Tag Archives: Boeing

A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn’t quite right.

05 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Technical

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

A330_FALAirbus has announced that its Airbus A330 production rate has touched 10 aircraft a month, which is significant for a wide body airliner, and the highest production rate of any Airbus widebody aircraft.

Airbus claims that the Airbus A330 is “the most popular in its category”. A330 Programme head Patrick Piedrafita said more than 800 sales have been logged since Airbus’ competitor launched its 787, validating the A330’s sustained competitiveness. That statement is vague.

The 767-300ER, and the 767-400ER, together have 621 orders, of which only 9 are unfulfilled. These two models compete with the A330-200 in capacity, but fall short in range by more than 1,500NM. There are totally 575 orders for the Airbus A330-200. Yes, the Airbus wins considering it is a younger airplane and offers more range and capacity. Then, the 787 was introduced to replace the 767 and compete against the popular A330-200.

But the Boeing 787-8 has orders for 535 airplanes, of which 50 have been delivered. If the 787’s issues are resolved, and it re-enters service and production, it quickly eclipses the popularity of the Airbus A330-200: It offers a lot more, for the same price as the shorter Airbus A330, while offering the same range and passenger capacity. Which explains the orders for the 787-8. The 787, was introduced in service in 2011, while the A330 entered service in 1992. Considering this gap, the 787’s sales performance is way better, underlining its competitiveness. If A330 Programme head Patrick Piedrafita says the A330 is still competitive, he must realize that if the 787 program ran smooth, the A330-200 line would have closed. It isn’t the 787, but the 787 program that still makes the A330-200 a safe bet.

And yes, he must be reminded that the A330-300 is a different aircraft.

A333_A332The Airbus A330-300 competes against the Boeing 777-200 and 777-200ER aircraft. It has the same passenger capacity (440 max pax), but has a range that falls in between the -200 and the -200ER variant. The 777-200 and the -200ER together have orders for 510 airplanes, while the A330-300 has a order book total of 622 airplanes. The A330 family does not compete with the other 777 models (-200LR, -300, -300ER). The Boeing 777-200LR, 777-300 and 777-300ER compete with the Airbus A340-500 and -600, which are now out of production.

Although the A330-300 boasts a range similar to the 777-300, it falls short in maximum passenger capacity by 110 passengers. The A330-300 costs lesser than the 777-200 and 200ER aircraft, and is cheaper to operate. Yes, the Airbus 330 is a lot more competitive than competing 777 models, and stands as the best aircraft in its category, but that doesn’t mean it is more competitive than the 787.

Infact, the A330-300 is a lot more popular than the A330-200. But Airbus can’t compare the A330-300 with the 787. Apples and Oranges don’t look, smell, and taste alike, even if they have 2 wings and two engines.

A330_Orders_Operation

“The airline business is all about ego”

19 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by in General Aviation Interest

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

lion321Says Rusdi Kirana, CEO of Lion Air, which has been, off late, making headline for all the “right” reasons.

RusdiSurprisingly, for a man who has absolutely no emotional attachment to the airline industry, all his orders are worthy of an ego boost. Surprising for a man who started off as a typewriter salesman, and has ended up as the CEO of the family owned business of the fastest growing airline in the world fueled by a dubious source of funding. Indonesia is ranked 118 by Transparency International. The ranking runs from least corrupt at No. 1 to most corrupt at No. 176.

In the February of 2012, the Indonesian airline placed an order for 27 ATR 72-600 aircraft, which, when all delivered in 2015, will make Lion Air’s subsidiary, Wings Air, the largest ATR operator.

In the same month of the same year, Lion Air placed the then largest firm order in aviation history, for 230 Boeing aircraft: 29 Boeing 737-900ERs, and 201 737Max, with options for 150 more 737MAXs.

Said Rusdi, in 2006, to Flightglobal, “Everyone knows that the passenger doesn’t really care about aircraft. I hear other airline people say they will go from old aircraft to new aircraft because their passenger likes it. But the passenger is already flying with you so who cares? Unless you are like Singapore Airlines where it is part of your image you should only change your aircraft if the cost is better. Here in Indonesia it is all about the ticket price.”

But Yesterday, (March 18th, 2013), Lion Air ordered for a total of 234 A320 Family aircraft, comprising 109 A320neo, 65 A321neo and 60 A320ceo: one of the biggest orders from that region.

Surely, the orders are business driven. The carrier is banned from flying into the US and EU skies over safety fears. Now, Airbus and Boeing “safety experts” are running in and out of the airline auditing its safety and helping improve its rating.

Lion air has quite a few thin feathers on its cap. The first Boeing 737-900ER, and the and last ATR 72-500, were delivered to Lion Air. Lion Air is expected to be the launch customer for the 737-9 MAX.

Lion Air, with its subsidiary Wings Air, presently has a fleet of 125 airplanes, which comprise a mix of 737 Classics, 737NGs, 747-400s, MD-82s, MD-83, ATR 72s, and Dash 8-300s. This is impressive, considering the airline started operations in 1999. This combined fleet size is 17 aircraft more than the combined fleet strength of the Indonesian national flag carrier, Garuda Indonesia, and its low cost subsidiary, Citilink Indonesia.

This is surprising growth, and surprising business moves, coming from an apparently public shy, boyish charm businessman who said almost 6 years ago, on why he started an airline: “I did it because I was hungry”. Surprising that in a business with hairline margins, high costs, and stiff competition, that was the first business of choice for a starving man.

Instead, he went on to say, “I didn’t have money. If I had money at that time I would never have done an airline. Only stupid people who have money do airlines. If I had money I would buy plantations or do mining or property or restaurants.”

So we have a shy CEO who was hungry, made about US$10 a month, and decided, of all businesses, to start an airline, and has managed to grow it to the largest by fleet in the country, with money magically appearing from absolutely nowhere.

If Aditya Ghosh considers Southwest beyond Godly status, Lion air is Supernatural.

CLICK HERE to hear Aditya.

Randy Tinseth’s Blog: Details, Spoilt.

25 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in General Aviation Interest

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Randy_Journal

Randy’s Journal, hosted under Boeing Blogs (the plural definitively misleading as his is the only blog), has been running since the January of 2005 with one key point that I was hoping, since 2011, would get noticed: the header image. (shown above with spoilers highlighted in boxes)

The header image shows a Boeing 787, which appears to be on a climbout, with the spoilers deployed. It may be an unnecessary fuss, but in the line that he walks on, which is Marketing: details matter, and nothing could be as discomforting as the image of a Boeing 787′s spoilers deployed on a climbout.

The Blog (CLICK HERE) is described as, “Randy’s Journal is a place to find the inside stuff about the commercial aviation world.” Surely, and coincidently, the header image is a reflection of the present state of the Boeing 787 program: Adding unnecessary, and dangerous drag on a program that is struggling to climb out into the green.

There are many who have an eye for detail, and when they spot the Vice President for Marketing lacking that, it doesn’t speak much (or does it?). Especially an oversight from a man who once was a flight test engineer.

Boeing is a good company run by some of the best professionals, producing some of the most innovative and trend-setting products, but I sincerely hope Boeing starts paying more attention to detail in whatever it does, big or small.

Aero India 2013: Day 1: What it was, and wasn’t

07 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in Aero India 2013, Exhibitors, General Aviation Interest

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The aura surrounding Aero India 2013 is: lacklustre, as rightly predicted on this site. This year’s edition of the airshow lacks the punch and glamour that was associated with Aero India 2011.

DINESH_KThe Boeing 787’s hopefully temporary grounding was reason for media personnel to throng the Boeing stall. And quiz Dinesh Keshkar. Boeing made its mistake of endeavouring on a project that pushed the application of technologies to a scale unseen before, AND offshoring the development work. Boeing employees back in the US are laughing at the management’s poor decision that now costs them a lot, lot more than what they thought would cost by keeping the development in the United States. As airplanes get complex, testing lacks the comprehensiveness in the light of existing and sometimes archaic regulations. This leads to what we’ve all witnessed with the Boeing 787.

wide_view

The apron somehow seemed empty. The Airbus A330MRTT that was expected, didn’t show up on day one. There was no sign of the Russian Knights at the airbase. Bombardier’s press statement of having the Challenger 605 and the Global 6000 seems a promise unkept, atleast on day one of the show.

