We asked Dave Calhoun when the company is going to roll out its next airplane. Listen in to hear his answer.
Don't miss a single episode of Check 6. Subscribe in Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon, Audible and Spotify.
Discover all of Aviation Week Network's podcasts on our Apple Podcasts channel or aviationweek.com/podcasts.
Rush Transcript
Joe Anselmo:
Welcome to Aviation Week's Check 6 podcast. I'm Joe Anselmo, editorial director and editor-in-chief of Aviation Week & Space Technology Magazine. We're coming to you today from Boeing's Commercial Airplanes delivery center in Seattle. Here with me, our Aviation Week editors Guy Norris and Sean Broderick. And we have a special guest, Boeing CEO, Dave Calhoun. Dave, welcome. Thanks for taking the time to talk with our listeners.
Dave Calhoun:
Thank you for visiting us here and I look forward to the discussion.
Joe Anselmo:
We are heading back to the Paris Air Show and it seems like Groundhog Day. Everybody's talking about when is Boeing going to launch its next airplane? Which has been the talk for the last few Paris shows. There's a lot of confusion about what “nothing before 2035” means, and so I wanted to see if you could help us clarify. When is the earliest Boeing could launch a new clean sheet airplane development and when is the earliest it could enter service?
Dave Calhoun:
I know everyone would like a timetable, and that sounds very convenient. And because we're on an annual calendar for shows, it always tends to come up as a major discussion item. But that's not really how airplane development programs can or should be developed. First, you have to set an objective. What does a new family of airplanes have to accomplish? And I think we've been very clear and I've been clear that we need something that delivers something in the neighborhood of 20-30% improvement over today's airplanes. That is what will justify airlines making a move out of a family they're in to a family they want to be in.
And then, these programs have to last. Not 20 years. Twenty years is a disaster. Thirty years is a disaster. They’ve got to last 50 years, and they have to be designed to last 50 years. So the notion that we should in any way, shape or form be looking at niche opportunities or competitive dynamics over a short period of time, when you're going to invest billions, tens of billions, in a program for 50 years is just sort of a silly notion. So, it's a great worm to put on a hook, but it's not a worm I want to bite. I would rather develop, invest in capabilities that when we package them together, we'll someday meet that objective.
I don't have the timeline for the maturity of those capabilities today. I have an idea on the variety of things that we would like to package at some point in time. And as soon as we get to a stage where they're mature enough, meaning we can build them and build them efficiently and not go through 15 years of development after we've introduced it, which is what this industry has historically done, I'm just not ready to do it. Our team is not ready to do it.
So, we're focused on developing those capabilities, many of which you've written about, probably all of which you've written about. But the idea that I want to just put a line in the sand, either to face some competitive dynamic or to satisfy a calendar event is just a silly notion. We're just not going to fall for that. I am very comfortable and confident that the package of technologies we're working are going to add a lot of value, ultimately, to whatever that airplane is going to be. I just don't know when they mature. And the maturity part of this is a big deal.
Joe Anselmo:
Our colleagues in Europe interviewed your counterpart at Airbus today and he did name dates. He confirmed that Airbus is aiming to replace the neo family with the next generation airplane in the 2035 to 2040 timeframe, with a goal of 2035. But 2035 is still going to be a quarter-century since Airbus or Boeing developed a new clean sheet airliner. Is that too big of a gap for this industry? Does that open the door for a dark horse to come challenge and break into the duopoly?
Dave Calhoun:
You guys are way smarter than that. You guys have been studying this industry forever. You don't get a dark horse in this space at this scale in 10 years, not even close. The player that is going to ultimately make a difference and become the third competitor is the one we all know about. It is China. They're already on the course. They are going to continue to evolve and develop their airplanes. They're going to be good. They're going to be become a competitor. And then three players are going to be battling it out for a very long period of time.
And what's wrong with that? What's wrong with that? Three players in a gigantic global market competing. It's good for everybody. It's good for the airlines, it's good for the industry. It'll challenge the technical development for all of us. So ,no one should be afraid of it. But the notion that somebody's going to get ahead of my competitor or us between now and 2035, I wish him luck. I wish him luck.
Guy Norris:
Dave, I was going to ask you about the transonic truss-braced wing (TTBW), which of course you do seem to be warming to now as a potential for the next single-aisle at least. Just in terms of that design, how much improvement can it really deliver? Because you've obviously said that you need 20-30%, but Boeing's own studies and NASA -- of course you've been studying that concept for a long time-- have suggested perhaps 9% fuel burn improvement over a transcontinental type range. So that's an awful lot for the engine to do. I'm just wondering, really, if the open fan doesn't work as planned, is that really... Do you have any options in that case with that?
