Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5572058/

Topic: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-25 06:05:41 and read 42651 times.

Seems we have some newish info on the 777x to chew on, courtesy of Jon Ostrower.

If you're not a subscriber, the best thing to do is to hop through Google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ostrower++Makeover+of+777+Agitates+Boeing

Key points:

  • Seems the uber 777x with all new CFRP wings is uber expensive
  • It may cost customers 10-15% more than current 777 models
  • It seems this version, favored by EK, might be more costly than others will pay
  • It seems this version of course is very expensive to develop too
  • Also Boeing is pouring resources into the 787, KC45 and 737MAX right now
  • Boeing wants to avoid outsourcing on the 777x which also constrains internal resources
  • A cheaper metal winged version that would keep 2/3rds of the existing 777 wing is being considered
  • Lars Andersen cleaned out his office and left, Conner asked him to come back as a customer advocate


My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move. It takes so much time and energy to come out with a new model, and once you go through that cost, you're stuck with the results for a long time. My big concern is that the 777x will end up like the A340ng - a good airplane, but half a step behind the A350xwb.

Of course Boeing has all the numbers so it's hard for us to argue, but of course we still will!

It does highlight to me at least the dreadful knock-on costs the 787 is having on future programs. It's really hampering Boeing's ability to come up with an A350 competitor.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 06:50:06 and read 42424 times.

Already being discussed in Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete! (by Revelation Sep 6 2012 in Civil Aviation).  

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: MountainFlyer
Posted 2012-09-25 07:04:30 and read 42271 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Already being discussed in Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete! (by Revelation Sep 6 2012 in Civil Aviation).

I think it's fair this deserves a new thread if for no other reason than the other thread has nearly 300 posts already.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-25 08:42:08 and read 41699 times.

I also favor this thread, if only because of Revelation's thread title. "Agitate" is a great choice of word.  Smile
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move.

   I think a mildly warmed-over 777-300ER with the existing wing -- that is, the wing that we keep hearing from inside Boeing is too heavy -- will stand in relation to the A350-1000 exactly as the A330-300 stands in relation to the 787-9 today. That is, once the newer product is widely available, there will be little reason save deep discounting to buy the older, warmed-over product.

The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.

[Edited 2012-09-25 08:42:43]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 09:10:56 and read 41406 times.

I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: avek00
Posted 2012-09-25 09:37:40 and read 41158 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-25 09:55:07 and read 41006 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

But does the 777 really need more payload-range, especially without more passenger capacity? Tim Clark says he wants that (but I'm not sure I believe him). Does anyone else want that? I think a 8500+ nm GE9X 77W with the current capacity and weights will not be competitive with the A350-1000 on the great bulk of routes. It would only come into its own flying JFK-HKG or DXB-LAX.

It seems to me that reducing weight and increasing passenger capacity are Jobs 1 and 2 to keep the 77W competitive.

Although I suppose a GE9X 77L might finally make LHR-SYD a reality.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-25 10:31:24 and read 40774 times.

I'm guessing they are also realizing how good the potential 787-10 is going to be. At 69M it's cabin length will be about the same.

Didn't Aspire write that 789 was 3% lighter than Spec? Wouldn't that put the range of 787-10 into the 7000-7200NM range -assuming that weight savings carries over into the 787-10?

With 2020 Engines isn't a range of 7-800- 8,000 NM seemingly possible with 787-10? Just like the 77W has gone from 7250NM since intro to 7930 in less than 8 Years?

Doesn't that totally destroy the 778 business case without doing anything to 787-10 other than PIP's and updated engines?

The 787-10 would be a 251T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

Wouldn't the 787-10 absolutely kill the 778?

[Edited 2012-09-25 10:58:59]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 10:43:12 and read 40633 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 5):
That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.

Well a 777X with a new CFRP wing will certainly not be cheaper. Per the article, only EK and QR seem ready to spent 10-15% more for a more capable airframe.


By staying with the current design, Boeing can continue to extract production efficiencies out of it, allowing them to lower the Average Sales Price while maintaining margins (or accepting lower margins to drop the ASP even more).

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
But does the 777 really need more payload-range, especially without more passenger capacity?

I expect any ULH operator would appreciate extra payload capability, especially those moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast to improve CASM. At design range, the payload is about 35t - half what it is at MZFW - and the plane is fuel-volume limited.



Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would be a 234T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

I expect the 787-10 would have the same MTOW as the 787-9 - 251t. MZFW is projected to be 193t, which is 12t more than the 787-9.

[Edited 2012-09-25 10:45:25]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-25 10:52:51 and read 40532 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):

I'd say these are at least arguments worth having. There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-25 10:54:26 and read 40505 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would be a 234T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

I expect the 787-10 would have the same MTOW as the 787-9 - 251t. MZFW is projected to be 193t, which is 12t more than the 787-9.

Sorry - Your right - Bad math on my part - still that's a massive difference in weight

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-25 10:55:40 and read 40510 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I expect any ULH operator would appreciate extra payload capability, especially those moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast to improve CASM.

I agree totally. I just think ULH is a very thin branch to stand on if you are too heavy to be competitive on mainstream long-haul. That's why even the CFRP-winged 777-8X seems like a dicey proposition, and I think a re-engined 777-300ER with otherwise minimal change would have exactly the same problem.

I think the 777 has to gain more passenger capacity per pound of weight to have a chance.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-25 10:59:48 and read 40457 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
I think the 777 has to gain more passenger capacity per pound of weight to have a chance.

So does that pretty much dictate a CFRP wing, possibly even requiring a re-engine as well? Off the top of my head, a lighter wing seems like the only practical way to achieve a substantial gain in pax/lb.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-25 11:08:56 and read 40367 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 12):
So does that pretty much dictate a CFRP wing, possibly even requiring a re-engine as well?

I think the stretch (along with changes to make 10Y more comfortable) is the most important thing. But the wing is critical for the stretch for two reasons. First, it will be lighter on its own, counteracting the heavier fuselage weight from the stretch. Second, it will be larger than the existing wing, allowing for lower thrust ratings, which leads (along with new engine tech) to lower fuel consumption, also reducing weight at takeoff.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-25 11:14:18 and read 40301 times.

Let me see if I get this right at MZFW that leaves the 789 with 153,000 lbs for fuel or 22,500 gallons. At 12T higher MZFW for 787-10 that leaves it with enough lift for 18,617 gallons at MZFW or 17% less, assume a little more drag - but assuming the 789 is at 8500nm doesn't that get the 787-10 over 7,000 NM without increasing Max takeoff weight?

Can they go any higher with Max Takeoff weight without changing structure or gear?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SSTeve
Posted 2012-09-25 11:14:46 and read 40301 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.

Because after everything with the 787, which netted out to buying vendors and building an extra, unplanned FAL, he might just be slightly peeved that the beancounters still can't make an up-front investment in a facility to build huge CFRP wings look attractive, even looking at 787-like scenarios? I might be frustrated, too.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-25 11:24:13 and read 40217 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
I think the stretch (along with changes to make 10Y more comfortable) is the most important thing. But the wing is critical for the stretch for two reasons. First, it will be lighter on its own, counteracting the heavier fuselage weight from the stretch. Second, it will be larger than the existing wing, allowing for lower thrust ratings, which leads (along with new engine tech) to lower fuel consumption, also reducing weight at takeoff.

Ok that's what I was thinking too - just stretching the fuselage won't do much if anything to reduce the pax/lb ratio. Plus it would just reduce performance to have a stretch without moderate to major wing tweaking.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-09-25 11:39:42 and read 39971 times.

An often overlooked problem with derivatives of existing products is that most people compare it to the competition from a competitor. The 777X has to compete with the A350. It also has to compete with the 777-300ER. The development costs of a new derivative would be in the billions. The manufacturing costs of a CFRP wing would be higher than for the aluminum wing on the current 777.

So while there's little doubt that a new airplane would gain in fuel efficiency, the acquisition price also goes up. Boeing sells airplanes based on lifecycle and total ownership & operating costs. More efficient engines are great for the operating costs, but if the acquisition price goes up by 20%, the new derivative starts looking worse.

Boeing was evaluating a new airplane to compete against the A320 NEO as well as a re-engine. The problem with the new airplane is that it was hard to beat the costs of the 737NG.

You can't sit around on old designs forever, but when Sales is having a hard time running numbers for a new derivative that are better than the current airplane, you get the agitation that we are seeing.

That's just my opinion.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 11:53:30 and read 39532 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
I just think ULH is a very thin branch to stand on if you are too heavy to be competitive on mainstream long-haul.

I should note that when I say Ultra-Long Haul, I'm not specifically referring to the deep C-Market routes (greater than 800nm) that are the purview of the 777-200LR and A340-500. I'm referring more to deep B-Market routes (6500-8000nm).



Quoting morrisond (Reply 14):
Can they go any higher with Max Takeoff weight without changing structure or gear?

I've heard that the landing gear limit is 254t. Once Boeing has the 787-9 in production and test, they might be able to find some more out of it. I would expect the hard limit would be the tire loading / pavement loading.

GE is working on a 68,000 pound thrust variant of the GEnx2B for the 787-10X, so that might be to support higher TOWs or it could be to improve field performance for the 787-9 and 787-10 at 252t.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-09-25 11:54:58 and read 39479 times.

Ferpe did some work ups on the 787-10 based on the Aspire article ( see .Boeing Posts Updated 787 Characteristics reply 44 ) It appears that it's OEW will be about 130.5t Assuming 3% better fuel than base , the same MTOW as the 789 and a little more drag than the 789 its range with max passenger load will be ~7300nm. Max payload based on belly cargo density of 160kg/m3 is ~ 50t with a range of ~5300nm. This is based on a PIANO X simulation.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-25 12:14:30 and read 38752 times.

So a 3T bump could get it over 7500nm? That's impressive and makes it very hard for Boeing to justify doing the 777X at least the 8.

Stitch has the right Idea continue with PIP's and make GE (at there cost) develop a new version of the GE90 that could be used on the rest of the 777 family as well for service entry by 2016-17 - it won't be as good as the A351 but it should tide most over to Y3 in the early 2020's.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-25 12:21:05 and read 38546 times.

One of the known issues with 777 is its high manufacturing cost. Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787? The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

The barrel production is now industrialized and will only improve over time. Focusing resource on a product line with leading technologies and a long term future should make Boeing more competitive over the long run. From an opportunity cost standpoint, another year or 2 of sustained 787 development by the engineering team can also give the 787 family much more lead than having the a significant portion of the team put down the 787 and relearn the 777.

In the near term, the 777 industrialization establishments still have advantage over 787 and thus can be milked for another 5-10 years while the 787 industrialization catches up. Given the only reason the 777 math works is because it is 10-abreast capable, a stopgap option with more optimized wing and re-engine may be justified.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SXDFC
Posted 2012-09-25 12:30:15 and read 38230 times.

Does anyone know when we will see the concept drawings for the 777-8X and 777-9X?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-25 12:32:29 and read 38151 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
One of the known issues with 777 is its high manufacturing cost. Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787? The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

I think you hit the nail on the head - if doing a CFRP wing, do it for the future platform (787) rather than the legacy one (777). I doubt the expense of doing a CFRP wing for the 787 will be any more than it would take to re-work the 777 wing with a CFRP design. That makes a lot of sense given the much greater upside to the 787 platform.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 12:35:50 and read 38084 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

I've heard the 787 wing is good for 290t (with strengthening, of course). So if Boeing does pursue higher-weight 787 models, the existing wing should be good for it and at that point, increasing the span out to the original 63m (or even 65m) could be worth pursuing.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 22):
Does anyone know when we will see the concept drawings for the 777-8X and 777-9X?