Embrarer was represented by its Lineage 1000, Phenom 100, and the EMB135BJ (Business jet variant of the Embracer 135). Cessna surprisingly was present at the show, with its VLJ Cessna Mustang. Parked right next to it was its class competitor, the Pilatus PC-12NG flying for Jindal. Hawker Beechcraft was represented by one Kingair somewhere far down the ramp, almost out of visual range. The IAF’s new Pilatus PC-7 MkII was seen on static display in gaudy colors.

Dassault parked a Rafale in the exhibition area, for everyone to come up close and get a glimpse of the aircraft in Armée de l’Air markings. Dassualt also brought a Falcon 900EX, a Falcon 2000LX, and a Falcon 7X to the show, making it the single largest exhibitor this time. The surety of the US$10B MMRCA deal being closed is reason enough.

The C-17 Globemaster was parked beside the KC-135 tanker.

An unexpected visitor: the Long EZ was present on static display.

On the flying side, Rafales, and F-16s were parked. The Flying Bulls performed wonderfully, and was good talking to the formation lead, Radka.

The rest were planes from the Indian Air Force, that appeared more like fillers than anything else. A DO-228 from the Coast Guard, A MiG29, MiG21, Jaguar (with a Honeywell F125 engine parked right beside, symbolising the confirmation of Honeywell winning the Jaguar re-engine deal). A IAF C130J, Sukhoi 30MKI, Mirage 2000…all fillers.

Tiger_Moth

A WWII restored Tiger Moth took to the skies.

Enter the stalls, and the cut in individual spending is visible, everywhere. Welcome to Aero India 2013: the anti-climax of 2011.

GS

Boeing 727: The “Original” Airbus

09 Tuesday Oct 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Boeing Advertisement, taken from a 1973 issue of Flight Global. Click to Enlarge.

Two online definitions of an “airbus” are:

  1. AIR-BUS: A short-range or medium-range commercial passenger airplane, especially one that is part of a frequent shuttle like service between two popular destinations. [Dictionary.com]
  2. An aircraft designed to carry a large number of passengers economically, esp. over relatively short routes. [Google]

Boeing 727 in a freighter configuration. Creative Commons.

Interestingly, that name is what we today associate with the European aerospace company. In the pre-Airbus era, “airbus” was a term used to describe airplanes, as above. When the Airbus Industrie was founded in 1970, they adopted the popular description. The Boeing 727 was one such very well known, and immensely successful “airbus” airplane back in its time, when it entered service in 1964.

Here is the more interesting part: American Airlines began flying the Boeing 727 in 1964, making it one of the first operators, and at one point of time, the airline operated as many as 182 Boeing 727s, making it the largest operator of the type.

This same operator, in as early as 1966, laid out the requirements for a Boeing 727 “replacement” on short to medium range routes. The requirements were: a passenger capacity of 250 – 300, twin aisle, twin engine, and good hot and high airfield performance.

The very next year, the British, French and German governments signed an MoU to develop the Airbus A300: a 300 seat, twin aisle, twin engine aircraft. With twice the maximum capacity (375 seats) of a Boeing 727 airliner (189 seats), it almost seemed like the A300 was “tailormade” for American Airlines. Intended for short and medium haul routes, the A300 was another “airbus”.

Airbus A300, flying for American Airlines. Creative Commons

American Airlines was the largest passenger operator of the type, with 35 Airbus A300s. The A300, very obviously, was deployed on routes with sufficient capacity, replacing two 727s with one A300, which in effect, was replacing 6 engines with 2, Two sets of Crew with one, and Two fuel guzzling 727s with an operationally more economical airplane that cost just twice as much as a single Boeing 727.

