They’re starting to move down that path, and they have an application to respond to. The airplane, the ground systems, it’s all got to be foolproof. I have enormous confidence in the airplane, but the most important dimension for Boeing and the industry is going to be teaching the FAA how to certify autonomy. Wisk, the autonomous air-taxi venture in which Boeing just took a controlling interest, has been a pathfinder for autonomy and electric propulsion. When we talk about autonomous capability, the first thing pilots say is: “That sounds like they want to take one or maybe both of us out of the cockpit.” Here’s the words I would use: That is possible. The biggest and most important contribution to safety is going to be the rollout of autonomy. Human error is the biggest hurdle for us to get to the end game, which is no accidents, ever. What does that actually mean? Over the next 20-30 years, the primary incentive for autonomy is safety. You’ve said Boeing’s next commercial airplane will introduce a new level of autonomy. We believe in hydrogen, but it is a long way away. But I’m not sure that’s going to happen-not on the scale of airplanes we’re talking about. If I thought hydrogen was going to make a meaningful difference in 25 years, that would be a consideration. One of the criticisms of the TTBW is that the length of its fuselage makes it much harder to adapt to hydrogen propulsion. Those couple of years heading into ’28 will be very important as we mature and understand what it really does. I’m optimistic that something derived from this experience is going to give our propulsion players a bigger window to get to the finish line with us. The concept works in a wind tunnel, but until it flies on an airplane, you don’t know. That leaves an awful lot for the engine to do. You’ve said you need a 20-30% fuel-burn improvement, and NASA has suggested TTBW will get perhaps 9%. You seem to be warming to the transonic truss-braced wing (TTBW) as a potential for the next single-aisle. But the notion that somebody is going to get ahead of my competitor or us between now and 2035-I wish him luck. And what’s wrong with that? Three players competing in a gigantic global market is good for everybody. And then three players are going to be battling it out for a very long period of time. The player that is ultimately going to make a difference and become the third competitor is China. Does that open the door for a dark horse to challenge the duopoly? You don’t get a dark horse in this space at this scale in 10 years. But that would still be more than a quarter-century since either Airbus or Boeing launched a clean-sheet airliner. I just don’t know when they will mature.Īirbus’ CEO told us he is aiming to replace the A320neo family with a next-generation airplane as early as 2035 (page 46). I am very comfortable that the package of technologies we’re working on is going to add a lot of value to whatever that airplane is going to be. I don’t have a timeline for the maturity of those capabilities. I would rather invest in capabilities that, when we package them together, will meet that objective. The notion that we should be looking at niche opportunities or competitive dynamics over a short period of time-when you’re going to invest tens of billions of dollars in a program for 50 years-is just silly. These programs have got to be designed to last 50 years 20 or 30 years is a disaster. That is what will justify airlines making a move. I have been clear that we need something that delivers in the neighborhood of a 20-30% improvement over today’s airplanes. When is the earliest Boeing could launch a new clean-sheet airplane development and when is the earliest it could enter service? Everybody would like a timetable, but that’s not really how major airplane programs can or should be developed. Credit: Christopher Pike/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesĪW&ST: There is a lot of confusion about what “nothing before 2035” means.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |