Why doesn’t Boeing build a fully double-decker aircraft?

admin Boeing

Oh boy! Now, I will have to tell you the accidental success story of a jumbo in 2 minutes.

Sometimes the best way to win is by just handing victory to your competitors.This is probably the second time Boeing have done this. It was always a gamble, but it worked last time.

This story begins about 60 years ago when British Aircraft Corporation started manufacturing Concorde. At that time, supersonic flight was hailed as the future of aviation.

It seemed aviation and airplanes would continue to develop into the future, the same as they had done in the 60 years before. The logical area of improvement was in the realm of speed. Early jets in the 1950s flew twice as fast as the propeller powered planes they replaced; and now the expectation was to double the speed again. But, this new increase in speed would mean exceeding the speed of sound, which brought new design challenges. Many airplane manufactures in Europe, the Soviet Union and the America all set about designing supersonic transports (SSTs).

Best known today is the project to develop the Concorde, started in 1962. But at the same time that the British and French were pursuing their plans for a plane that would fly at more than twice the speed of sound (ie 1350 mph, Mach 2.04) and carry 100 passengers 3700 miles, American companies also began to pursue designs for a bigger better SST.

National pride was involved in such a prestigious undertaking, and a Congressional Committee studied America’s needs and how to develop such a plane. It was decided that the FAA would coordinate the program, with assistance from NASA and the Dept of Defense. A 1961 report projected sales of 100-200 SSTs, with government funding much of the development costs, and these investments to be repaid in the form of a royalty on each plane sold.

 

Image: A screenshot of Boeing 2707 from a flight simulator

Boeing partially built two prototype SSTs named Boeing 2707. The design emerged as a very large aircraft with seating for 250 to 300 passengers and cruise speeds in the range of Mach 3 (1KM per second or 3600KMPH). This made it much larger and significantly faster than competing designs like the Concorde, with more than twice the seating capacity. But when government funding dried up, Boeing chose not to risk any of its own money and killed this futuristic project.

There were also protest from environmental activists and people who were afraid of the loud noise of the sonic boom. A 16 km test flight with supersonic XB-70(3,250 km/h) had resulted in 10000 complaints mainly for damaging windows of the building on the ground.

They decided to let their competitors win in the supersonic market probably due to the huge technical challenges involved and the astonishing cost. They instead decided to focus on capturing the cargo plane market.

Image: A rare photo of Boeing 2707

Boeing focused on making 747- the first jumbo. They were also afraid that supersonic is the future passenger travel, so they made 747 with nose door and it was primarily designed as a good cargo plane. The passenger model was an after thought, when Panam challenged Boeing to make a plane which can fly 5000Km and seat 350 people.

READ ALSO  Why does not Boeing/Airbus start their own commercial flight operations?

They first considered making a full double decker, but cancelled that idea due to the monumental technical challenges. Even then, they thought she had only 5 years of life as a passenger plane. They expected the sales to be mainly cargo operators. The upper deck existed primarily because it would allow the entire nose door to be opened.

Image:- Nose cargo door

The problem was that everyone was wrong. The American SST never made it off the drawing board into industry. The Russian SST- Tupolev Tu-144 had two accidents and the project became a commercial failure.

Europe’s SST, the Concorde, proved costly to operate and was a fuel and maintenance hog — though it was the fastest, most streamlined arrow-shaped hog in history. With higher operating costs and fewer seats, the Concorde’s ticket prices had to be heavily subsidized by the operators’ governments — yet even there, the ticket price rivaled the cost of going first class. Thus, one could pay a prince’s sum to be in Europe in a few hours, strapped into a narrow, restricted tube-like fuselage of the Concorde with minimal services — or one could pay the same, or even less, and have an eight or nine hour trip in luxury, feted by beautiful flight attendants serving champagne, foie gras and grapes in the upper deck lounge.

For passengers, the choice was obvious. Even economy coach passengers liked the B747, since it meant ticket costs were at record low prices. B747 became an accidental success in the passenger plane market. And Boeing 747 held the title as the undisputed Queen of the Skies for 4o years until recently when she lost that crown to Airbus A380.

Airbus A380

A380 is definitely a better plane in terms of luxuries and number of people she can transport. She is also much more efficient than the older 747s.

The photos of the luxury suite and first class went viral on the internet

 

Image: First class

 

Why is Boeing not making a new double decker plane?

In one sentence, Boeing thinks that no one wants to buy super big planes.

It is very expensive to develop a new plane.
The total development cost of Airbus A380 is over $25 Billion. This is a very huge and risky investment.

Boeing do not see any market for such big planes.
Airbus bet that growth would be through increases in gauge whereas Boeing bet that it would be through point to point fragmentation. Boeing feels that there will be more demand for smaller efficient aircraft for short distance flights. Hence they focused on efficient 787s etc.