Dave Calhoun:
It's a great question and I can't get ahead of myself because we're going to learn a lot in this demonstration. The concept itself, while it works in a wind tunnel and we have confidence, until you get it on an airplane, fly it, you don't know. That's part of the maturity development. But I do have --confidence is the wrong word. I believe it is sound. I believe the materials technology today and the development of materials technology make it available. And the combination of it and propulsion, give it a bigger window and to create a higher bypass, I think that combination is -- it's hard to imagine something else that will be able to beat it. And so, does it get us all the way to the 2030? I think in combination with other things that we're all working hard on, our goal is to get to 2030.
The team that's been developing it definitely has that goal in mind. And NASA's investment has that goal in mind. So again, I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but I'm a little optimistic that it's going to be something derived from this experience that is going to add to and give our propulsion industry players just a little bigger window to get to the finish line with us. And as we start to approach '28, which is when we're going to "mature" and understand what it really does, those couple of years heading to ‘28 will be very important years for us, because it's going to be some derivative of this in some way, I think, that we'll bring.
Guy Norris:
Right, and this is a sort of... sort of comes out left field a little bit, but one of the potential shortfalls I saw, criticisms perhaps, that's been thrown at that concept is the fact that it may be limited in the future, say, if the world moves to a hydrogen economy. I know that in the past you've not been big fan of hydrogen perhaps, certainly for bigger airplanes. But with the traditional tube and wing designs, the Airbus family said they can adapt that to hydrogen. And ultimately, whereas with the TTPW transonic truss-braced wing, we should say to our listeners, that there's a shorter fuselage, you don't have perhaps the same margin for that to adapt. Is that something which is a consideration, do you think, going forward?
Dave Calhoun:
Let's find out, and when we get to '28, let's sit down and talk about where hydrogen is and what the prospects are for hydrogen. If I thought that that was going to make a meaningful difference in 25 years, it would be a consideration. But I'm not sure that's going to happen. Not on the scale of airplanes that we're talking about. We'll continue to invest. We believe in hydrogen, but it is a long way away. And then we're going to have to get much higher on the priority list for green hydrogen than I think we're going to be, as an industry.
Guy Norris:
Right. And then of course, a nearer term question, more appropriate really to the sort of industrial competition that there is out there today, is that Pratt & Whitney have expressed interest in wanting to power the demonstrator for the X plane that will be developed to prove the technology for the truss-braced wing. Do you think that there's a possibility if they could get onto that program, that it might be an opening to a competition really, or at least offering multiple engines for the first time on the next generation single aisle?
Dave Calhoun:
We're a long way from making any single propulsion alternative decisions. But yeah, I mean I consider Pratt & Whitney to be a quality supplier. As you know, I've got a little bit of a heritage in the engine world, but I know what they're capable of. They've made a lot of inroads in the industry. And just in the case of you wanting to incent me to go all out against Airbus at the airplane level, I would love these engine guys to compete, compete, compete, because it's good for all of us.
Guy Norris:
Great. And then of course, this next airplane will, you've said anyway, introduce a new level of autonomy as well, because that's another area of technology going forward. But what does that actually mean in terms of commercial airplanes? We know what it means in terms of cars, for example, and that sort of thing, but what are you thinking for the future of commercial aviation?
Dave Calhoun:
I think this is a huge card. I think it's a very important card and it will get played on I think either side for that next airplane. How capable will it be? Can it fly actually autonomously? I think we're going to get as close to that as you could conceivably get and maybe actually reach it. Does that mean it'll get regulated that way? I'm not sure. But over 20 or 30 years, the primary incentive for autonomy is safety. That's the incentive. Everybody knows this industry. You all know how a critical a record it's been. It's been awesome. It continues to get better. But you also know the hurdles, the biggest collection of hurdles, is human error, for us to get to the end game, which is no accidents ever. So, for me, autonomy is a safety argument. It's a safety argument. And I think it's the only way ultimately to get there.
Guy Norris:
And of course, I guess the last area that I was particularly going to ask you about was a lot of the baseline work, the foundational work, which Boeing's talked about for several years now towards this next generation is to do with model-based system engineering, and the vital importance of that is a new sort of ecosystem, really, for the design and build. The T-7 has always been held up as the poster child of a lot of that work, foundational work. And yet we've seen that program have its issues. Does that mean that you guys have still a long way to go before you reach the level that you want to be the basis for your next generation commercial airplane?