I expect once Boeing decides on what to do, they'll start posting artist conceptions.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: davs5032
Posted 2012-09-25 13:07:34 and read 37865 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

I highly doubt the 787 can be stretched that far...IMO a hypothetical -11 would be the maximum, and I don't even think that would be efficient enough to justify its existence.

I've been strongly in the 77X camp for a long time now, but I'm starting question whether that would be the smartest thing for Boeing going forward. Firstly, my support for the 77X was premised around the notion that the project could be done in a cost-saving manner so as to keep the price reasonable. The 77X allows for the option for 10X in Y, but that by itself will not make it as attractive to customers as the A35J. It's fine for Boeing to give up *some* market share, if for example, it were to sell @ 40:60 disadvantage to the A35J, but this is only an acceptable plan if they are limiting costs while doing so, therefore making a healthy profit. If this cannot be done in a way that allows Boeing to undercut its more expensive competitor (if needed) without hemorrhaging money, I don't think it should be done.

Also, since the EIS of the aforementioned A35J has been pushed back so far, I think Boeing has to consider this project in terms of how it can be used to best transition the company's VLA product line in the future. If we assume, given reasonable delays, that the A35J doesn't EIS until 2020, I think Boeing has to look to the 2020+ decade for its reply and that's where the Y3 would seem to fit. I agree with Stitch's thinking, seen in the other thread (link in reply 1) which basically calls for a short term "patch-up" solution. A simple project like this would keep costs down and not commit excessive resources to a plane that could be replaced very quickly - as soon as 2025, by Y3. While there's a risk of losing market share, the limited time period between now and Y3 limits the damage. Also, by limiting costs, Boeing will actually be able to afford undercutting the A35J if it wishes, which would be necessary to prevent the Airbus product from dominating against a plane that would likely be inferior to efficiency-wise.

Then, w/ an EIS in 2025 --> Y3. (If I was designing it, it would have a cabin width of 19'10", with two variants seating ~ 380 and 450.)

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: silentbob
Posted 2012-09-25 13:14:12 and read 37555 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 9):
I'd say these are at least arguments worth having. There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.

Interesting post, the first thing that came to mind was pretty much the same as cosmofly:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
I've heard the 787 wing is good for 290t (with strengthening, of course). So if Boeing does pursue higher-weight 787 models, the existing wing should be good for it and at that point, increasing the span out to the original 63m (or even 65m) could be worth pursuing.

It may be "good to go" up to 290t, but why not create an optimized wing for higher weight/longer distance? It may very well pay for itself in short order and really pay off over the long term as you make the 787 platform more viable over the long term.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-09-25 13:22:57 and read 37708 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 20):
So a 3T bump could get it over 7500nm?

near 7600nm

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-25 13:23:30 and read 37883 times.

My back of the envelope calculations suggest that B77W-NEO(minimal change except engines) in EK configuration with a 6% lower fuel should burn about 7,000 gallons more fuel($22,000) than A350-1000 on DXB-LAX sector. The 38 seat advantage of 77W(6J and 32Y) should earn about $28,000 at 70% load factor-- an annual advantage of about $2 million, which is about $15 million in NPV terms.

It seems to me that EK may prefer B77W-NEO to A350-1000.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-25 13:55:47 and read 36852 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 26):
It may be "good to go" up to 290t, but why not create an optimized wing for higher weight/longer distance? It may very well pay for itself in short order and really pay off over the long term as you make the 787 platform more viable over the long term.

Yep good points from cosmo. I will add this to your follow-up: the axing of the 787-3 shows us that it's better to go with a wing optimized for higher weights and longer range, since that helps your top-end performance and that's where the real money is.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-25 14:41:55 and read 35543 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 26):
It may be "good to go" up to 290t, but why not create an optimized wing for higher weight/longer distance?

That is why I suggested Boeing might increase span to 63 or 65 meters. The 787 wing is brand-new, so there is no reason to change it beyond span.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: flylku
Posted 2012-09-25 15:08:32 and read 34652 times.

An airline's willingness to support a higher up front cost in order to save more on fuel over the 20-30 year life of the aircraft depends on their long term view of many factors including:

1) Oil is running out driving the cost of exploration up and therefore the price

2) The U.S. is printing money which leads to the devaluation of the dollar. Oil is priced in U.S. dollars so the weaker the dollar the higher the price for oil.

It also depends on their short term ability to finance the aircraft.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-25 15:28:20 and read 34085 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
That is why I suggested Boeing might increase span to 63 or 65 meters. The 787 wing is brand-new, so there is no reason to change it beyond span.

Boeing may also elect to lengthen and strengthen the MLG to accommodate bigger fan size and more rotation angle for longer fuselage.

[Edited 2012-09-25 15:29:08]

[Edited 2012-09-25 15:30:38]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2012-09-25 16:05:48 and read 33126 times.

The 350 is a clean sheet design. Even with a wing re-do isn't the 777X going to be substantially cheaper to create than designing and building a clean sheet design? How much extra would a brand new plane cost if the 777X is going to be 20% above current prices?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-25 16:13:35 and read 32829 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 33):
Even with a wing re-do isn't the 777X going to be substantially cheaper to create than designing and building a clean sheet design?

Absolutely, but it will also allow for fewer years and fewer frames over which to amortize the development cost.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-09-25 16:38:36 and read 32036 times.

Quoting flylku (Reply 31):
1) Oil is running out driving the cost of exploration up and therefore the price

There is no shortage, except of oil that can be prospected for, extracted and sold for $60 to $70 a barrel that leaves something for the shareholders and cash to find replacement reserves.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: mffoda
Posted 2012-09-25 16:45:31 and read 31832 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 35):

Bingo! It makes one wonder if people really watch the same news! ??

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-09-25 17:33:34 and read 30457 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):

Didn't Aspire write that 789 was 3% lighter than Spec? Wouldn't that put the range of 787-10 into the 7000-7200NM range -assuming that weight savings carries over into the 787-10?

Aspire tends to post a lot of positive Boeing news on their blogs, invariably a lot of it is not true in hindsight. Trying to work out what is and is not factual is impossible.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 28):
My back of the envelope calculations suggest that B77W-NEO(minimal change except engines) in EK configuration with a 6% lower fuel should burn about 7,000 gallons more fuel($22,000) than A350-1000 on DXB-LAX sector. The 38 seat advantage of 77W(6J and 32Y) should earn about $28,000 at 70% load factor-- an annual advantage of about $2 million, which is about $15 million in NPV terms.

Something does not add up. There is around a 20t difference in fuel burn (around 7000 gal) between a 77W and A350-1000 on a 12 hour leg, I fail to see how a 6% lower fuel burn produces almost an identical fuel delta on a 25% longer trip.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2012-09-25 17:34:37 and read 30310 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

This has some merit for solidifying sales in the medium term and perhaps lengthening the deployment window to bridge to a real Y3. Part of Boeings reluctance (probably a minor part) may be that this family (Lars A concept, 777x, two streches) would kill the 748I for sure.

The other conundrum is the replacement window for the xtra time to build a Y3. How much of that would be lost to the a 777GEnx to the A3510 while Y3 gets built? Boeing would need to get many committments soon to create some fleet momentum now and get customers willing to accept this bridge concept.

Numbers might work, speed and early commitment would be key.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-25 17:47:05 and read 30037 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 5):
That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.

Really? The tone of the article is that the current 777 is widely accepted and that it's a cash cow for Boeing.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
The manufacturing costs of a CFRP wing would be higher than for the aluminum wing on the current 777.

Interesting - I thought the CFRP tech was going to bring with it reduced cost via reduced fasteners and the reduced amount of labor to install said fasteners, not to mention automated layup.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
You can't sit around on old designs forever, but when Sales is having a hard time running numbers for a new derivative that are better than the current airplane, you get the agitation that we are seeing.

To me the real nightmare scenario is where sales convinces itself that it's OK to just slap new engines and wingtip treatments and a new fairing or two on a "777MAX" and they then get trounced in the market by the clean-sheet A350-1k, and are stuck high and dry for at least 4 and more likely 8 years while the problem gets solved "the right way". The current sales folks will be perfectly OK with it because they will get bonuses for the few years worth of "777MAX" sales that get made before the world figures out the A350-1k is worth whatever Airbus is charging for it.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-25 20:02:04 and read 27553 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
The manufacturing costs of a CFRP wing would be higher than for the aluminum wing on the current 777.

Interesting - I thought the CFRP tech was going to bring with it reduced cost via reduced fasteners and the reduced amount of labor to install said fasteners, not to mention automated layup.

I'm not sure the world has autoclaves big enough to take 777 wings...that leaves you with two equally unattractive options:
1) Build new bigger autoclaves...which cost billions and, like Roseflyer said, will blow the manufacturing costs out of the water.
2) Use existing autoclaves and build the wings in pieces then fasten the pieces together...so you're back to fasteners.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-25 20:11:27 and read 27359 times.

Aren't they going to be Hinged? Big Piano Hinge in the middle - Presto problem solved only need an Autoclave half the size - Just kidding

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: justloveplanes
Posted 2012-09-25 20:23:26 and read 27152 times.

They are going to need

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
I'm not sure the world has autoclaves big enough to take 777 wings...that leaves you with two equally unattractive options:
1) Build new bigger autoclaves...which cost billions and, like Roseflyer said, will blow the manufacturing costs out of the water.
2) Use existing autoclaves and build the wings in pieces then fasten the pieces together...so you're back to fasteners.

Why not make the autoclaves big enough for Y1 (two wings at a time) and Y3? Spread the cost over two programs. Maybe partner with the evil competitors Lockheed and Northrup to keep the thing busy?

Probably all considered by the management team already....

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-25 21:37:04 and read 26197 times.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It may cost customers 10-15% more than current 777 models

This is indeed worrying.

It indicates that the reward for a large investment is not there. I interpret it like that:
- Small upgrade -> investment = X, expected sales = Y
- Big upgrade -> investment = X + Z%, expected sales < X + Z%

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
It seems this version, favored by EK, might be more costly than others will pay

This one I don't understand, because why should EK account differently? If an aircraft can pay back the price over the years due to a certain efficiency, it could do so for any carrier.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move. It takes so much time and energy to come out with a new model, and once you go through that cost, you're stuck with the results for a long time. My big concern is that the 777x will end up like the A340ng - a good airplane, but half a step behind the A350xwb.

The 777 will always be a half step behind the A350. So the A340NG-kind of outcome could also happen with a heavily modified 777X. In that case the minimalistic upgrade would be not so dumb....

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
You can't sit around on old designs forever, but when Sales is having a hard time running numbers for a new derivative that are better than the current airplane, you get the agitation that we are seeing.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
The 787 wing is brand-new, so there is no reason to change it beyond span.

A high capacity&performance upgrade of the 787 with a new wing would have these advantages:
- Proper solution to any needed MTOW-increase.
- Offer range/payload capabilities that easily cover anything that is offered by the 777 today or the A351 in the future.
- There are efficiency gains due to larger wing span.
- Adress the limited ground clearance. The 787 is so low sitting, that stretches beyond a certain limit could be restrained by the 737-ground-clearance-plague. It is weird, that Boeing did not spend the 787 the ground clearance, that would allow unlimited stretches. Maybe, just maybe, this was another side-effect of "designing" the 787 into a spot below the 777 (= a result to some silo mentality within Boeing).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
I'm not sure the world has autoclaves big enough to take 777 wings...that leaves you with two equally unattractive options:

A350 wings are as big as 777 wings (wingarea). So Boeings competitor somehow has solved this ...