A380 got far lesser orders than expected.
Boeing do not see market for two competing double decker aircraft. There were even prospects of discontinuing A380 superjumbo as soon as 2018. Airbus admitted that they may have misjudged the market for the double-decker after failing to find a single airline buyer in 2014.

Development time.
It would takes many years to fully design and build a new jumbo jet. A380 is already flying. So, it isn’t worth the cost.

READ ALSO  Boeing earnings soar 25% in third quarter

Technical difficulty
In the past, when the first generations of Boeing 747 became a success, Boeing had assessed the technical feasibility of a true double decker design. But due to the huge technical challenges involved, they decided to avoid it at that time.

Current trend
Many airliners are preferring twin engine planes like the B-777 ,787, A-330, and the brand new A-350. The main advantages are the significantly reduced costs for maintenance, overhaul etc due to two less engines. They can be profitably operated from tier-2 and tier-3 cities where the number of passengers are usually less. Thus giving airliners freedom to use their planes on more routes.
(Suggested by Sachin Yadav in the comments)

Too big for most airports
Most airports are not equipped to handle a super jumbo jet.
Airbus A380 superjumbos can now land at 4 airports in India

What you want Boeing to make?

You want Boeing to extend the top floor of 747 all the way towards the tail. Right? Boeing themselves have considered this idea countless times.

Image: Boeing 747 “Double Decker” Early Proposed Design Model – late 1990s

It is easy to say, but doing it would require tremendous re-engineering. The center of gravity would shift substantially towards the rear of the plane, which means that the wings may need to be re-positioned. The rudder assembly would need modification to ensure sufficient control surface would remain in the airstream. The tail would need to be longer.

Fuselage needs to be made much stronger to accommodate two full floors. The partition between the floors needs to be stronger. More volume of air needs to be pressurized, so engines would have to pump in more air. The wings may have to be elongated.

The added weight would probably result in serious reduction in the load capacity of the plane. So, It would require more powerful engines. The engines may require more fuel. It would require more wheels to support the added weight. It would require longer runways to takeoff and land.

Keep in mind that the 747’s airframe is few decades old design. Designing a new plane would likely be cheaper overall than redesigning an existing airframe to this extend. It’s more than just extending some cowlings, spars and such.

What did Boeing do instead?

Instead of investing tens of billions in designing a new plane from scratch, they just stretched their already successful 747 series and made her longer and lighter. She is named “747 dash 8” or “747-800”. They claim that she is 11% more fuel efficient per seat compared to A380. She is also a greener and quieter jumbo. In this way, they can compete with A380 without making a new plane.

Number of passenger seats.

Boeing 747-8: 467 passengers, in a three-class configuration
Airbus A380: 525 passengers, in a three-class configuration
This is a minor difference as it is difficult to fill all the seats in some routes. A380 requires minimum 65% seats to be filled in order to break even with the cost of operation.

READ ALSO  Will Bombardier break the Boeing and Airbus commercial aircraft duopoly with its C Series?

Number of planes built till now

Boeing 747 : 1508 (1968–present)
Airbus 380: 165 (2005–present)
Boeing 747-8 : 92 (2008–present)

B747-8
Many people call her ‘old’ and ‘fuel thirsty’ because of her older sister’s reputation. Although she is in-fact the newest plane in the skies, the first passenger flight commenced on June 2012.

She didn’t get the popularity she deserved, because some people marketed her little sister ‘787-dreamliner’ extensively, while they ignored her. Many people don’t know that she is newer than the 787.

 

Conclusion

Many critics claim that Airbus A380 is too big to be profitable. The truth is that we don’t know yet. I believe that both Airbus and Boeing have taken the right decision.

Airbus didn’t have anything to compete with the Boeing’s 747 in the jumbo jet market for a very long time. It was also a matter of prestige for them. So they had to make an alternative to 747. And the best way to compete is to make a larger,bigger and more efficient plane. So Airbus decided to build the A380 which beats all the older generation 747s hands down.

Boeing on the other hand, already had a very big plane – the 747. I don’t think it would be economically feasible for them to make yet another bigger plane just to add few more seats. So they chose to improve their existing plane and make it a worthy competitor to A380.

Now the pressure is on Airbus to make A380 better than the B747-8. So they are designing a new version called A380-neo which is little more efficient. This is how market-dynamics work. And this is mostly good for aviation industry and the general public.

Image: A critic comparing the A380 with the Concorde and questioning if A380 is the Concorde of our generation.

If you are really interested, then I would suggest you to watch this documentary about 747-dash-8 here: youtube.com

And if you are interested in buying a new plane, you can have a brand new Boeing 747-8 for just 357 million dollars, all of your own or an Airbus A380 for less than $428 million dollar. Whichever aircraft you buy, make sure to tell them that this answer inspired you to buy their plane 😉

Sources

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

Related Posts:

Comments

comments

Leave a Reply