Written by Charles Miller, a
director of the Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare
July 29, 2024
This preamble is addressed to those who are not familiar with the weekly journal of aviation and aerospace, Aviation Week & Space Technology (hereinafter referred to as AW), published for both civil and military manufacturers and operators. I have read the magazine for many years and know it to be well written and well published by a knowledgeable, competent staff. Its reports are always timely, detailed and thorough. It is obviously aimed at promotion and growth of aviation. Annually, its writers/reporters attend the Paris Air Show and report about the event in several issues. This year the focus was on the future of transport aircraft from the operators’ side. Obtaining "scores of responses" about their desires and needs, the writers in the June 14, 1999, issue tried to match those needs with what could be disclosed from manufacturers’ plans and other concerns, including those for Earth’s environment. How interesting.
I recommend reading the issue named and the following ones pertaining to the Paris Air Show. This is probably the best publication covering the field of aviation and is worthy of your regular attention. I read it regularly for I’ve had a long-term interest in aviation. It was in my background for thirty-some years: First, the United States Air Force, next at Midway and O’Hare in passenger service for United Airlines and then with Scandinavian Airlines, a great international carrier, from which company I retired.
Here, reduced to essentials from that issue is a report as promised earlier. The lead article of this special edition’s main section is headlined, "Airlines or Passengers: Who’s the Real Customer?" In some 33 pages of text we encounter those who expect more, larger airplanes and those who don’t. All but one of those cited expects more airplanes.
AW’s writers suggest no radical changes are in store in aircraft development, rather slow evolution with focus on profits and stock prices at the expense of passengers [emphasis added] and, get this, they expect cleaner, quieter engines, weighing less than older ones, but producing more thrust. Among "relatively minor changes" the reporters find regulations causing alteration to design and operation of aircraft to comply with "societal demands – namely less noise and reduced air pollution." They also foresee closer ties between military and commercial requirements, as cargo business expands [emphasis added].
Retired Boeing V.P. Robert Brown was quoted as stating that aircraft manufacturers do not recognize passengers as customers, only airlines, and thus passengers have had to adapt to generations of planes that were originally "cargo-centric", designed for cargo containers up to 8 x 8 x 24 feet in size. So passengers in 747s are crammed into long rows of seats while breathing recycled, pathogen-laden air on long trips for hours and forced to put carry-on’s in small bins located, awkwardly, too high. NOW WE KNOW. Both Boeing and Airbus evidently gave top priority to cargo. Brown and other "greybeards" have tried to promote passenger centered planes, but have not found a receptive audience.
In the early 1990’s members of AReCO (The Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare) and US-CAWA (The US-Citizens Aviation Watch Association) made forecasts for greatly expanded cargo operations.
OK, AW, on June 21st, in a brief note reported that the first 10 of 747-400s built this year will be freighters and about half of 747-400s in the first six months 2000 will also be for cargo. Also noted: wide-bodied freighters have more than doubled in number from 229 in the year 1995 to 463 today. The number of such types on order or planned for conversion from passenger service has just about tripled to 306 in the same period. Note well: Many, if not most cargo carrying aircraft operate at night. (Ask residents of Indianapolis about United Parcel Service’s night hub operations there.)
While in Europe engineers are optimistic about supersonic transports [SSTs] operating by 2015 [sic], they are less likely from Boeing, which has backed away from the High Speed Civil Transport causing NASA to lose related funding. [Why must our government subsidize such research?] But Lockheed-Martin and Grumman are considering that SSTs for business [and, of course, Barbara Streisand, et al, see Jack Saporito’s note about Teterboro airport in Aviation Watch 167] jets to be a good intermediate step.
Airbus Industrie has tentative plans for a Very Large Transport Aircraft (VLTA) to get at the 747 market, the A-3XX with a 2005 entry date. There would be several versions with capacities up to 656 passengers. They see a market for 1300 [sic] 400 seat-plus VLTAs in the next two decades. Airbus executives also see needs to cater to high paying passengers and expect airlines to make dedicated, premium flights with special treatment from boarding to de-planing and passengers riding in smaller, long-range planes. Airbus could modify some types to fit such a market.
