market in the long term than the aircraft market,” Boeing’s chief commercial aircraft salesman, Randy Tinseth, said during the Farnborough Airshow. “We only have 7% [services] market share, so what a great opportunity as we grow to expand our share.”
So everyone involved knows where things are heading.
It doesn't look good for vendors:Part and parcel to achieving those margins has been Boeing’s supply chain squeeze, the Partnership for Success program, and it came into play with T-X. A year ago, Boeing chose Triumph Group as a key supplier for Boeing’s bid. That selection came as Boeing was finalizing a master contract arrangement with Triumph, as has been done with several other Tier 1 and 2 providers. Triumph is in the midst of a restructuring and streamlining in part to profit after meeting Boeing’s terms.
The squeeze was on for T-X, as it almost certainly is for NMA.
It is largely enabled by using new technology in the production/manufacturing space:The degree of cost-cutting implied by Boeing’s bid for T-X also may hit at other technology breakthroughs. In 2015, Aviation Week & Space Technology reported on the “Black Diamond” project within Boeing, which sought to transform its defense production system with low-cost manufacturing techniques.
“Naturally, Black Diamond played a role,” Merluzeau says. “The per-unit price demonstrates near-‘Scaled Composites-like’ costs.”
Hopefully the business case will close and we'll learn more about what role all of these things play in the NMA program.
The T-X may be the training exercise for the digital tools Boeing are/will be using for the 797. Train 500 on a small plane getting into the detailed design where there is some chance to shift directions as the design evolves. A year spent on that would be excellent training to be ready for detailed design on the 797.
Authority to Offer would be needed on the 797 to get the selected engine into real development. I suspect a single source, with Boeing taking engine risk as a partner in exchange for aftermarket revenue. That would also be a way to make the engine exclusive - on only the 797 as the only engine there. It pairs up with the Boeing - Safran APU JV.
TTailedTiger wrote:That would be a lot of fun to watch. But AFAIK Airbus has never been a good sport to Boeing. Contrast that to Boeing who has given well wishes when Airbus finishes a jet. They gave a nice message of congratulations when the A380 entered service.
seahawk wrote:A engine RFP does not mean you could not have been working with one OEM already.
morrisond wrote:seahawk wrote:A engine RFP does not mean you could not have been working with one OEM already.
True - but as many have speculated - if NMA is 2025 the engines will be a derivative of existing technology - basically a sized up PW1100 or Leap with PIP's - or a downsize of one of the widebody engines - they won't need time to develop next gen technology. They should be able to accomplish that in the time frame.
They did the Trent 7000 in 4 years from selection in July 2014 to certification in July 2018 - albeit 1 year behind schedule - originally it was supposed to be only three years.
I would have to guess that they would need a custom core for NMA but if they stuck to existing tech and engine architecture - with possible more use of CMC's - if they did choose the engine supplier this year 2025 should be doable.
Boeing would need to know the engine specs (thrust/weight/price) and who the supplier was as part of the ATO discussions with airlines. They aren't going to get any commitments without that info.
Once they have chosen the Engine(s) at ATO (which could happen quite soon) there is nothing to stop the Engine Supplier from starting to work on it. As Boeing is speculated as a risk sharing partner there is nothing to stop from them putting up capital at ATO to get work started - taking the capital risk away or reducing it for the engine supplier if NMA doesn't go ahead.
Basically if ATO is this spring - work on the engine(s) will most likely start as well.
Aircellist wrote:If the delay really is about building a business case, it begs the question of said business case… Once, a few dozen sales were enough, then a few hundreds. Nowadays, are we already past one thousand sales needed prior to formal launch?
Aircellist wrote:If the delay really is about building a business case, it begs the question of said business case… Once, a few dozen sales were enough, then a few hundreds. Nowadays, are we already past one thousand sales needed prior to formal launch?
morrisond wrote:seahawk wrote:A engine RFP does not mean you could not have been working with one OEM already.
True - but as many have speculated - if NMA is 2025 the engines will be a derivative of existing technology - basically a sized up PW1100 or Leap with PIP's - or a downsize of one of the widebody engines - they won't need time to develop next gen technology. They should be able to accomplish that in the time frame.
They did the Trent 7000 in 4 years from selection in July 2014 to certification in July 2018 - albeit 1 year behind schedule - originally it was supposed to be only three years.
I would have to guess that they would need a custom core for NMA but if they stuck to existing tech and engine architecture - with possible more use of CMC's - if they did choose the engine supplier this year 2025 should be doable.
Boeing would need to know the engine specs (thrust/weight/price) and who the supplier was as part of the ATO discussions with airlines. They aren't going to get any commitments without that info.
Once they have chosen the Engine(s) at ATO (which could happen quite soon) there is nothing to stop the Engine Supplier from starting to work on it. As Boeing is speculated as a risk sharing partner there is nothing to stop from them putting up capital at ATO to get work started - taking the capital risk away or reducing it for the engine supplier if NMA doesn't go ahead.
Basically if ATO is this spring - work on the engine(s) will most likely start as well.
seahawk wrote:morrisond wrote:seahawk wrote:A engine RFP does not mean you could not have been working with one OEM already.
True - but as many have speculated - if NMA is 2025 the engines will be a derivative of existing technology - basically a sized up PW1100 or Leap with PIP's - or a downsize of one of the widebody engines - they won't need time to develop next gen technology. They should be able to accomplish that in the time frame.
They did the Trent 7000 in 4 years from selection in July 2014 to certification in July 2018 - albeit 1 year behind schedule - originally it was supposed to be only three years.
I would have to guess that they would need a custom core for NMA but if they stuck to existing tech and engine architecture - with possible more use of CMC's - if they did choose the engine supplier this year 2025 should be doable.
Boeing would need to know the engine specs (thrust/weight/price) and who the supplier was as part of the ATO discussions with airlines. They aren't going to get any commitments without that info.
Once they have chosen the Engine(s) at ATO (which could happen quite soon) there is nothing to stop the Engine Supplier from starting to work on it. As Boeing is speculated as a risk sharing partner there is nothing to stop from them putting up capital at ATO to get work started - taking the capital risk away or reducing it for the engine supplier if NMA doesn't go ahead.
Basically if ATO is this spring - work on the engine(s) will most likely start as well.
If we calculate with 1 year of flight testing, the engine needs to be ready by 2024, which means the engine test must start 2023, which leaves them about 3,5 years to design the engine, set up the supply chain and the manufacturing. Considering the teething problems of modern engines, it is a challenging job and very risky if you agree on guarantees and compensation payments for engine based delays.
Imho it only is reasonable if there is only one engine option and if the engine overhaul business is certain to give you future income - which probably means locking out other MROs. Which then again might be not so good for the business case.