I do agree however, that the 777X seems not worth to build such huge autoclaves just for it. Because that they later could be reused for Y3 is uncertain. Improved composite technology might come up other solutions than large autoclaves.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-25 22:48:33 and read 25441 times.

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move. It takes so much time and energy to come out with a new model, and once you go through that cost, you're stuck with the results for a long time. My big concern is that the 777x will end up like the A340ng - a good airplane, but half a step behind the A350xwb.

That would be my concern as well. If Boeing doesn't do enough to make the 777X competitive with the A350XWB, then I think they'd just be wasting money which they could've used more effectively on a better 777X. If they're going to do the 777X, they may as well do it properly rather than a half-hearted attempt in the name of 'cost saving'.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.

  

Absolutely. There is an opportunity here for Boeing to build a bigger, lighter CFRP wing to make the 777X a more efficient aircraft. I can see no disadvantages (costs aside) in opting to go down that route as opposed to doing a "cheaper" upgrade, but conversely, the advantages in terms of performance could be dramatic.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
Although I suppose a GE9X 77L might finally make LHR-SYD a reality.

I suppose so, but then so too would a GE9X powered 777-8LX which is proposed, and it'll probably be able to do that route with better costs per seat too.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
I'm guessing they are also realizing how good the potential 787-10 is going to be. At 69M it's cabin length will be about the same.

Except it wouldn't have the range of the 777-300ER.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
With 2020 Engines isn't a range of 7-800- 8,000 NM seemingly possible with 787-10? Just like the 77W has gone from 7250NM since intro to 7930 in less than 8 Years?

Aside from pre-release predictions, when has the 77W been a 7250nm plane? The 77W has been one of the few aircraft that exceeded design specifications at EIS. I don't think even Boeing imagined quite how good it turned out to be.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Well a 777X with a new CFRP wing will certainly not be cheaper. Per the article, only EK and QR seem ready to spent 10-15% more for a more capable airframe.

I guess the question is not whether it'll cost more than the 777-300ER, but whether it'll cost more than the A350-1000. If Boeing can deliver a 777X that has significant improvements over the 777-300ER, then it only stands to reason that they would charge more for that aircraft.

I wouldn't imagine that the 777X program - even if they were going to go with Mr Andersen's proposal as outlined in that article, would cost Boeing more than it costs Airbus to build the A350XWB. If Boeing can sell a 777-9X for less than what Airbus sells their A350-1000 for, I don't think airlines would be overly hesitant over acquisition costs.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 9):
There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.

I agree to the extent that the 787-10 would be much more attractive for airlines that don't require the added capacity and range capability of the 777-8X. The 787-10 will most likely outsell the 777-8X many times over, but it can't do everything a 777-8X can - certainly not the rumoured 777-8LX version, anyway. The 777-8X is also likely to form the basis for the new 777F, and as yet, no 787Fs are even talked about, let alone under development.

So while there is indeed some overlap between the two models, each retain its distinct advantages over the other. Replacing one with the other will leave gaps in the line up.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):
So while there's little doubt that a new airplane would gain in fuel efficiency, the acquisition price also goes up. Boeing sells airplanes based on lifecycle and total ownership & operating costs. More efficient engines are great for the operating costs, but if the acquisition price goes up by 20%, the new derivative starts looking worse.

Fair point, but as I alluded to earlier, I think what's more important is the acquisition costs of the 777X relative to the A350-1000 rather than the 777-300ER. If Boeing can keep its price below Airbus' price for the A350-1000, acquisition costs shouldn't be too much of a hinderance.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 25):
It's fine for Boeing to give up *some* market share, if for example, it were to sell @ 40:60 disadvantage to the A35J, but this is only an acceptable plan if they are limiting costs while doing so, therefore making a healthy profit. If this cannot be done in a way that allows Boeing to undercut its more expensive competitor (if needed) without hemorrhaging money, I don't think it should be done.

I would agree to a point - that if they can't do the 777X project without making a loss, they shouldn't do it.

But even if the 777-9X cannot undercut the A350-1000 on price, it is a larger aircraft with greater revenue potential. If the 777X is good enough, it can potentially recover the difference in acquisition costs over the life cycle of the aircraft. That is why I think it is important for Boeing to spend the money on making the 777X as good as it can be.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
To me the real nightmare scenario is where sales convinces itself that it's OK to just slap new engines and wingtip treatments and a new fairing or two on a "777MAX" and they then get trounced in the market by the clean-sheet A350-1k, and are stuck high and dry for at least 4 and more likely 8 years while the problem gets solved "the right way". The current sales folks will be perfectly OK with it because they will get bonuses for the few years worth of "777MAX" sales that get made before the world figures out the A350-1k is worth whatever Airbus is charging for it.

I agree entirely.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Proper solution to any needed MTOW-increase.

 

In what way is the 777X not a "proper solution to any needed MTOW increase"?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Offer range/payload capabilities that easily cover anything that is offered by the 777 today or the A351 in the future.

 

If it were that easy, Boeing would be doing it already.

An increase in payload/range capabilities and a stretch would be a costly project and would result in loss of commonality with the rest of the 787 family.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Adress the limited ground clearance. The 787 is so low sitting, that stretches beyond a certain limit could be restrained by the 737-ground-clearance-plague. It is weird, that Boeing did not spend the 787 the ground clearance, that would allow unlimited stretches. Maybe, just maybe, this was another side-effect of "designing" the 787 into a spot below the 777

Or maybe the fact is that the 787 wasn't meant to be a 77W replacement in the first place? The 787 was designed primarily as a 767/A330 replacement. If they had designed it to be able to stretch that frame for it to be capable of being a 77W replacement as well, then the 787-8's efficiency will suffer because it'll be too heavy - the problem that the A350-800 is facing. If they optimise the frame around a medium size widebody - which is what they have done, then stretching it would require significant re-engineering and compromising. As you rightly point out, stretches beyond a certain point will require some revisions or even a complete redesign to the main landing gear, which will make it a costly project.

One size does not fit all.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: runzel
Posted 2012-09-25 23:48:32 and read 24773 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):

One of the known issues with 777 is its high manufacturing cost. Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787?

Is it not possible to make a CFRP wing to met the requirements of 777 derivatives AND further developments of the 787?

Another question if you please, relative to fuel loadings in various posts, how much does a gallon of turbine fuel weigh? I am assuming that gallons referred to are US? Or maybe Imperial.

thank you

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Irishpower
Posted 2012-09-26 00:00:40 and read 24626 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
uoting avek00 (Reply 5):
That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.

Well a 777X with a new CFRP wing will certainly not be cheaper. Per the article, only EK and QR seem ready to spent 10-15% more for a more capable airframe.

The bigger question is between both EK and QR Boeing could potentially sell over 100 new frames to them. Will Boeing still move forward with the CFRP wing?

With that kind of initial support I could still see Boeing going with the more expensive option.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-26 00:28:45 and read 24359 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Or maybe the fact is that the 787 wasn't meant to be a 77W replacement in the first place? The 787 was designed primarily as a 767/A330 replacement. If they had designed it to be able to stretch that frame for it to be capable of being a 77W replacement as well, then the 787-8's efficiency will suffer because it'll be too heavy - the problem that the A350-800 is facing. If they optimise the frame around a medium size widebody - which is what they have done, then stretching it would require significant re-engineering and compromising.

I don't understand where this notion of the 787 architecture can not be made into a 77W modern replacement comes from. It is only 12 cm narrower then the 350 and this is certainly stretched to the 77W size class. The main design limitations is pavement loading with existing 4 wheel bogies and the engine ground clearance. Stretching the wing is at first cut a new raked wingtip and beefing up of the present structure.

For the fun of it I took the 787-10 and made a HGW variant to see what one can reach without major changes. So I changed the following:

Engines
Existing ones but strechted to some 80klbf+ to keep start performance. Further as they come on to the frame after the 787-10 I made them an additional 1% more effective compared to T1000-TEN.

MLG
I beefed it up to 270t probably necessitating new bogies which spread perhaps larger wheels over somewhat wider surface. Might force you to deepen the wing faring a bit but not much.

Wing
Added the 789 projected wingtips for a 63m span. Might have to tweak the high-lift stuff a bit to keep approach speed in check.


With all this I get a 270t frame which would run 8000nm and give the 350-900 a run for it's money. The next step would be adding another 4 frames to take it up to 350 pax, if that necessitates a 6 wheel bogie is the big question, further new engines might be needed as you need some 90klbf to get it of the ground. Sound like a not minor revision to the center wingbox at least. More discussion needed and then I model it  :

[Edited 2012-09-26 00:56:48]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-26 01:41:40 and read 23565 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
I can see no disadvantages (costs aside) in opting to go down that route as opposed to doing a "cheaper" upgrade, but conversely, the advantages in terms of performance could be dramatic.

Cost is the disadvantage of just about everything (except free wifi in McDonalds).
And it is one of the two the key drivers for the scope. The other is estimated sales.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
In what way is the 777X not a "proper solution to any needed MTOW increase"?

I spoke about a rewinged 787-version. The 781 without new wing is not a proper solution to any needed MTOW...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
If it were that easy, Boeing would be doing it already.

Of course not. A new wing for the 787 would not be easy. But also not more complicated than for the 777X...

The reasons I listed support the business case of a rewinged 787.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Or maybe the fact is that the 787 wasn't meant to be a 77W replacement in the first place?

I get that impression too. Which would have been a mistake.

Because it would be a clear case of silo-mentality, if they have constrained the design without any other reason, than to keep some clearance to the 777...

But these constraints can be overcome.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
One size does not fit all.

No, certainly not.

But on the other hand just look in how many lenghts the 737 was succesfully sold?

And why exactly do you advocate for the second and the third stretch of the 777 if you have troubles with the second and the third stretch of the 787?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: faro
Posted 2012-09-26 03:09:24 and read 22789 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
The 777 will always be a half step behind the A350. So the A340NG-kind of outcome could also happen with a heavily modified 777X. In that case the minimalistic upgrade would be not so dumb....
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
Cost is the disadvantage of just about everything (except free wifi in McDonalds).

Given the heinous escalation in R&D costs between successive generations of widebody airliners, it may be doubtful whether we may ever again have direct, new-generation to new-generation widebody competitions. One manufacturer will launch a totally new widebody and the other will attempt a patched-up version of an existing airframe and always be "half a step behind". It is difficult to see both A & B launch any rival newbuild widebodies simultaneously.

A heavily modified 777X would for all intents and purposes mimick a new widebody in R&D cost terms. A minimalistic upgrade will probably be the sensible way forward for B. It may not be able to compete meaningfully with the A350, but timing and cost of a new-wing 777X launch are the real constraints here.

Cost as rheinwalder says is the disadvantage of just about anything. The problem is that with increasing complexity, cost is becoming proportionally a heavier and heavier burden to bear...so either you get your timing right or you don't in which case you just have to accept that you're substantially going to skip out on a whole generation of a particular widebody. We saw this with the A330 vs the 763ER/764 and the 772ER/77W vs the A343/A345/A346.


Faro

[Edited 2012-09-26 03:55:16]

[Edited 2012-09-26 03:56:06]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Aesma
Posted 2012-09-26 03:31:48 and read 22496 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
To me the real nightmare scenario is where sales convinces itself that it's OK to just slap new engines and wingtip treatments and a new fairing or two on a "777MAX" and they then get trounced in the market by the clean-sheet A350-1k

I can already imagine the youtube video Airbus would make !

