The Boeing 747 Jet Versus the BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde - Coursework Example

The Boeing 747 Jet Versus the BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde Introduction We see planes in the sky every day. Those huge silver dragons rule the airways daily, carrying thousands of people across the United States and overseas to see relatives and friends, conduct business meetings, or to take vacations in far off dreamlands. When seen close up, it is hard to imagine how such a huge body of metal can fly in the sky. Yet it does, easily and effortlessly, a constant testament to expert scientific engineering. Relative to automobiles on the highway, there are far fewer crashes and loss of life in riding these planes, and when it does happen, the accident makes news around the world because it does so rarely happen (Noland 2012a). Why build planes so big? The major reason is to carry more people for the same amount of money in the same amount of time, thus creating a profit which is the goal of every big business. The bottom dollar counts and so does the top dollar. But while some lines of big jumbo jets have been successful, other designs have not been so lucky and it is important to understand why one design worked and the other didn’t. For this paper, a study of two plane designs is reviewed: the Boeing 747, a continuously successful company design, now in several versions of the original, and the BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde, now defunct. At the heart of these two planes are the project structures of each and why one was a success and the other a failure. Every product and every service has a project plan that shows goals and how the project is to be managed along the way to the final goal. The truth is that sometimes everything can be well-thought out in a project management plan yet there can be a little monkey wrench thrown into the mix that was never seen or envisioned, and a perfectly designed plan can go right down the drain in a flash (Noland 2012a). The Boeing 747 As commercial airlines began growing in business with more and more people taking to the skies in the 1950s and 1960s, Boeing moved to the forefront in the commercial airlines industry by providing the Boeing 707 in 1958. The 707 carried about 200 passengers and, with an eye towards profits, the concept for the 747 was roughed out which would carry 400 passengers. In fact, the design was initially based on one done for the Air Force’s C-5 military mega-lifter competition between airline designers to see who could build the most efficient heavy-load carrier for that time. While Boeing lost out to Lockheed in the military contest, Pan American Airline’s president Juan Trippe was already looking for a design in a plane that could carry 400 passengers. Boeing just happened to have the right design handy that could be modified into a 400-passenger commercial plane. Pan Am subsequently ordered 25 747s for $550 million and the project was on (Noland 2012a). The New Boeing 747-8F in Flight Fig. 1(Boeing 2012) The 747 Project As sometimes happens in monumental decisions, the order was in and paid for, yet where to build it was another question that had to be solved quickly. With a plane this size, no current factory was large enough to contain it so one had to be built, and quickly. Time was money and Boeing began a massive building structure in Everett, Washington which would encompass 200 million cubic feet, twice the size of the Houston Astrodome, and would cost twice as much as the fee paid by Pan Am for the planes. Boeing invested $1 billion in constructing the building before even investing in materials to build the plane itself. Already operating at a loss, if the plane as a whole, failed, then so would Boeing (Noland 2012a). Yet the target was the market gain that could be made if the plane was successful. It was a huge investment for the future, albeit a somewhat risky one when considering how much in debt Boeing began with in terms of the project cost. Yet, the risk paid off in the years to come despite the usual ‘early teething’ (Noland 2012a) problems in the engine. What the planes did have were Pratt& Whitney JT9D high by-pass turbofans which, made especially for the 747, were fuel-efficient, more powerful but more quiet than other engines. When the first plane was finished, it was 232 feet long with a wing span of 196 feet, weighing in at 710,000 lbs. Its flying range was 6,000 miles at a ceiling height of 45,000 feet, running at 640 miles per hour. The plane could carry between 374 to 490 passengers, 33 attendants and the cockpit crew. Based on the price paid by Pan Am of $550 million for 25 planes, it would have paid $22 million for each plane (Noland 2012a). As a theoretical overview of pricing, if each plane actually cost $11 million in production materials, tools and labor, that would have cost Boeing $275 million to build the first 25 planes plus $1 billion for the factory, then Boeing started out with a loss of $1,275 billion with delivery of the first 25 planes. Yet, as history shows, the 747 became very successful over the next few decades with over 1,365 747s sold to 80 different customers by 2005 and flying over 3.5 billion passengers. It has also had an excellent safety record (Noland 2012a). The success for this project was three-fold: a design was already in place and was ready to go with a few modifications; Boeing