Dave Calhoun:
So, a couple of analogies I think you would appreciate. Ceramic matrix composites and the role they've played in the propulsion world and broadly in aviation. I remember starting in the GE labs in the 1980s on the development of that technology, ultimately in where it might play and look at it. Now, it has created enormous differentiation. People who are good at it have a real advantage. But that wasn't a new design idea. That was a design and then process refinement idea. And it was the process refinement part that differentiated it in every way you can think of. So the ability, somebody else might understand exactly what it is, they might even have the design. I doubt they can make it. This is a little model-based engineering. So, when [U.S. Air Force] Secretary [Frank] Kendall stands up and says the T-7's about 20% better than what we had maybe hoped, that is music to my ears because model-based engineering is a learning curve.
Every mistake you make informs the model. It gets embedded in the model and it gets better and smarter, and everyone has to go through that learning curve. So, for me, as a starting point, 20% better is amazing. Because in the composite world, our early yields were in the forties. In the forties. And now they're in the upper nineties. So anyway, it is what I love about aviation. It's why I'm in it. You get there an inch at a time. It's all the learning embedded in the how you make things, how you assemble things, how you develop material alternatives, aerodynamic experiences. It is a collection of millimeters by millimeter by millimeter. And that's what the digital twins are going to be all about. What we have learned on the T-7, and are applying in other of our defense programs, it will most definitely advantage us and help us as we begin to use digital modeling in the commercial space.
Joe Anselmo:
Guy and I have been focusing on the future. Let's have Sean Broderick bring us into the present with some more near-term questions.
Dave Calhoun:
Go at me, Sean.
Sean Broderick:
Couple of questions about topics that are near and dear to my heart. One on certification, one on supply chain. On certification, the 737-7 certification timeline has expanded beyond I think what anybody expected, and some of that is fundamental to being the first new airplane certification program post-MAX. So there are some new processes the FAA is going through and there are some things that they're looking at more carefully. But I don't think all of it is because of that. I think we have a little bit of a shift in how certification is being done, at least for a short period of time. So, what gives Boeing the confidence that it can deliver on programs that are already in the pipeline, the 737-10, the 777-9, and then the freighter coming after that, in the timeframes that you're promising customers who are buying delivery slots?
Dave Calhoun:
Well, our experience, let's just start with a -7. The -7 is teaching both sides what this new design assurance documentation exercise is about. It's new, it's different. It basically treats the -7, which as you know is basically the same airplane as the -8, which is why everyone sort of says, "What is going on?" It really is the documentation, design assurance steps that the post-MAX world requires. And it is just is what it is. I could battle it all day long and say it's cumbersome and all those things, but we're going to discover and teach ourselves and the FAA is doing the same and we'll get to the finish line. And I'm confident that we will and we're getting closer. So, we see that progress very steadily, frustrating as can be, but we see it.
And the -10 will then, in my view, move at a more accelerated pace, simply because we've learned so much. And a lot of the -7 design assurance goes right into the -10. So we're getting there. We're learning. It has taken far longer. I hope that when we get through the -7 and the -10 and the 777 [X], I hope that collectively both Boeing and our regulator, we'll learn how to refine those processes and make them easier, faster, smarter. And I think we will. Our forecast for introduction is based on what we are experiencing now, and it doesn't hope that it all gets better. It simply says we're going to just keep going at this pace in the learning curve that we have. We're gaining on it. We're gaining on it.
Sean Broderick:
And on the supply chain side, so Boeing, as I saw recently in South Carolina, are doing some significant internal customer work at the propulsion center and at the interior center. And you've said recently that's often only a handful of parts that can cause bottlenecks and the supply chain. And given that supply chain issues, macro supply chain issues don't look like they're going to ease anytime soon, do you see more opportunity for Boeing to reevaluate some of its make-buy decisions and maybe bring some more of its design and manufacturing at that subcomponent level in-house?
Dave Calhoun:
The answer is yes. We have a big fab operation that has actually bailed us out of many of these constraints. The step change on that subject occurs with the next airplane. That's that moment in time when you sort of say, "Where did those bottlenecks come from? How did we build that supply chain on day one? What can we count on? What don't we count on?" I think, if I look at the 787 and I think about the make-buy decisions and the time at which they were made, the industrial United States was focused on capital-light everything. And the Boeing company was focused on capital-light. I think we probably over indexed. And I want to over index back the other way and control more of the vertical, and I want to control more of the IP. How far we get down that spectrum, I don't know, but it's a very different objective than the team that started with the 787. It's a very different objective.