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-26 03:54:56 and read 22199 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 47):
I don't understand where this notion of the 787 architecture can not be made into a 77W modern replacement comes from. It is only 12 cm narrower then the 350 and this is certainly stretched to the 77W size class. The main design limitations is pavement loading with existing 4 wheel bogies and the engine ground clearance. Stretching the wing is at first cut a new raked wingtip and beefing up of the present structure.

I'm not saying that it physically can't be done, but what I am saying is that it would require significant resources into modifying the 787 into one that is capable of being a 77W replacement. In my view, making the 787 into a high capacity long range airliner that the 77W is would be a more complex and more costly project than the Andersen prototype 777X. This is because the 777X does not require a new main landing gear to deal with pavement loading and ground clearance issues. It is ready made to accept even the marginally larger RR engines. As the MTOW is reduced for the 777X rather than increased for the theoretical 787-based competitor, the 777's landing gear would not require a redesign.

Secondly, the 787 based 77W replacement may require some structural "beefing up" to handle the extra weight.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
I get that impression too. Which would have been a mistake.

I disagree that it is a mistake. Rather, it's a smart move to have the 787 optimised as a 767/A330 replacement aircraft as that is a market which needs to be addressed more urgently. The A330 beats the 767 in almost every way that matters, leaving Boeing without a competitive offering in that market segment. The 787-8 seeks to redress that balance.

The 77W, on the other hand, is still a very young, very successful and very capable aircraft. A significant upgrade in the form of the 777X would only strenghten its prospects of success. If Boeing had designed the 787 to be optimised around a 77W replacement model, then the smaller models would suffer a weight and efficiency penalty due to the use of larger and heavier landing gear for starters. If you say that they should design one 787 optimised at 787-8 length and one at "787-11" length to replace the 77W, then that will kill commonality between the 787 family and increase design and production costs.

In my view, Boeing got it right by optimising the 787 at a segment below the 777. By doing that, Boeing has a distinct family of aircraft designed at medium widebody size (787); large widebody (777) and very large (747).

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-09-26 04:42:35 and read 21552 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
This one I don't understand, because why should EK account differently? If an aircraft can pay back the price over the years due to a certain efficiency, it could do so for any carrier.



EK's profitability and business model are different to those of other airlines. They're happy to pay a premium for the biggest and best 777X in the same way they'd be lapping up A380-900s if they could buy them today. The "EK 777X" and A380-900 would likely appeal less to other airlines. Emirates ALWAYS wants more payload/range, their business model demands it and they have every confidence of filling bigger planes.

So it seems the equation for Boeing is simply "Sell fewer more expensive 777Xs" or "Sell more less expensive 777Xs". That will be a shareholder-value driven bean-counter decision. It will possibly not go the way EK wants (but they'll buy plenty because it will still be better than today's -300ER).

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-26 05:13:54 and read 21164 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
In my view, making the 787 into a high capacity long range airliner that the 77W is would be a more complex and more costly project than the Andersen prototype 777X.

This is wrong. As simple as that. In worst case it would be equally complex and costly.

Adding a new, large composite wing to the 787 and stretching it a bit can not be more complex than the presented 777X drafts. Have you noticed that even wing folding was on the radar again? Probably because the autoclaves to bake the uniquely large 777X wing in one piece would have been unpayable anyway...

I don't know why you resist to understand that point. Have you noticed the large numbers of posters at the beginning of this thread, who would subscribe to minimal 777 changes and 787-based A351-competition?

I am really puzzled how you can support far reaching changes to the 777X in order to adress serious weaknesses vs the A351. And on the other hand, you refuse to see what a capable aircraft and formidable A351 competitor the 787X would become, if the same investment would go into the 787-platform.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
I'm not saying that it physically can't be done, but what I am saying is that it would require significant resources into modifying the 787 into one that is capable of being a 77W replacement.

Not more than making the Andersen 777X. You seem to ignore that a A351 competitor has not even to be sized like the 77W. Coming very close would be enough.

Having one aircraft family that spans from the current and future entry-level widebody (= 788) up to 77W capability should be a very compelling argument in most of the future sales campaigns. It would not only satisfy the bulk of the demand out there, but it would also be a good argument for countless airlines to conduct all their widebody operation by just one type: the 787.

As Airbus I would fear such a lineup on Boeing's side. The longer Boeing is caught in the past sentimentaly and refuses to depart from ex- (and still today) cash cows, the better for Airbus.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
This is because the 777X does not require a new main landing gear to deal with pavement loading and ground clearance issues.

If you make a new wing anyway the cost for adjusting the gear will be small...

A new wing is the answer to adress the following weak point of the 77W vs. A351: lack of effiency

And a new wing would also adress the weak points of a 781: payload/range limitations, ground clearance

So in both cases a new wing would be the most important and costly investment by far. So there is really no argument that the 787X would be more complex or more costly than the 777X. As the 787 wing is already cfrp, we have even to assume, that a new cfrp wing for the 787X would be cheaper than for the 777X. The fact that for the 777X the new cfrp wing is facing serious opposition even from within Boeing seems to underline that conclusion.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 51):
If Boeing had designed the 787 to be optimised around a 77W replacement model, then the smaller models would suffer a weight and efficiency penalty due to the use of larger and heavier landing gear for starters.

Hardly. I suspect that the 787 is constrained at some areas for no other reason, than to keep it apart from 777 territory. But this can be changed.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: EPA001
Posted 2012-09-26 05:28:04 and read 20949 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 52):
So it seems the equation for Boeing is simply "Sell fewer more expensive 777Xs" or "Sell more less expensive 777Xs". That will be a shareholder-value driven bean-counter decision. It will possibly not go the way EK wants (but they'll buy plenty because it will still be better than today's -300ER).

Good analysis. It brings Boeing to the same point of choice which Airbus made when they changed the A350-1000. After making it more capable, especially EK was disappointed. They wanted 8.400 NM range at full payload to cover routes as DXB-LAX. But EK had already ordered the original A350-1000 which was a less capable airframe.

Now EK is probably getting disappointed with Boeing as well since the extremely revamped B777-8X/9X seem to be not the best commercial option. And the less capable, but "cheaper" and "easier" to build B777-X without the fully new CFRP wings, is not the product EK is specifically looking for. It will be interesting to see how EK will act upon this since they still have the A350-1000 on order. And that airplane looks now more and more promising.  .

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-26 05:41:26 and read 20740 times.

Quoting justloveplanes (Reply 42):
Why not make the autoclaves big enough for Y1 (two wings at a time) and Y3? Spread the cost over two programs. Maybe partner with the evil competitors Lockheed and Northrup to keep the thing busy?

Autoclaves are about delivering high pressure and temperature, and delivering it uniformly. I can certainly see the cost for these things being huge to begin with and going up non-linearly as you add diameter.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
This one I don't understand, because why should EK account differently?

They tend to be near the ultra long haul end of the spectrum, so they need the extra capabilities, and they can demand the fares to support this type of aircraft.

Their goal of Gulf Region to US West Coast with large pax/cargo loads is a lot different than the way customers like UA, AF, BA run their fleet.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 40):
I'm not sure the world has autoclaves big enough to take 777 wings...that leaves you with two equally unattractive options:

A350 wings are as big as 777 wings (wingarea). So Boeings competitor somehow has solved this ...

That's a very good point. Airbus thought the A340NG was a nice upgrade for all those A340 customers till the 777 came along and ate its lunch. The point is that what might be convenient for Boeing can't be the primary focus for them.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
Cost is the disadvantage of just about everything (except free wifi in McDonalds).

And this week, free coffee, at least in this area...

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2012-09-26 06:18:15 and read 20344 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55):
They tend to be near the ultra long haul end of the spectrum, so they need the extra capabilities, and they can demand the fares to support this type of aircraft.

It seems to me that EK want to be able to be sure that they can dispatch an aircraft on any day to any destination without having to reduce the load . There are the occasional days that DXB-LAX will take over 17hrs instead of the typical 14.5 to 16hrs. They want to be able to have the inherent capability to do the 17hrs days without a load penalty.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 06:51:26 and read 20228 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
I get that impression too. Which would have been a mistake.

Looking at it with hindsight, yes, but at the time, it was (and remains, in many cases) a prudent decision.

The 777-300ER had just entered revenue service when Boeing launched the 7E7. It would be madness for Boeing to launch the 7E7 with dimensioning that would have easily allowed it to scale to the 777-300ER. That's like Airbus launching the A350-1000 the same year they put the A340-600 into service.

As noted, the 787 was originally designed around the 767-300ER on the low end and the A330-200 on the high end. Conversations with customers moved that upwards so that it was designed around the A330-200 on the low end and the A330-300 / 777-200 on the high end. The 787-9 cabin is the same length as the 777-200's and we're seeing 777-200 family customers buying the 787-9 as a direct replacement.

The A350 family is larger than the A330-200 at the low end and smaller than the A340-600 at the upper end. The "sweet spot" is the A350-900, which slots right into the A330-300 / A340-300 / 777-200ER / 777-200LR market. However, that seems to be causing it some issues when it comes to the A350-800. For A330-200 operators, the 787-8 offers similar passenger capacity, better cargo volume and lighter structural weight compared to the A350-800.

The A350-1000 matches the 777-300ER and A340-600 in terms of cargo volume, but comes up short on passengers (depending on the seating configuration) and payload weight, though Airbus is addressing the latter by increasing the operating weights and engine thrust. It also has a significant structural weight advantage.

[Edited 2012-09-26 06:55:32]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-26 07:16:00 and read 20093 times.

When they launched they 787 they had every intention of launching Y3 which would have replaced the 777/748 series.

It's time to follow the original game plan and bring on Y3 - the 787 can cover the middle no problem at all.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-26 08:02:02 and read 19963 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 58):
It's time to follow the original game plan and bring on Y3 - the 787 can cover the middle no problem at all.

They just sank billions into the 747-8 which, thanks to the -8F, looks like it will be just fine. And the customers are screaming for something that will be viable against the A350 and Y3 can't be delivered in time for that. What is the possible business case to launch Y3 (or its successor) right now?

I'll bet big money that what shows up won't be Y3 (or Y1) anyway...there's this pervasive a.net method that Y1 = "whatever replaces the 737" and Y3 = "whatever replaces the 747/777". Y1/Y2/Y3 were from the Yellowstone project, one of a family of studies for strategic direction in the commercial sector. Y2 really is the 787 but there's no guarantee that Y1 and Y3 will ever be built...with the 737MAX coming, the 777X probably coming, and the 747-8 still going, I strongly suspect something will supplant Y1 and Y3 before they're ever built.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: art
Posted 2012-09-26 09:45:07 and read 19588 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 9):
I'd say these are at least arguments worth having. There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.

  

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
I just think ULH is a very thin branch to stand on if you are too heavy to be competitive on mainstream long-haul.

  

To me it sounds like a new 777 would require funds and engineering resources that could be better spent on other projects while winning few sales (and some of those cannibalised from 787-10). What are the commercial arguments in favour of a new 777? If it is to be eclipsed by the Airbus A350, what does that matter - providing it is also eclipsed by the Boeing 787-10?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):
The 777 will always be a half step behind the A350. So the A340NG-kind of outcome could also happen with a heavily modified 777X. In that case the minimalistic upgrade would be not so dumb....

 checkmark 

[Edited 2012-09-26 09:53:00]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-26 10:01:30 and read 19509 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55):
Autoclaves are about delivering high pressure and temperature, and delivering it uniformly. I can certainly see the cost for these things being huge to begin with and going up non-linearly as you add diameter.