had “the Incredibles” who worked hard and fast to get the building constructed for manufacturing the planes; and, Boeing took the financial risk to invest for the future of the company’s potential for profits. As another factor, the plane was also efficiently built to a design that was engineered to maximize efficiency by using the best motors especially designed to last for a long time under constant use (Sutter & Spenser 20070. BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde The BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde was an airplane-lover’s delight with the best technology (for that time) built into all of its components and constructed jointly by the British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatiale of France. Both the British and French governments signed contracts in 1962. Sixteen of the world’s airlines reserved 74 planes for possible future purchase under an option-out agreement (BAe 2004). BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde Fig. 2 (BAe 2004) Two prototypes were first built with Concorde 001 flying first from France in March 1969 and Concorde 002 in Britain flying the next month in April. The Concorde was built to carry 100 passengers and fly at supersonic speed at Mach 2 (1,330 mph), utilizing four Rolls-Royce/ SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 602 turbojet engines which were extremely powerful. Aside from all the internal gadgets, the nose of the plane could be lowered hydraulically for better viewing purposes during the takeoff and landing procedures. Later prototypes were also built to undergo stress and fatigue testing and finally the regular service planes were made for the commercial opening of the Concorde services (BAe 2004). Almost from the beginning of services in 1976, the airlines were plagued by anti-pollution groups complaining about emissions and noise levels. Those complaints were finally overruled in a court of law and the service continued. But the high operations costs also played a big part in companies cancelling their reservations for purchasing planes. In reality, tickets were very expensive leaving only the wealthy able to purchase tickets for a plane that sat only 100 customers (BAe 2004). The Concorde was also deemed suitable only for cross-Atlantic journeys because of its sonic boom. Around this time period gas prices began to rise and while running the same amount of fuel as the 747, with only 100 passengers to pick up the slack in ticket prices at $8,000 each, the venture became a financial disaster. Only 14 planes were ever sold and after a fatal accident in Paris in 2000 which killed everyone on board, and then the 9/11terrorist attack the following year, airline tickets sales dropped overall in the airplane industry. The hardest hit was the Concorde fleet (Noland 2012b). Only the British and the French airlines bought the Concorde, mainly because of their respective government contract obligations. The initial investment to make the Concorde was $4 billion with each plane costing $50 million each, a far higher price per plane and investment than the Boeing 747. When the two airline companies refused to buy more planes, the governments sold them the last five planes for $2.00 each. Concorde’s last flight was on October 23, 2003 (Noland 2012b). The Concorde was a beautiful ship, well-made and the fastest commercial plane on Earth but it couldn’t sustain itself because of the low seating arrangements, limited flight plans, rising fuel prices and being confined to just cross-ocean excursions. The construction of the plane itself was based on an excellent design except for the limited seating. If the design and construction had been done by one company in one country, with accounting for all possible contingencies such as the sonic boom, fuel emissions and potential fuel costs, the Concorde may well be still flying today. Comparisons for Success and Failure In telling the stories for both of these planes, several factors stand out as to why there was success for one plane and failure for the other one. In reviewing the specs for both planes below, the fact that the 747 can carry over three times the passenger count than the BAe Concorde is one big give –away as a major factor in the financial area (Noland 2012a; Noland 2012b). Spec Comparisons Boeing 747 BAe-Aerospatiale Concorde Fig.3 (Noland 2012a; Noland 2012b) A second factor is that while the BAe could travel at supersonic speed, thus cutting down on significant time in the air to get to one end of the continent to the other, or over the oceans, provided the main purpose for the Concorde being built. But the resulting super sonic boom changed the flight plans for the Concorde to be over the oceans only because flying over cities and land caused the reverberation to be noisy at the very least, and dangerous to those below in buildings whenever the plane took off or landed if headed over the continent itself. With protests over fuel exhaust emissions in the air over cities, only one route was left for the Concorde to travel, even though the courts said otherwise. Flights had to be over the ocean only. That would cut down by half the number of flights made by the Concorde altogether, thus causing another financial strain on an already financially burdened business. A comparison table below shows some of the disparities between the two projects. Factors Comparison Table Factors