Possibly sensing trouble, Boeing came out with an advertisement in 1973 (beginning of article), a copy of which was published in one of that year’s print issue of Flightglobal. The advertisement was a direct hit at Airbus, in which it makes a very unfair comparison between the 727 and the alluded-to A300. At the time of the advertisement, Airbus was only 3 years old, and the A300 hadn’t yet entered service. The 727 was, at the time of the advertisement, flying for almost 10 years, and evidently, without a successful competitor, the “best selling” at that time, with orders crossing the 1000th mark in the September of 1972.

The introduction of the A300, amongst other newer airplanes, had its effect on the 727. It took 9 years to sell 1000 Boeing 727s, but 18years thereafter to sell 832 airplanes. The last Boeing 727 was built in 1984, and the 727 was retired from American Airlines’ fleet in 2002. The Airbus A300 was produced for 33 years: 12 years more than the 727, producing 561 airplanes. The A300 fleet was retired from American Airlines in 2009.

In short, the Airbus Industry was effectively formed to cater to an American Airlines requirement, and the American Airlines requirement stemmed from the Boeing 727. Which, if seen in another light, will appear as if the Boeing 727 gave birth to the Airbus Industrie.

The advertisement, very aptly, reads, “Because the Boeing 727 is the original airbus”.

In Photos: The 787: “Lining” the Dream, from back to front: India Aviation 2012

16 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, Airshow, Exhibitors, General Aviation Interest, India Aviation 2012, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

I thought I’d be this cool dude by writing an extensive article on the 787 right away. Its too big, and too grand for that. In the time I will take to write up on the Dream, enjoy the photos from The Flying Engineer, who got one of the most detailed tours of the new bird from Boeing. And I adopted a reverse airflow direction over 238 economy seats and 18 business to cover this bird. Paid off!

The 787's aft Galley. In this airplane, the feeling of space is overwhelming!

A very kind Boeing employee showing me how much the seat can recline in the economy class. Notice that the bottom cushion for the thigh support slides forward as the seat reclines backward.

Another great feature on board this Boeing is the foot rest. Small additions like these make a long 8000NM flight more comfortable.

The Economy entertainment system. Providers of IFE are Panasonic and Thales. The nice handy remote can allow you to not only play your personal collection of movies through the provided USB socket, but can swipe your card for payments as well!

Another small yet useful feature: the 115V AC sockets for your appliances: available for every passenger under his/her seat!

Cabin clean shot: the economy 9 abreast seating (3-3-3) with a 32" seat pitch. Notice the feeling of space, the elevated ceiling, and the very curved overhead bins. It fools you into believing that there isn't sufficient overhead space. See the next photo to know more!

Mr. good guy from Boeing poses with a huge trolly bag and a charming smile, just to show what can fit in the overhead and how! See the next picture.

A comparison of the overhead bin, when opened, and retracted (closed). notice the space. And notice the illusion of a poor capacity when retracted. Its unbelievable.

All due to the overhead bin innovative design, you no longer have to crouch to reach your window seat. You can stand closer, and longer, for seats close to the window. There is comfort, there is space, and there is well-thought-of engineering.

Business Class: Notice the seats that allow you to lie flat and get a good flight's sleep!

Mr. goodguy from Boeing poses again just to show you how much space there is everywhere. A wide cabin, a tall ceiling, curved and non-intrusive overhead bins: all make for a very good feeling of space.

Another take of the Business class seats! They're wide, and they have a 78" seat pitch. The IFE seems good, but the comfort is unparalleled.

Photo comparison of the most talked about thing in the cabin: the polarised windows. There are no shades. Instead, electrically controlled windows (through polarisation) cut the amount of light that passes through. The left photo and the right are taken with the same camera settings of exposure & ISO. Yet, note that despite it being broad daylight, on selecting a complete cut, its pretty dark inside (look close at the left photo and you will see a faint blue image)

The small round control below each window is responsible for the dimming.

Wilson Chow, who is about 2 meters in height, trying to show me that there is no way you can ever feel claustrophobic on board this beauty!