IIRC from a doc on Burt Rutan a few years ago, scaling up autoclaves is indeed expensive, and the very largest autoclaves possible at any given time are both absurdly expensive and difficult to ready for mass production. Certainly as technology and process engineering improves, those scaling costs will decrease somewhat. But for the time being, even if such a large autoclave were possible it may just be far too expensive for mass production.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55):
Their goal of Gulf Region to US West Coast with large pax/cargo loads is a lot different than the way customers like UA, AF, BA run their fleet.

That's interesting - is that because these carriers tend to do shorter runs, whereas the Gulf carriers are making more extensive use of max range/payload capabilities at once?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tistpaa727
Posted 2012-09-26 10:17:14 and read 19435 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
The longer Boeing is caught in the past sentimentaly and refuses to depart from ex- (and still today) cash cows, the better for Airbus.


  

Industries such as the newspaper and magazine industry rested on their laurels because their cash cows (classifieds) were doing so well they were to blind to see the impact of upstarts like Craig's List chop them down at their knees. Now look where they are. Not saying this would happen to Boeing but resting on the success of a "current cash cow" can be detrimental to a company's future.

The one question I have in this discussion of a 787X v. 777X is how long can the 787 become to meet the capacity of a 777X? The advantage the 777 has is its wider fuselage that can accommodate up to 10 abreast while the 787 is limited at 9 abreast. To make up that deficit you are talking about adding several more rows to the 787. Is this practical?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-26 11:00:26 and read 19214 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 59):
Y1/Y2/Y3 were from the Yellowstone project, one of a family of studies for strategic direction in the commercial sector. Y2 really is the 787 but there's no guarantee that Y1 and Y3 will ever be built...with the 737MAX coming, the 777X probably coming, and the 747-8 still going, I strongly suspect something will supplant Y1 and Y3 before they're ever built.

The utopian Y1/Y2/Y3 plan probably didn't allow for Y2 taking twice as much time and more than twice as much money as planned, and leaving in its wake huge questions about what Boeing can achieve on a given time and budget. This presumably means the suits making the big money decisions don't have much confidence in what the ones wearing the pocket protectors tell them. Had Y2 gone along anything close to time/budget, there wouldn't be such resistance to the "uber" 777X, never mind the Y3.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 11:14:55 and read 19156 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63):
This presumably means the suits making the big money decisions don't have much confidence in what the ones wearing the pocket protectors tell them. Had Y2 gone along anything close to time/budget, there wouldn't be such resistance to the "uber" 777X, never mind the Y3.

Considering the suits were the ones who made many of the decisions to outsource much of the design, fabrication and assembly of Y2 that caused that program to crash and burn...

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: morrisond
Posted 2012-09-26 11:19:31 and read 19142 times.

Sorry I should have said skip the 777X do a 777 NEO (for delivery earlier than 777X - by 2016/17 and start work on Y3 which they should be able to do by 2022 one should hope.

A 777NEO (with the Majority of work done by GE on new engine - it could be low manpower project for Boeing) should get them another 5 years (500 frames) until Y3 is ready.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-26 11:35:14 and read 19050 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
Considering the suits were the ones who made many of the decisions to outsource much of the design, fabrication and assembly of Y2 that caused that program to crash and burn...

Agreed, but that doesn't mean the power of the purse string has been given to the pocket protector crowd.

It seems it's an all new bunch of suit wearers in the corner offices these days (different but not necessarily wiser), and the data supports my point that the suits are pretty nervous about Lars Andersen's 777x, never mind the clean sheet Y3.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: deltadc9
Posted 2012-09-26 11:37:49 and read 19068 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63):
The utopian Y1/Y2/Y3 plan probably didn't allow for Y2 taking twice as much time and more than twice as much money as planned, and leaving in its wake huge questions about what Boeing can achieve on a given time and budget. This presumably means the suits making the big money decisions don't have much confidence in what the ones wearing the pocket protectors tell them. Had Y2 gone along anything close to time/budget, there wouldn't be such resistance to the "uber" 777X, never mind the Y3.

Have not posted in exactly 5 years but had to put in my two cents worth. I never precieved the Yellowstone plan to be all that concrete. Just a general guideline of one narrowbody, one widebody, and one VLA. It always made perfect sense to me and still does.

The issue at hand is how to get from here to there, because there is the place that makes the most sense to this long term shareholder. That path will keep changing, but I think the destination is pretty much agreed on. I dont think one plane to cover 767 thru 747 makes sense.

Besides, I just got my Delta Skymiles American Express and my number contains both 737 AND 797. I think they are trying to tell me something....  

[Edited 2012-09-26 11:40:10]

[Edited 2012-09-26 11:40:33]

[Edited 2012-09-26 11:41:41]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-26 11:59:13 and read 18983 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 57):
However, that seems to be causing it some issues when it comes to the A350-800. For A330-200 operators, the 787-8 offers similar passenger capacity, better cargo volume and lighter structural weight compared to the A350-800.

To be fair to the 350-800 it is not a frame in the 787-8 or 333-200 class, it is pretty firmly in the middle between the 787-8 and the 788-9. The cabin lenghts m/areas m2 are; 42.3/232 (-8) vs 45.5/255 (800) vs 48.4/266 (-9) if I have my sums right. It is also longer range then all 3 of them, it also has the highest MTOW and unfortunately also OEW (which is less flattering   ). If you need long range and good hot and high it will deliver (it has the -900 engines).

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-26 12:01:20 and read 18942 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 68):
It is also longer range then all 3 of them, it also has the highest MTOW and unfortunately also OEW (which is less flattering   ). If you need long range and good hot and high it will deliver (it has the -900 engines).

Sounds like it could be useful to airlines with unique performance requirements like SA and IB... and not much of anyone else.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-26 12:10:18 and read 18901 times.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 69):
and not much of anyone else.

It is good enough to make sense if you have and Airbus DA fleet espcially other 350 models, there was quite a detailed discussion about it in a thread about the 350-800 in TechOps,

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 12:12:43 and read 18932 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 68):
To be fair to the 350-800 it is not a frame in the 787-8 or 333-200 class, it is pretty firmly in the middle between the 787-8 and the 788-9.

And that is because, IMO, Airbus has dimensioned the A350 to be able to serve as a 777-300ER and A340-600 replacement.

rheinwaldner believes Boeing should have dimensioned the 787 along similar lines, making the 787-8 and 787-9 larger than they are so that the 787-10 could cover the 777-300 family (instead of slotting between the 777-200 and 777-300 families as it currently does).

My argument in that post was that by not doing so, Boeing appears to have a more efficient A330-200 replacement with the 787-8 than Airbus does with the A350-800. And a 787-9 offers significantly better passenger capacity and cargo volume than the A350-800 with a similar MTOW, a higher MZFW and a (probably) lower OEW.

[Edited 2012-09-26 12:15:50]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-09-26 13:09:01 and read 18690 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):

Exactly. Each has a specific target in mind, and they made a conscious decision to keep it small (787) and optimize it for the larger category (A350) respectively.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-26 13:41:11 and read 18566 times.

Can someone explain what is meant by quote below from the WSJ article suggesting a new metal wing that retains two-thirds of the current wing?
Quote:
Now, after 18 months of studies, Boeing, as part of its cost-cutting moves, is re-examining the idea of a less-expensive metal-winged 777X that would retain two-thirds of the current wing. But Boeing's less-ambitious design would be 3% to 4% less efficient than its larger carbon-fiber counterpart, according to one potential customer.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-09-26 14:03:26 and read 18506 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 65):
Sorry I should have said skip the 777X do a 777 NEO (for delivery earlier than 777X - by 2016/17 and start work on Y3 which they should be able to do by 2022 one should hope.

A 777NEO (with the Majority of work done by GE on new engine - it could be low manpower project for Boeing) should get them another 5 years (500 frames) until Y3 is ready.

Wait, this is flawed thinking IMHO. Which airlines are going to buy these 500 777neos when they know a far superior plane will be along in just five years?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-26 14:46:40 and read 18380 times.

Quoting deltadc9 (Reply 67):
Have not posted in exactly 5 years but had to put in my two cents worth.

Glad to roust you!  
Quoting deltadc9 (Reply 67):
I never precieved the Yellowstone plan to be all that concrete. Just a general guideline of one narrowbody, one widebody, and one VLA. It always made perfect sense to me and still does.

Agree it makes sense, outside of those nasty questions about how to pay for three all-new frames back to back, whether they will make money, what to do about the fact that the cargo market seems to love the 747, etc.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 73):
Can someone explain what is meant by quote below from the WSJ article suggesting a new metal wing that retains two-thirds of the current wing?

I hope they can!

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 14:51:11 and read 18381 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 73):
Can someone explain what is meant by quote below from the WSJ article suggesting a new metal wing that retains two-thirds of the current wing?

I'm guessing they're looking at new wingtips extensions?



Quoting scbriml (Reply 74):
Wait, this is flawed thinking IMHO. Which airlines are going to buy these 500 777neos when they know a far superior plane will be along in just five years?

Airlines bought hundreds of A330s and 777s when they could have waited five years for a 787 or A350...

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-09-26 15:34:35 and read 18283 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 76):
Airlines bought hundreds of A330s and 777s when they could have waited five years for a 787 or A350...

Unfortunately that was mainly once the airlines realised they were going to have to wait a damn site longer than five years to get their orders delivered.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-09-26 16:13:27 and read 18206 times.

It seems that Boeing is on the horns of a dilemma. They can either make the 777 competitive with the A3510, or they can abandon the market for any passenger plane larger than the 787. Doing an upgrade of the 777 that will not make it competitive with the A3510 is to just send billions of dollars down a rathole. Boeing used to be willing to take big gambles; that is what put them on the top of the commercial aircraft business in the first place. If they have lost the willingness to do it then they have nowhere to go but down, and down they will go. Building airliners is not a game for the faint of heart, and the simple fact is that it is beyond the ability of human beings to accurately forecast either the cost or the time it will take to do a job of this magnitude. You really have to jump on board and ride it to the end; if you succeed the reward will probably be great, and if you fail you will likely go out of business. But being unwilling to take the risk guarantees that you will go out of business (exhibit A: McDonnell-Douglas.)

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-26 16:32:05 and read 18153 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 61):
Certainly as technology and process engineering improves, those scaling costs will decrease somewhat. But for the time being, even if such a large autoclave were possible it may just be far too expensive for mass production.

Nobody mass produces autoclaves at that scale...they're custom machines or, at best, ultra-low run. There's probably about a dozen on the entire planet capable of doing 787/A350-panel sized pieces right now. The problem isn't really technology or process, it's that you're trying to built a *giant* pressure vessel. We're basically talking about submarine hulls (except for tension rather than compression).

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 73):
Can someone explain what is meant by quote below from the WSJ article suggesting a new metal wing that retains two-thirds of the current wing?

I suspect they mean to keep the center section (i.e. don't have to change the wing body join) and just screw with the strut and the tips.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):
Boeing used to be willing to take big gambles; that is what put them on the top of the commercial aircraft business in the first place.

I'd say they still are...the 787 was a big gamble. Given that they typically only do an all new type about once per decade, their lack of one right now (especially in the midst of the 737MAX) is still consistent with past pattern.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-26 16:37:37 and read 18131 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):
But being unwilling to take the risk guarantees that you will go out of business (exhibit A: McDonnell-Douglas.)