Boeing, because of market fragmentation and deregulation, coupled with passenger demand for non-stop services, feels that the potential market for VLTAs has been undercut, but is studying a model 763, an ultra-wide VLTA. It would have a single deck for up to 547 passengers with "voluminous under-deck space for cargo," and has terminated studies to greatly enlarge the 747. Other, but un-described designs are being readied if market conditions may change.
As reported in a later issue of AW, Singapore Airlines are trading in or selling their recently acquired four-engined Airbus A-340s for twin-engined Boeing 777s, an amazing coup, supporting Boeing’s forecasts for smaller planes.
As 767s have replaced 747s in the trans-Atlantic market as the dominant aircraft, the 777 is also becoming the plane of choice. Revenue enhancement plusses of operating more 767s have offset the cost effectiveness of high capacity 747s, according to another Boeing executive. And, as if to confirm AReCO’s and US-CAW’s expectations that smaller aircraft, greater frequencies and more non-stops are the coming thing, AW of July 12th reports on Boeing’s forthcoming 777-200X and 777-300X will have ranges of 10,100 and 8300 statute miles, respectively; the former will be the greatest so far.
Another of AReCO’s and US-CAW’s concerns has been the probable expansion of regional jet (RJ) numbers and sizes. As if to show that AReCO’s and US-CAWA’s crystal ball was rolling smoothly, AW’s writers report Boeing forecasts that its new, small 717 (a derivative of the DC-9, MD-80, MD-90 types) is just the ticket with a 100 seat capacity and sees a market for 2000 717s. And Airbus is producing 22 planes per month from its family of A320s.
Continuing the regional jet theme, in the next issue of AW, June 21st, which continues Paris Air Show coverage, we see that Fairchild-Dornier, among others, is also banking on new RJs. In its cards are the 30 seat 328JET, 50 seat 528JET and 70 seat 728JETmodels, for which it has some 408 orders and options. The recipients were not named. We also see that Horizon Airlines of Seattle has 25 orders and 25 options for Bombardier’s 70 seat Canadair Regional Jet Series 700. Horizon has just ordered 15 and options for 15 more on Bombardier’s 70 seat Dash 8-400 turboprops (these use the same kerosene-based fuel as do jets). The same company showed a mock-up for model BRJ-X, 90 –115 seat jet.
Crossair of Switzerland has ordered 30 each of Embraer’s 70 passenger ERJ-170 and 108 passenger ERJ-190-200 and took options for 100 on the two types. Crossair also placed 15 orders for Embraer’s 50 seat ERJ-145 and 25 options on that or its 37 seat variation.
The April 24th issue of AW quotes Lufthansa senior v.p. of purchasing, Dieter Kirchner as saying that the 70-100 seat market for Bombardier, Embraer and Fairchild-Dornier RJs is going to be very important. Expected market in ten years: 2600 [sic] units. Some of their planes will have ranges capable of flying between city pairs now served by commuter types from hub airports, such as O’Hare, let’s say between Fort Wayne and Reno, for example.
Looking again at AW’s June 21st issue, it has much to say about business jets in the cards, with too many details to summarize here. 1153 orders and options could be counted. They will come in all manner of sizes, with some to have transcontinental plus range and some to be business versions of such types as the aforementioned, large Fairchild-Dornier 728JET, also Boeing 717 and 737 variants. These are also kerosene-based jet fuel burners.
While Boeing forecasters are not worried about more frequent operations because of possibly impending technical improvements to ease traffic management, an American Airlines V.P, Robert Baker, states that he sees larger planes in the offing because of traffic control limitations.
Continuing thoughts about larger planes in the offing, because of potential traffic control limitations, we see Lockheed-Martin’s concept of an Aerocraft [sic], a neutral buoyancy craft, its own weight half offset by compartments filled with helium. This, I presume, will be a monster something akin to a dirigible and is to be somewhat between the speed of a 747 and the capacity of a surface ship. Such planes could be compared to a conveyor belt able to deliver large amounts of goods or perishable foods. It would also serve as a "cruise ship-of-the-air" for passengers offering luxuries as found on ships. And Aerospatiale Matra conceives of a flying wing of singularly large size having a passenger capacity of 800 to 1000 and/or the ability to handle oversized cargo. The monster’s wingspan would be 100 meters (330 feet). [And you think you have trouble parking that big, new SUV.] The present maximum size for planes is 80 x 80 meters (262 x 262 feet) due to existing airport facility limitations.