As soon as you enter the aircraft from the front-left passenger door, you see this. The stairway to heaven: the overhead crew rest area!

A view from the crew rest area, looking down at the cockpit entrance.

Cozy enough, comfortable. Enough for the crew? See the next photo to find out!

Boeing's 787 Captain Pat Bearce, a 6ft 3" tall ex-marines pilot, showing me that he too is comfortable in the crew rest!

The holy deck. The most sought after tourist destination on board the airplane. the Head up Displays, the avionics, and the simple feeling of luxurious space is very luring.

Another view of the deck, from the Captain's seat. The Honeywell FMS running on a Smith's (now GE) Hardware.

The Head Up Display. Notice how the display doesn't need constant refocusing of the eye. Infact, the lady captain said she who needed glasses to see instruments up close now no longer needs any spectacles while flying. HUD's allow you to have lower approach minima in poor weather.

I regret not having caught her name (Edit: Capt. Ross). There she is showing me the 787's "soft" FMS, which is NOT a touch screen, as one would be fooled into believing. A mouse-like cursor is navigated to the desired software buttons and clicked. pretty much like a laptop touch pad.

Up close and even closer. The Capt's hand on the Cursor Control unit., and shes navigating her way through the FMS. Hard to use the cursor and the keypad left of the screen, both of which demand constant shifting of the hand? Not really, says her. Its faster than on the 777's hard-FMS, is what the lady cpatin tells me!

The only touch screens in the cockpit are the Electronic Flight Bags, or the EFB. Comfort. Ease. Style. Technology.

So similair to the 777's cockpit is the 787 that FAA allows crews to undergo only 5 days of transistion training. It hasbn't worked this way across the world, with complaints from ANA, but from a higher level: the controls, the layout, the functions are all very similar to the 777. Says Capt's Pat, "To me, I just forget what a 777 and a 787 are when flying. they're transparent to each other. Almost"

Fixed Wing Aircraft at India Aviation 2012

15 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, Airport Operations, Airshow, Exhibitors, General Aviation Interest, India Aviation 2012, Manufacturer

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Making your presence felt goes a long way in winning customer confidence in the product. They can see it, feel it, and fly it, and decide on the spot. The pampering really can make a huge difference.

Here is the listing of 18 fixed wing aircraft on static/flying demo at India Aviation 2012, arranged by the manufacturer, in alphabetical order:

Airbus

Airbus ACJ (Regn: A6-AJC)

Boeing

Boeing 787-8 (Regn: N1015B)

Bombardier

Challenger 300 (Regn: N305CL)

Global 5000 (Regn: A7-CEE)

Learjet 60XR (Regn: N383LJ)

Q400 (Regn: VT-SUG) Note: On display for 2 hours only

Dassault 

Falcon 7X (Regn: VT-RGX)

Falcon 2000LX (F-HBIP)

Embraer

Legacy 650 (Regn: PT-TIE)

Phenom 100 (Regn; VT-AJI)

Phenom 300 (Regn: PT-TRT)

Gulfstream

Gulfstream G150 (Regn: N150GV)

Gulfstream G450 (Regn: N450GD)

Hawker-Beechcraft

Beechcraft King Air C90GTX (Regn: N8020J)

Hawker 900XP (Regn: N964XP)

Hawker 4000 (Regn: N860AP)

Piaggio Aero

P-180 AVANTI II (Regn: VT-RNB)

Sukhoi

Sukhoi Superjet 100 (Regn: RA97005)

On ground, 4000.

13 Tuesday Mar 2012

Posted by in Aircraft Production, General Aviation Interest, Manufacturer, Operations

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

737NG #4000 waiting to be assembled! Photo by Boeing, of Boeing.

Its really hard to believe that a tube of metal, sitting on a transport dolly, can ever fly. The rivets are clearly seen, the skin in protective paint, and covers for where the windshields should be. This time however, the common sight of a 737 fuelage rolling into Boeing’s Renton plant, is not just another body.