Well some key ingredients are present, let's hope they have learned something by now cause there seems to be no lack of b..lls on the other end (thinking about the EADS-BAE thing).


There is more interesting stuff to read at Leeham: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

B seems to contemplate skipping the 777-8X and slotting in the 787-10 instead, keeping the 777-9X. A 270t ER version of the -10 would then be handy and not very much extra work, ref my earlier post.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 16:46:17 and read 18145 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):
It seems that Boeing is on the horns of a dilemma. They can either make the 777 competitive with the A3510, or they can abandon the market for any passenger plane larger than the 787.

And yet in 2005, Airbus was effectively ready to abandon the market for planes between (roughly) 300 and 500 seats by moving forward with an "A330-200X and A330-300X" as the A340-500 and A340-600 had no future. Only when the "A330X" started to lose some major orders to the 787 did Airbus retrench and launch the A350XWB that allowed them to continue to have an offering in the market by offering a model that straddled the A340-500 and A340-600 in capacity.

But then we have the case of the NSA vs. A320neo, where airlines drove the decision the opposite way. When Boeing started losing major orders to the A320neo, they had to abandon NSA and launch their own re-engined version of the 737 to actually stay competitive in the market!  Wow!

And it appears Boeing is getting some mixed-signals from their customers on what to do with the 777 in terms of how much performance is available for what additional cost. CX ordering the A350-1000 in large numbers is a sign on where the market stands, but so is EK ordering twice as many 777-300ERs / 777Xs.

So Boeing may not yet be confident on which way to jump - be it the 777NG, the 777X or the 787X.



Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):
There is more interesting stuff to read at Leeham: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

B seems to contemplate skipping the 777-8X and slotting in the 787-10 instead, keeping the 777-9X. A 270t ER version of the -10 would then be handy and not very much extra work, ref my earlier post.

The 777-8 at 70m never made sense to me. I'd prefer a 74m 777-8 and an 80m 777-9 if they could do it.

[Edited 2012-09-26 16:48:51]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-09-26 16:57:34 and read 18074 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
I'd say they still are...the 787 was a big gamble. Given that they typically only do an all new type about once per decade, their lack of one right now (especially in the midst of the 737MAX) is still consistent with past pattern.

Well, they started with the 707 in the 60's, and spent more than the company's net worth (and far more than they expected) developing it. In the 60's they did three; the 727, 737, and 747. Again, with the 747 they spent more than the company's net worth and, when the economy tanked just when it was entering production they nearly went under. Then they did two at once in the late 70's early 80's. They then did the 777 in the early 90's, and did the 787 in the 00's. They actually are due for another one according to this schedule; but what they have now which did not exist earlier was massive upgrades of existing planes, such as the 77L/77W, the 748, and the 737MAX, plus the 777X. The reason I question whether or not they still have the appetite for risk is things that I have read that the board wants assurances that the next big project won't have the kind of cost overruns that all previous projects have had, and will come in on time. The implication is that if the engineers cannot give those guarantees (which they can't) then the projects will not be approved. I believe from what I have read that a lot of the problems on the 787 came from just this attitude, and managers were afraid to tell their superiors just how bad the situation was, with the result that it got even worse and cost a lot more to rectify. The decision to outsource so much was also part of this risk-averse mindset. If Boeing's board is now unwilling to accept the fact that they are playing the world's highest stakes crap game then they should resign and go find another company to manage.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-26 17:45:04 and read 17979 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 82):
If Boeing's board is now unwilling to accept the fact that they are playing the world's highest stakes crap game then they should resign and go find another company to manage.

The first duty of the Board of Directors is to protect the investment the stockholders have made in the company. To treat that money like they're in Vegas at the craps tables would open them up to lawsuits - and perhaps jail terms.

If not for the fact that the 737, 767 and 777 programs are doing so well, the execution failures on the 747-8 and 787 programs might have done them in.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-26 17:57:24 and read 17942 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 73):
But Boeing's less-ambitious design would be 3% to 4% less efficient than its larger carbon-fiber counterpart, according to one potential customer.

If indeed an enhanced metal wing is only 3-4% behind, I can see why Boeing is having a hard time justifying the CFRP wing. I must imagine a 80m 787X to be much more efficient and interesting.

Typically the 74m long 77W has about 30 rows of Y seats. Assuming a 80m 777X vs a 80m 787X, each with 6 more rows of Y seats, the 777X will have about 36 more Y seats in a typical 10-abreast configuration. In EK's high density case, it can be 45-50 more Y seats. I wonder how many airlines feel that they can consistently have high load factors for such a near-VLA.

So if the 787 family can span sizes that cover the current 767 to 77W sizes, it will be very powerful in a much bigger market than the one served by the 748 to A380 size equipment. A cheaper approach to the 777X wing, IMO, makes a lot of sense to maintain a competitive near-VLA footprint where the A350-1000 cannot touch in terms of raw capacity. We also do not expect the A380 to go CFRP wing to try to kill the metal wing 777X.

Sadly, the 748i will die with the launch of 777X, unless of course if Boeing finds a way to add more seats by clever use of the OSU space.  

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-09-26 18:28:36 and read 17859 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
The first duty of the Board of Directors is to protect the investment the stockholders have made in the company. To treat that money like they're in Vegas at the craps tables would open them up to lawsuits - and perhaps jail terms.

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that the entire airline business, which includes airlines as well as building airliners, is the highest stake crap game on the planet. If you are going to play in it you need to recognize what it is, and what the stakes are. That is not the same as treating the money as if you were at Vegas. But it does mean that if you are going to succeed, you have to be willing to take huge risks with an uncertain guarantee of reward. Playing it safe is a guarantee of eventual failure.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-26 18:43:36 and read 17801 times.

Just thinking about potential 787HGW variants... it's been interesting to watch the tenor of discussion over the past few years. In 2006 and 2007, before the magnitude of the 787 problems was clear, people were treating the 787HGW as the most obvious imaginable next step. We were talking about 787-10HGW and 787-11 as if they were a done deal. Then as the 787 problems deepened that conversation completely dried up. Now that the 787 is delivering in volume, it's back again...   

[Edited 2012-09-26 18:43:53]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-09-26 19:13:19 and read 17732 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 82):
The decision to outsource so much was also part of this risk-averse mindset.

So many companies discover that with outsourcing. You can't outsource risk. You still own it, but you lose sight of it.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-26 21:36:08 and read 17529 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 59):
with the 737MAX coming, the 777X probably coming, and the 747-8 still going, I strongly suspect something will supplant Y1 and Y3 before they're ever built.

With the MAX, the 777X and the especially the 748 Yellowstone has been burried. I would have been a convincing product setup. But the current band-aid philosopy Boeing has really screwed their own intention (have you noticed that all three of these projects just aim to "fix" some old, great legacy programs? Two of them even largely overlapping?).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 63):
The utopian Y1/Y2/Y3 plan probably didn't allow for Y2 taking twice as much time and more than twice as much money as planned

I don't see how the lead time actually impact the attractiveness of the Yellowstone product setup. Boeing could work towards those plans always instead of working against them...

Quoting deltadc9 (Reply 67):
Just a general guideline of one narrowbody, one widebody, and one VLA. It always made perfect sense to me and still does.

Agreed.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 70):
It is good enough to make sense if you have and Airbus DA fleet espcially other 350 models, there was quite a detailed discussion about it in a thread about the 350-800 in TechOps,

IMO it is the weak part of the A350 series. A lot of airlines probably would prefer a less capable entry-level widebody. That is the reason, why the 787 family spaning up to 77W would be so compelling. Such a 787X would not cost more than the 777X, but the long term success would be guaranteed....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
rheinwaldner believes Boeing should have dimensioned the 787 along similar lines, making the 787-8 and 787-9 larger than they are so that the 787-10 could cover the 777-300 family (instead of slotting between the 777-200 and 777-300 families as it currently does).

I have to state my position more precisely. Making a good, unconstrained 767 replacement was sensible of course.

I only said that in some (minor) areas the constraints were maybe followed for no other reason than to stay away from the 777. Certain design decisions could maybe have been made, to allow a later enlargement easier, without constraining its 767-replacement role. There is e.g. no widebody twin that was ever constrained to be stretched because of lack of ground clearance. A300, A310, 767, A330 and 777, all of these sat higher over the ground. The penalty in the 767 role would not have been big if the design would considered this aspect a tiny bit more. It has to be fixed now...

I mean any aircraft grows over the time. Considerably.

So you don't design an 8+ abreast, high performance widebody without knowing exactly that over the time the capabilities of e.g. a 77W would be perfectly in the range of upgrades of that design...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
My argument in that post was that by not doing so, Boeing appears to have a more efficient A330-200 replacement with the 787-8 than Airbus does with the A350-800.

Absolutely...

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 85):
Playing it safe is a guarantee of eventual failure.

Agreed...

Three times the band-aid approach. The first has failed, the second is open (have you read the critical opinions from ISTAT?) and the third will obsolete the first.... Good strategy.

Looks like the 748 product strategy team had no idea of the plans the 777 product strategy team could come up some years later...

That another upgrade of the 777 would only escape the CASM-disadvantage by increasing the size considerably should have been clear since the launch of the A351. To see that you should not need to wait until the A351 would be fully defined. The constellation old alu plane vs. new cfrp design from scratch should be enough to understand that right away....

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-26 22:08:34 and read 17428 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 84):
If indeed an enhanced metal wing is only 3-4% behind, I can see why Boeing is having a hard time justifying the CFRP wing.

777-9X(metal wing) with 4% fuel burn penalty should work for operators like EK with 10-abreast Y and 7 abreast J over A351. It may even work for operators with 6 abreast J and 10-abreast Y.

I suspect the savings in R&D costs with metal wings(retaining 2/3rd of the existing wing) is in few billions of dollars.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-27 00:45:05 and read 17179 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 89):
I suspect the savings in R&D costs with metal wings(retaining 2/3rd of the existing wing) is in few billions of dollars.

It could be lower that that, ref my answer below to Tom.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
I suspect they mean to keep the center section (i.e. don't have to change the wing body join) and just screw with the strut and the tips.

I get the tips, the 77W lack span and area. At 350t and 65m it's span and wing loading is very high and it's cruise as well as start performance would gain from more effective span. This can be accomplished by putting on MAX style double feather winglets, it would avoid the entry into a higher class and gain some 2-3m effective span which would be about 50% of what the 71m wing would give you. Adding area would be more demanding, it would help with the transonic drag a bit and with higher cruise heights but that might help it selves with more effective engines lowering the TOW.

I guess with the struts you assume new engines. Well they could just stay with the thing they have in a new conform version: AFAIK the GE90X would use the same fan dia, why not make it so you can keep the strut and nacelle intact?

With a gain of some 6-7% in TSFC on such a neo and the new tips the standard fuselage 77W would gain some 500nm in range or can start 10t lighter as it burns some 11-12t less fuel on a 16 hour trip (I assumed the OEW actually goes up 2t as the engines and the tips would be heavier). These gains can of course be used in conjunction with a fuselage strecth, just wanted to highlight what a minimum change would buy you. The engine is the big gain as we know from the A320 and MAX neos.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: TP313
Posted 2012-09-27 02:23:52 and read 16959 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
I get the tips, the 77W lack span and area. At 350t and 65m it's span and wing loading is very high and it's cruise as well as start performance would gain from more effective span. This can be accomplished by putting on MAX style double feather winglets, it would avoid the entry into a higher class and gain some 2-3m effective span which would be about 50% of what the 71m wing would give you. Adding area would be more demanding, it would help with the transonic drag a bit and with higher cruise heights but that might help it selves with more effective engines lowering the TOW.