This firm is also considering an SST for introduction by 2015; it would be larger and faster than the Concorde and still confined to flying over water. A French government researcher feels that a hypersonic (Mach 7 – 9) transport is likely about 50 years in the future. This is probably the "space plane" concept, although no further information was given.
We learn of huge amounts of money funding NASA’s (National Air and Space Administration’s) Advanced Subsonic Technology Program to the tune of $600 million annually. Yet the agency needs $2 billion annually to continue research in new technology. [And the government is going to shut off Amtrak from further funding after 2002.] Another fantastic sounding aircraft is discussed, a blended-wing-body type of construction which would require as yet undeveloped technology. While its capacity of 800 or more seems like pie in the sky, we would have scoffed at the concept of the 747 back in the 1940’s. In this section it is mentioned that a reduction of perceived [And how else do we know them?] noise levels, 20 dB lower, by a factor of four in twenty years is beyond current knowledge and capability. Also discussed are goals to reduce emissions by a factor of three in 10 years and five in 25 years. They speak only of reduction of NOx, and only of no increases in emissions of CO2 or unburned hydrocarbons.
No mention is made of the need to reduce air emissions of immediate hazard to tens of thousands of workers at airports, to other workers in airport vicinities and to millions of persons resident in the toxic "bubbles" surrounding airports, bubbles with diameters of many miles, up to twenty-five or more.
In this connection, a director of a research institute in Cambridge, MA expects no significant competitor to the standard fuel, Jet-A, even though modifications might meet new emission standards. And executive vice-president for operations of American Airlines, Robert Baker is quoted, "The environmental movement has aviation clearly in its sights."
AW’s writers found that passenger traffic is expected to increase by 5% per year, to double or more within 14 years, to triple in 22 years. Boeing expects that additional runways and use of secondary airports will ease congestion with additional flight frequencies in the offing. Air traffic systems and their potential for failure to meet expected growth received attention and an AW writer made an assumption that as current hubs become saturated, new ones will be made perhaps in the 2015 – 20 period. Meanwhile hubs will be busier; passenger and cargo flights will operate at all hours.
The above estimate differs considerably with figures of actual growth rates published in "Aviation And The Environment – A General Perspective," by the FAA Office of Environment and Energy on 28 & 29 July 1998. From the report:
"Globally, air passenger traffic since 1960 has grown world wide at an average yearly rate of 9% and freight and mail traffic by some 11% and 7% respectively."
"In addition to passenger transport, aviation is an important form of freight transport, with some estimates suggesting it carries up to 60% of world trade by value and forecast to rise [to?] 80% by 2014."
"…it seems likely that passenger traffic will grow at a rate between 5% and 7% in the foreseeable future…" [A 7% annual increase is equal to a doubling in ten years.]
The single person differing from all the above views is the CEO and president of Scaled Composites in Mojave, CA, the justly famous airplane designer, Burt Rutan, whose Voyager was the first airplane to fly around the world without re-fueling. This great innovator suggested that with improved communications, virtual reality images with "realistic" capability, i.e., with 3D visual, sound, smell and touch sensations to equal the actual, business travelers will be the first to disappear. Current, mundane e-mail, video conferencing and Internet technology have made it possible to cut his employee travel by 50% with no noticeable loss.
Regardless of the conflicts between proponents of larger versus smaller aircraft, it is possible to draw these firm conclusions from all the reportage in the several articles:
Where will the fuel come from? Where will the pollution go? How much additional illness and death will this industry be permitted to cause to us and our children?
Not too long ago, government failure to protect citizens led to horrifying illnesses and morbidity among large numbers of coal and uranium miners and asbestos workers. When will our current government leaders learn that a newer hazard is upon us and that there are better, more modern and cheaper methods of transportation available in this global economy?