Guy Norris:
Dave, I was going to ask you a thing about fuel again. Obviously, trying to get to these 2050 net-zero carbon sort of targets, it's going to be pretty tough, no matter how much technology everybody throws at it. But certainly sustainable aviation fuel [SAF] has been identified as a bridge to that target, and yet I feel that Boeing is frustrated by the lack of oomph, for want of a better term, throughout the world's fuel supply industry to really go onboard this and accelerate SAFs. You've recently come out with this generic sort of a jet fuel initiative to try and get people motivated and accelerate the adoption and production of SAFs. Where do you see, how do you get over this problem? What do you have to do?
Dave Calhoun:
Great question. I know your team has become familiar with our Cascade tool. It's a very useful tool. It measures pretty much every engine every day and tells us exactly what the emissions levels are. Our industry is enormously advantaged because of that. We know exactly what our products are spewing every day. And then, therefore, we know where the levers are and as you rightfully suggest it is SAF. Between now and 2050, it's the only chance we have and we all collectively know it.
Now, what we do is we do two things. Boeing has a role in the technical evaluation of these formulations and investing in formulations alongside of those who think they have the next best idea, and we're good with that. We got to qualify them. And the engine guys obviously have a huge role in that as well.
The bigger one is to inform policy makers about what the industry is capable of doing.
As we build more formulations and evaluate maybe the single biggest constraint of all, the feedstocks behind them, we can inform policy makers about what they should incent and over what timeframe they should incent it. And by the way, I think my competitor is on the same page, as we should be. And our customers are on the same page. But what we want to do is avoid the pitfalls of anecdotal policy. If we called out hydrogen by 2040, what would happen in 2040? No one would fly, except the few who might be on a hydrogen fuel cell in a four-seater. It's silly. But this is how you get crosswise, is when policymakers based on anecdote build policies. And yeah, there's some wonderful technology person embedded in there that says, "Yeah, we can do it." That's when you get in trouble.
The Cascade model is meant to be an industry tool that informs policy makers on the pace at which we think we can get there. And my hope is that we can synchronize this across the industry. I think, as has been discussed in IATA, and interestingly, we had our own sustainability conference here recently right next to us where all the sustainable aviation fuel crowd was working on potential answers. My own view is this is just the only answer. Period. And we got to get there. I think we can synchronize this, and I think we can avoid the troubles of energy. I really do.
Joe Anselmo:
Dave, our listeners are probably wondering why we haven't asked any military questions. We just recorded a Check 6 with Ted Colbert, who heads Boeing Military, so that's why we haven't. But I want to end with a space question because I promised our space editor at Cape Canaveral, Irene Klotz, that I would ask this. And she wants to know, how much is Boeing willing to invest to make Starliner operational. And given that SpaceX is so far ahead now in this crew carrying vehicle, why even bother?
Dave Calhoun:
We're going to do whatever NASA asks us to do. We're going to compete for it. If we win, great. If we don't, we'll deal with it. We do believe in it, and we believe there has to be more than one player. If you ultimately get to one player, you sort of know what happens. And by the way, so does SpaceX. I don't think we're ever going to be locked out of it. We have definitely fallen behind in it. Technically, they are not exactly the same. And technically, we think we know what we're doing. I think ultimately with every next successful launch, we'll demonstrate that. That's of course critical to everything. So we're not shutting the door on it in any way, shape or form. We intend to do it, make money on it, but we're going to let the market and our customer let that play out, and we'll see what happens.
Space in general, we still have the most powerful rocket that's ever left this planet, the only and biggest and most successful. I know others are trying and I know they get a lot of publicity, but they're a long way from there. So, we're going to go at this at a very steady pace. I love what SpaceX has done for public recognition and the importance of space. I don't think our industry has configured before without those new commercial interests and all the capital that they've thrown into it. I don't think we could have done that on our own. So, in my view, it's a positive.
And as you know, we have a lot of capabilities in a lot of places. We had to be very selective about what we do. Low earth orbit and building out a big presence in that world is not going to be our number one focus. We're going to continue to work with our defense customer in the most classified of worlds, but we're going to continue to do that because it's advanced. It helps protect the country in every way and it may end up being the most important capability of all, both in defense and even civil in many respects.
Joe Anselmo:
Dave Calhoun, thank you for taking the time to catch up with us. It's always great to hear your insights.
Dave Calhoun:
Yep. Oh, I always enjoy it, so I appreciate it.
Joe Anselmo:
That is a wrap for this week's Check 6 Podcast. Special thanks to our podcast editor in London, Guy Ferneyhough. Aviation Week's team is heading to France for the Paris Air Show, and you can keep track of the latest developments on our brand new app. Go to aviationweek.com/app, that's aviationweek.com/app, to download this on your mobile phone. And keep watch for our next Check 6 from Le Bourget. Guy, Sean and I will all be there. Thank you for your time and have a great day.
Related Content