I guess with the struts you assume new engines. Well they could just stay with the thing they have in a new conform version: AFAIK the GE90X would use the same fan dia, why not make it so you can keep the strut and nacelle intact?

With a gain of some 6-7% in TSFC on such a neo and the new tips the standard fuselage 77W would gain some 500nm in range or can start 10t lighter as it burns some 11-12t less fuel on a 16 hour trip (I assumed the OEW actually goes up 2t as the engines and the tips would be heavier). These gains can of course be used in conjunction with a fuselage strecth, just wanted to highlight what a minimum change would buy you. The engine is the big gain as we know from the A320 and MAX neos.

That + 10% more passengers + high degree of commonality with previous 777 versions,
would make a pretty good case for the "777X-cheap" over the 350-1000, either for airlines that already operate the 777 and/or for those that need the extra payload/range (even w/o a stretch).
By doing a limited investment Boeing would end up with a very competitive airliner, even if it would not be the efficiency standard for most missions (in that market sector).

But if Boeing is dead set on spending several billions on building a brand new CFRP wing,
then, IMHO they should be designing it for a 787 derivative, instead of building it for the 777.





[Edited 2012-09-27 02:30:43]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-09-27 02:46:27 and read 16950 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):

I've come over to the group that thinks the 777-8x is DOA. It's an answer to a question nobody has asked. The 9x has the potential to carve out a niche for itself. By even suggesting it, Boeing has tacitly admitted that the 9x is more the way of the future than the 748i...though the cargo version should continue to chalk up orders for at least the next decade.

the 787-10 seems to be a fairly simple, (in an aeronautical engineering sense), replacement for the 772 so with a brand new, ultra efficient model stepping on the heels of a not so efficient upgrade, the die is probably cast. If Boeing really wants an LR, why not spend the time and money increasing the range of the new kid on the block?

As somebody mentioned upthread, now that the 787 seems to be putting its nastiest demons behind it, an HGW version or two is starting to seem like a pretty good idea again.

I think they're going to, (or should), stretch the -9x to the absolute limits of the fuse dimensions, put any weight savings/wing improvements directly into range/payload, put every bit of wizardry GE has in the works into improving the -115 and turning the 777 into a true twin VLA.

It's one big advantage over the 350 is that big, fat fuse. Might as well use that to its maximum advantage.

Go big...very big.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-09-27 04:51:11 and read 16691 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 92):
though the cargo version should continue to chalk up orders for at least the next decade.

In very nearly half a decade since 2007, the 748F has chalked up sales of just four aircraft.  Wow!

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-27 06:05:33 and read 16513 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
I get the tips, the 77W lack span and area. At 350t and 65m it's span and wing loading is very high and it's cruise as well as start performance would gain from more effective span. This can be accomplished by putting on MAX style double feather winglets, it would avoid the entry into a higher class and gain some 2-3m effective span which would be about 50% of what the 71m wing would give you.

I wonder how much problem a longer span really would have, within reason, of course. At 68m, the 747-8's span is 3m wider than the 747-400 and it does not appear to be as much an issue as the 79m span of the A380-800 at many airports. So if went with, say, 68m (perhaps with the MAX winglets)...



Quoting scbriml (Reply 93):
In very nearly half a decade since 2007, the 748F has chalked up sales of just four aircraft.    

Well, the Air Cargo Market has been in the tank since 2007... And cargo operators are taking delivery of new 747-8Fs and sending 747-400Fs (dedicated and converted) to the desert.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ytz
Posted 2012-09-27 06:19:13 and read 16462 times.

Any thoughts on internal stretching as it was termed before? Seems to me that Boeing could really make a huge difference, at least for its sales pitch, by having a true 10-across aircraft.

I wonder how much this effort would cost. Add to the wings and engines.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2012-09-27 06:38:42 and read 16398 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 81):
Quoting ferpe (Reply 80):There is more interesting stuff to read at Leeham: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/

B seems to contemplate skipping the 777-8X and slotting in the 787-10 instead, keeping the 777-9X. A 270t ER version of the -10 would then be handy and not very much extra work, ref my earlier post.
The 777-8 at 70m never made sense to me. I'd prefer a 74m 777-8 and an 80m 777-9 if they could do it.

If Boeing procede with the 777-8X then it could be in serious danger of becoming the 350-800 of the 777X lineup - underperforming, unloved and unwanted. A 787-10HGW would perform far bettter but would be duplicating much of the engineering and financial demands of the 777-9x - I suspect they cant do both.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: deltadc9
Posted 2012-09-27 06:42:17 and read 16387 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 75):
Agree it makes sense, outside of those nasty questions about how to pay for three all-new frames back to back, whether they will make money, what to do about the fact that the cargo market seems to love the 747, etc.

If you look at Yellowstone as a guidline of a 3 model product line, Y1 is the new 737 and whatever replaces it, Y2 is the 787. The problem is replacing the 777 and 747 with one plane when the cargo market as you say loves the 747 (50% of all air cargo flies on a 747 IIRC) and the passenger market loves the 777.

Here is how I see it playing out. The 350 waters down demand on the 777 and 747-400 conversions flood the freighter market producing a scenario where the end of both programs is in sight. That is the beginning of the window to consolidate into one new frame and leapfrog the 350 and the 380 in performance.

In the mean time the 747-8F goes on mostly as a freighter and the occasional passenger model or plane for heads of state for who knows how long and an updated 777 fills the supply gap the 350 lines can't fill until an actual Y3 to replace both is ready.

Then they axe the 777 when Y3 is ready, letting conversions and the Y3 freighter model kill the 747 freighter however that plays out.

Then you actually have the 3 line Yellowstone plan played out regardless of the progress on replacing the 737, because if it aint broke, why fix it, and the 737 aint broke. Then there is the 767, which will follow the 747 to zero orders at some point, but you don't end mature programs with orders and profits. Yellowstone still plays out in the end.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-27 07:17:15 and read 16277 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
This is wrong. As simple as that. In worst case it would be equally complex and costly.

Adding a new, large composite wing to the 787 and stretching it a bit can not be more complex than the presented 777X drafts. Have you noticed that even wing folding was on the radar again? Probably because the autoclaves to bake the uniquely large 777X wing in one piece would have been unpayable anyway...

With the "787X", you're adding capacity and payload/range. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW. You need higher thrust engines which may be larger, thus necessitating modifications to the main landing gear. You'll also need to add structural stiffness.

The 777X, on the other hand, has a projected MTOW that's 8t lower than the current 777-300ER. Its engines will produce less thrust than the current GE90s. Structurally, all that needs to be changed are the new wings, as well as internal modifications to create space for a wider cabin. It is therefore a simpler job than upgrading the 787.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
Have you noticed the large numbers of posters at the beginning of this thread, who would subscribe to minimal 777 changes and 787-based A351-competition?

So? Does that mean I have to agree with them?

And I think you're confusing the call for an all new aircraft with a 787-based aircraft.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
I am really puzzled how you can support far reaching changes to the 777X in order to adress serious weaknesses vs the A351.

Because the "far reaching changes" will make the 777X competitive with the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
And on the other hand, you refuse to see what a capable aircraft and formidable A351 competitor the 787X would become, if the same investment would go into the 787-platform.

The 777X will also be a very capable and formidable A350-1000 competitor, as long as Boeing listens to its engineers and gives approval to build the best 777X they possibly can, rather than a cheaper half hearted upgrade.

The "787X" will require more work to make it competitive. If that were not the case, Boeing would be stupid not to be doing it. There has to be a reason why they're doing the 777X instead of the 787X, and I refuse to accept your argument that they're only doing so to keep the 777 around. Boeing are not that badly run.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
You seem to ignore that a A351 competitor has not even to be sized like the 77W. Coming very close would be enough.

How close is "very close"?

The A350/77W market is a large one - large enough for both manufacturers to have something on offer. If Boeing doesn't have a competitor that is sized between the A350 and 777X, they run the risk of letting Airbus dominate in the way that the 77W has until now.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
Having one aircraft family that spans from the current and future entry-level widebody (= 788) up to 77W capability should be a very compelling argument in most of the future sales campaigns. It would not only satisfy the bulk of the demand out there, but it would also be a good argument for countless airlines to conduct all their widebody operation by just one type: the 787.

I'll go back to what I said earlier: one size does not fit all. You'll end up either having a less than optimised aircraft at one end of the scale or the other, or else lose commonality between subtypes and increase design and production costs in the process. I believe having just one family of aircraft span such a large gap in capacity is not a smart move.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
And a new wing would also adress the weak points of a 781: payload/range limitations, ground clearance

How does a new wing address ground clearance issues?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
So in both cases a new wing would be the most important and costly investment by far. So there is really no argument that the 787X would be more complex or more costly than the 777X.

Yes, there is. See above.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
I suspect that the 787 is constrained at some areas for no other reason, than to keep it apart from 777 territory.

That's rubbish. There is a perfectly valid reason for doing so: to make the 787 the most efficient 767/A330 replacement aircraft that it can be.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 53):
The longer Boeing is caught in the past sentimentaly and refuses to depart from ex- (and still today) cash cows, the better for Airbus.

The 737MAX program was launched because the airlines made it clear that they would not wait for a new small aircraft when they could get the A320NEO much sooner. The 747-8 was built because it does not make sense for Boeing to invest multi billions in an all new bigger-than-747 VLA to compete with the A380 when that market is particularly small; as well as airlines such as LH wanting a larger 747.

The 777X also makes sense because it is the more cost effective measure to compete with the A350XWB than an all new aircraft.

Each of those decisions are sound business decisions - or were when the decision was made. Sentimentality has nothing to do with it. If they are that sentimental, they wouldn't be launching the 777X at all because it'd mean the death of the 747-8 Intercontinental.

Quoting art (Reply 60):
What are the commercial arguments in favour of a new 777? If it is to be eclipsed by the Airbus A350, what does that matter - providing it is also eclipsed by the Boeing 787-10?

The current 777, if left unchanged, will be "blown out of the water", so to speak, by the new A350. The new 777 is what will keep Boeing competitive with Airbus in the 350-400 seat twin market. As planned, the new 777X will have a 21% better fuel burn per seat and 16% better operating cost per seat when compared with the current 777-300ER. It will be a very capable and efficient machine.

I'm not convinced that the 787-10 will be able to supplant the 777X. The 787-10 as it is planned at present, does not have sufficient range to cover the 777-300ER replacement/A350-1000 competitor market. I am also not convinced that the 787 frame can be upgraded without significant cost as it was not designed with that particular market in mind. Thus, the 787 based competitor will either be significantly compromised the longer it gets or else lose commonality with the rest of the 787 family through the changes which will be required to make it perform better at higher range and capacities.

The way I see it, the only options to compete with the A350 are the 777X, or an all new aircraft. I do not believe a 787 based competitor will suffice. The 777X should be the significantly cheaper option.

Quoting tistpaa727 (Reply 62):
The one question I have in this discussion of a 787X v. 777X is how long can the 787 become to meet the capacity of a 777X? The advantage the 777 has is its wider fuselage that can accommodate up to 10 abreast while the 787 is limited at 9 abreast. To make up that deficit you are talking about adding several more rows to the 787. Is this practical?