The only thing separating it from the rest is its number. It is 737 NG # 4000, a milestone for the 737NG program. With 2,674 737NG orders still unfulfilled, looks like the #4000 bird is going to eventually lose the limelight to # 5000, #6000, and maybe, #7000.

Four celebrations to look forward to. Well done, Boeing, for a cumulative 6613 civil Boeing 737NG variant orders as of Feb end, 2012, of which 59.5% have been delivered.

With the October 2011 announcement by Boeing of the 737NG production rate having been ramped up to 35 airplanes a month (“Rate 35″), 737NG #4000 should be completely assembled by the 3rd week of April, 2012. #5000 should be ready in the September of 2014; #6000 in the   January of 2017, and #7000 in the June of 2019.

That’s a terrible wait!

Which is why Boeing CA CEO Jim Albaugh, in July 2011, asked his product development team to evaluate the feasibility of further ramping up production to 60 airplanes a month. As of today, the 737NG production will hit “Rate 42″ by mid 2014, witnessing “Rate 38″ from “Rate 35″ somewhere between then and today.

Assuming Rate 38 hits in January 2013, And Rate 42 in mid 2014, #5000 should be out in July 2014; #6000 in July 2016; and #7000 in July 2018, advancing the earlier projected 7000th airframe’s delivery by one solid year.

Boeing badly needs Rate 60, keeping in mind that the Boeing 737 MAX is expected to enter service in 2017.

Disclaimer: Author estimated/assumed production rates. An estimate is an estimate, and an assumption always an assumption. Just for you to get a feel of when you’ll expect the 737NG that you order, today.

Photo from here.

The Jeppesen “Grey Area” for flight crew members.

09 Friday Mar 2012

Posted by in Flight Safety, Operations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The DGCA, India, issued a new Civil Aviation Requirement, SECTION 8 – AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS SERIES ‘C’ PART I (click for PDF) on the 13th of June, 2011, on All Weather Operations (AWO). Due to the extended operational impact of this CAR, a great amount of Jeppesen charts were affected. (See Chart Alert), the most noticable of which is a grey shaded box in the profile.

Note the "Grey Area" in the approach profile.

The CAR lays out that all non-precision approaches (NPA) shall be flown using the Continuous Descent Final Approaches (CDFA) technique unless otherwise approved by the DGCA for a particular approach to a particular runway.

Compared to the traditional descent  approach technique, where the aircraft descends step-by-step prior to the next minimum altitude, the CDFA technique has safety and operational advantages, such  as standardization of procedures, simplification of the decision process  (one technique, one decision at one point), increased height above obstacles, use of a  stable flight path,  reduced noise and reduced fuel burn. The CDFA technique can be flown on most published approach when VNAV or ILS is not available. When electronic  or a pre-stored computed vertical guidance is not used, vertical speed or flight path angle may be used to achieve a CDFA profile.

This has few implications. Air crews can no longer level out at the MDA and fly to the MAP to execute a go around. Instead, the go-around must be executed at the MDA, or the MAP, whichever occurs first. Also, the go around must be flown through the MAP, unless otherwise specified. Hence, the pull up arrow is at the point where the CDFA and the MDA intersect.

In case of ILS approaches, the CDFA and the Glide path are identical. The CDFA is enforced when the Glide Slope is out of service, in which case, go-around must be initiated at the point where the glide path and the MDA intersect.

Because the concept of levelling off at MDA no longer exists, there are chances of flying below the MDA, in case of executing a missed approach at MDA when flying a CDFA. Further, the MDA may be reached either before or after the intended vertical path, due to vertical path errors involved with a non-precision approach. For this reason, the MDA is emphasised in the segment between the MAP and the ALTITUDE-DME check preceding the MAP.

The Jeppesen chart profile depiction will be modified to show the continuous descent on final approach. DGCA published minimum altitudes will be shown as segment minimum altitudes in the profile (grey shaded box). These minimum altitudes are typically provided for obstacle clearance and must not be violated to remain clear of obstacles or terrain.

Zoomed in to the vertical profile