Boeing 747 BAe Financed Boeing – Private Company Project financially split between French and English governments by contract Construction Boeing quickly built one large plant where all the parts were made in the same place and put together. Specific parts were made in one country and the other parts made in the other country. The parts were put together in France to make the first plane. Passenger Load for recouping $ 475 total passengers possible each paying $400-$1,000 All passenger types 100 passengers max each paying $8,000 Only wealthy can buy Potential revenue per flight $190,000 minimum to $475,000 each flight $800,000 each flight Potential flight schedules Daily, anywhere at any time – short hops to long continental flights and oceanic flights too Limited because only a few planes actually in service – only oceanic flights available Fig.4 (Noland 2012a; Noland 2012b) In Sutter and Spenser’s book (2007), Joe Sutter describes when they got the contract from Pan Am for the new 747. The current design was for the transport of freight so then it had to be both freight carrier and passenger carrier. This meant the use of actual square sided containers, laid side by side, which provided more room for more passengers rather than the standard capsule effect still seen in some planes today. For carrying cargo, containers could be shoved up against the wall with no loss of space as presented with curved sides (Sutter & Spenser 2007). During the whole process of designing and redesigning the 747, the massive manufacturing plant was also being built. Along with that expenditure, there were a number of other projects at Boeing that were costing money too and borrowing money from banks had reached its limit. Bankers were beginning to say “no” to more loans. Upper management was now looking at cutting personnel, especially among the engineering group that Sutter headed. In fact, in order to meet demand and finish the design and construction of the 747, Sutter needed more people, not less. Boeing, in fact, had many fingers in many different pies. There was also a great deal of politics going on with some in upper management wanting to take over the 747 project management for themselves. If, in retrospect, they had done so, the whole Boeing 747 project, and Boeing itself, would have probably gone under (Sutter & Spenser 2007). As in many other businesses, over-management can sometimes cause more problems than under-management processes, certainly in the financial section. It is why project management is such a crucial part of any production of a new product, especially one as technical as the Boeing 747. The basic overviews of planning a project is to create the project overview, the objectives, scope of the plan, assumptions and risks, approach to the project, organization and personnel of the project, the sign-off or signature page, and the initial design, cost and budget, and duration of the project (Mochal 2009). When looking at Sutter within the context of his engineering job and how it fits into the project plan, it is easy to see that components of a plan can sometimes get isolated to other parts of the plan. A manager must be on top of all parts of the plan to ensure that things are going smoothly and if there are warning signs such as over extension of budgets, then they must be addressed. If found necessary, then the extensions are signed off on by upper management (Mochal 2009). In today’s world, project management of any size is far more efficient with the use of computers and project management software. Yet, these are just tools and knowledge must also be evident in order to use these tools in the most efficient manner (Wysocki 2011). If the Boeing 747 or the BAe Concorde were being developed today, imagine how much easier these projects would be when utilizing CAD on computers to fix designs when they go wrong. Now, quite a bit of money is saved in having the right tools to get the job done. Appendix Boeing 747 Project Diamond Project: One company Concorde Project: British and French Teams Split Diamond Project: Completed by Two Companies Bibliography BAe/Aerospatiale Concorde (SST) 2004. BAe/Aerospatiale Concorde (SST), France/Great Britain, Aircraft Index, The Aviation History On-Line Museum, Available at http://www.aviation-history.com/bac/sst.html Boeing 2012, Widebody Aircraft Parade, Boeing Online, http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b747.htm Meredith, JR and Mantel, Jr, SJ 2011, Project Management: A Managerial Approach, 8th ed., Wiley Publishers, U.S.A. Mochal, T 2009, 10 Best Practices for Successful Project Management, TechRepublic Online News/Blog, Available at http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10things/10-best-practices-for-successful-project-management/904 Noland, D 2012, Passenger Planes: Boeing 747, Famous Planes, Infoplease Online, Available at http://www.infoplease.com/spot/boeing747.html Siguroarson, SF 2009, Critical Success Factors in Project Management: An Ethical Perspective, School of Engineering and Natural Sciences, University of Iceland, Available at http://skemman.is/stream/get/1946/3020/9959/1/SFS_Meistaraverkefni_fixed.pdf Sutter, J and Spenser, J 2007, 747: Creating the World’s First Jumbo Jet and Other Adventures from a Life in Aviation, Harper Perennial, U.S.A. Wysocki, RK 2011, Effective Project Management: Traditional, Agile, Extreme, 6th ed., Wiley Publishers, U.S.A. Read More