It would have to be longer, but I'm not sure exactly how long. The 777-9X would be 76.6m long - a 2.7m stretch from the 73.9m 777-300ER. A 787 with the same capacity as the 777-9X will probably have to be at least 80m long.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):
It seems that Boeing is on the horns of a dilemma. They can either make the 777 competitive with the A3510, or they can abandon the market for any passenger plane larger than the 787. Doing an upgrade of the 777 that will not make it competitive with the A3510 is to just send billions of dollars down a rathole.

Indeed. That is why they may as well do the upgrade properly.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 84):
A cheaper approach to the 777X wing, IMO, makes a lot of sense to maintain a competitive near-VLA footprint where the A350-1000 cannot touch in terms of raw capacity. We also do not expect the A380 to go CFRP wing to try to kill the metal wing 777X.

I don't believe a "cheaper" approach will make the 777X competitive with the A350-1000. If it isn't, it'll just be wasted money. Either do the extensive upgrade as proposed by Mr Andersen, or do an all new aircraft. Doing something half hearted would be a waste of money.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
With the MAX, the 777X and the especially the 748 Yellowstone has been burried. I would have been a convincing product setup. But the current band-aid philosopy Boeing has really screwed their own intention (have you noticed that all three of these projects just aim to "fix" some old, great legacy programs? Two of them even largely overlapping?).

It's not a band aid solution. It's a legitimate business decision. Sometimes it is not necessary to launch an all new aircraft, especially when an upgrade is quite capable of providing competition to its opponent. The 777X is such an example. It will be competitive (depending on how far they take the improvements), and it will cost less than an all new aircraft.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
IMO it is the weak part of the A350 series. A lot of airlines probably would prefer a less capable entry-level widebody. That is the reason, why the 787 family spaning up to 77W would be so compelling. Such a 787X would not cost more than the 777X, but the long term success would be guaranteed....

 

Less capable (range wise) but more efficient, or more capable but less efficient?

The 787-8 is the former. The A350-800 is the latter. If the 787 was designed to be scaled up to 777-300ER size in the first place, it won't be as efficient a 767/A330 replacement aircraft as it is now, but it'll have more range.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
It has to be fixed now...

No it does not, because Boeing have another family of aircraft that can be used for such a purpose: the 777.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
Looks like the 748 product strategy team had no idea of the plans the 777 product strategy team could come up some years later...

I don't believe time machines are commonly available as yet.

Quoting TP313 (Reply 92):
That + 10% more passengers + high degree of commonality with previous 777 versions,
would make a pretty good case for the "777X-cheap" over the 350-1000, either for airlines that already operate the 777 and/or for those that need the extra payload/range (even w/o a stretch).
By doing a limited investment Boeing would end up with a very competitive airliner, even if it would not be the efficiency standard for most missions (in that market sector).

That may be, but I'm not convinced that the "cheaper" upgrade would be sufficient to bridge the efficiency gulf between the 777-300ER and the A350-1000. A more comprehensive upgrade of the 777X can produce a much more efficient aircraft.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 96):
If Boeing procede with the 777-8X then it could be in serious danger of becoming the 350-800 of the 777X lineup - underperforming, unloved and unwanted. A 787-10HGW would perform far bettter but would be duplicating much of the engineering and financial demands of the 777-9x - I suspect they cant do both.

Fair point. At present there is still a distinct difference between the 777-8X and the 787-10: range. If Boeing can increase the 787-10's range, then the base 777-8X wouldn't really have a purpose anymore. However, Boeing are also planning on an ultra long range version: the 777-8LX. I would imagine that the 777-8 frame would also form the basis of the 777F replacement. I think that even if the base 777-8X doesn't sell well, the -8LX and -8F would still make it a worthwhile investment, particularly when it is piggy-backed onto the 777-9X.

If Boeing were only doing the 777-8X as a stand alone project, I would absolutely agree that there's not much sense in doing so. But they're not.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-09-27 09:34:58 and read 16044 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):

IMO it is the weak part of the A350 series. A lot of airlines probably would prefer a less capable entry-level widebody. That is the reason, why the 787 family spaning up to 77W would be so compelling. Such a 787X would not cost more than the 777X, but the long term success would be guaranteed....

I’ve mostly stayed out of this thread, but I’m getting tired of reading that there is a possibility of the 787 legitimately reaching the capacity of the 77W and now the statement that it would be a guaranteed success makes me want to speak up. It won’t, it’s not going to happen, the design can’t be stretched that much without significant revisions. It’s not even being considered. A google search of 787-11 shows that no one is talking about it outside of A.net. The 787-10 is struggling to get enough traction to be launched. A 787-11 would involve such massive revisions over the 787 and push the design so far out of its optimized region that it is sure to be a sales flop.

I’ll try to explain why. Most airplanes design about 10% extra capability in the initial design to allow for stretches and modifications over the course of the lifetime of the airplane. That means that the packs are oversized, the hydraulic system has extra capacity, the flight control surfaces are larger than necessary, the electrical generators produce more Kilowatts than needed, etc. That allows for stretches that were not initially planned. On the 787, they knew they were already going larger with the 787-8 being the same size as the 767-300, which meant that there was no legitimate 757 replacement. Boeing made it one of their objectives to make the 787-8 as light as possible, so early in the design process, they didn’t leave extra room for growth outside of the 787-3, 787-8 and 787-9. They didn’t leave margin in the design for future stretches, because design margin means bigger pumps, generators, actuators, longer gear etc which means more weight and less efficiency. It helps the 787 get the 20% cost improvement over the 767-300 and still have a hope at coming close to having an acceptable CASM/RASM ratio to cover longer range 757 routes.

My point is that if you keep scaling up the 787, it isn’t going to work well. It isn’t a simple stretch where all you have to do is update the control laws, add a tail skid, strengthen the gear & wing, and insert fuselage plugs. The 787-10 would like require significant systems revisions to upsize hydraulic pumps & reservoirs, electrical generators, pneumatic systems, flight control actuators, etc which means it is more than a simple stretch.

Few airplanes can effectively compete over a 200,000lbs MTOW range. The 777 is the best there is, but the light weight 777-200 was hardly a successful airplane. Airbus is trying to do it with the A350. Sales are a bit soft for the A350-800 and A350-1000, but it is working. The essential point is that Airbus knew from the start they were going to do that. Boeing tried not to destroy the 787-8 market by putting too much capability in the airplane. Since there isn't extra margin the small 787 is selling reasonably well, but it has hurt the possibility of a 787-10.

If you want to see a similar strategy, Boeing offered the 737-600 thru 737-800 initially. An important customer asked for a further stretch and the sales flop 737-900 happened. It took additional MTOW and systems revisions to get the 737-900ER sufficient MTOW to make it more than a niche player. A 787-10 would be more like a 737-900. They can work to increase MTOW and get something like a 737-900ER but its demand looks soft which is why we aren't seeing it launched. A 787-11 looks beyond possibility.

You are welcome to agree or disagree with the logic, but I don’t agree that the right thing to do is stretch the 787 and kill off any attempt at using the 777 basic architecture.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):

Looks like the 748 product strategy team had no idea of the plans the 777 product strategy team could come up some years later...

Is there something wrong with building the most capable and efficient freighter in the world? The freight market is down right now. If it comes back and an operator wants new build intercontinental freight capability, they only have two choices: 777F or 747-8F.

[Edited 2012-09-27 10:24:33]

[Edited 2012-09-27 10:29:09]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-27 10:04:56 and read 15977 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
But the current band-aid philosopy Boeing has really screwed their own intention (have you noticed that all three of these projects just aim to "fix" some old, great legacy programs? Two of them even largely overlapping?).

The initial product of almost every major Boeing design has been a flop, by that perspective. The initial 707, the 727-100, the 737-100, the 747-100, the 777-200, and the 787-8 are all the ugly step-children of their respective families. Only the 757-200 and 767-200 were really the shining starts (and their stretches are very close behind).

The "band aids" are where all the great aircraft came from.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
I don't see how the lead time actually impact the attractiveness of the Yellowstone product setup. Boeing could work towards those plans always instead of working against them...

Yellowstone was a technology family developed more than a decade ago. Technology moves on.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 90):
I guess with the struts you assume new engines. Well they could just stay with the thing they have in a new conform version: AFAIK the GE90X would use the same fan dia, why not make it so you can keep the strut and nacelle intact?

If you hold the same nacelle you don't allow them to play with the outer moldlines...that means not applying all the aerodynamics developed for the 787 nacelle. As soon as you change the nacelle (even just the inlet) you're driven to a new strut too.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 93):
In very nearly half a decade since 2007, the 748F has chalked up sales of just four aircraft.

Aircraft sales are cyclical. If we're allowed to pick and choose the time window of interest, you can make any aircraft look like a terrible seller.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
How does a new wing address ground clearance issues?

The ground clearance issue is caused by rotation angles at takeoff. If you have a new wing you can change the wing incidence angle, which directly changes the required rotation angle.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-27 10:06:41 and read 15985 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
Looks like the 748 product strategy team had no idea of the plans the 777 product strategy team could come up some years later...

Boeing had been shopping larger 747s since the EIS of the 777-300. Even as they started work on the 777-300ER, they were also pitching the 747X and 747X Stretch. But those were aimed at competing with the A380-800 (and maybe the A340-600).

The 747 Advanced was announced around the time the 777-300ER entered service and within a year was formally launched as the 747-8. At the time of that announcement, Airbus was working on the "A330NG" as their response to the 787 and had no real response to the 777 (as the A340 Enhanced program had failed to secure customers).

Boeing and their customers were already committed to the 747-8 program by the time Airbus announced the A350XWB in mid-2006. And even then, Boeing wavered on building the passenger model until LH committed to buying at least 20 of them later that year.

So yes, I expect the 777 Product Team felt pretty complacent in late 2005 as they looked to own the ~300-400 seat long-haul market until they launched Y3. And I expect the 747 Product Team felt pretty hopeful that the 747-8 would be able to create it's own market between 400 and 450 seats.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-27 10:59:47 and read 15913 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
The "787X" will require more work to make it competitive. If that were not the case, Boeing would be stupid not to be doing it. There has to be a reason why they're doing the 777X instead of the 787X

Boeing must have learnt a lot since the launch of 787 and today's knowledge base is vastly different than yesterday's. My guess is this is what is agitating Boeing. Time shifts very fast and incidentally, the following is an interesting demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmwwrGV_aiE

and the vastly popular original 2006 one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHWTLA8WecI&feature=related

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
I don't believe a "cheaper" approach will make the 777X competitive with the A350-1000. If it isn't, it'll just be wasted money. Either do the extensive upgrade as proposed by Mr Andersen, or do an all new aircraft. Doing something half hearted would be a waste of money.

Boeing must decide that a metal wing is good enough to compete or they would not be agitated. In biz, it is always about trade offs. By the logic of not doing half hearted, would an all new trumps the extensive upgrade?



Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
The 787-10 is struggling to get enough traction to be launched.

Can you substantiate that? Leeham said "Boeing officials bragged that this model would have superior economics and would be an “A330-300 killer.” It would also replace the 777-200ER."
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...7-10-to-come-later-than-suggested/

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: seabosdca
Posted 2012-09-27 11:08:49 and read 15871 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
The 787-10 is struggling to get enough traction to be launched.

I think this has more to do with delivery dates and lack of slots than the product, just as with the A350-1000 and its lack of orders. (As opposed to the A350-800, which is actually a weaker product and which I expect will either be killed or sell less than 50 copies.)

You may be right that increasing maximum weight or further stretching the 787 will be difficult, but the 787-10 should require minimal change, and should generate substantial economic benefit. I think once availability improves you will see it launch and get quite a few orders.

[Edited 2012-09-27 11:13:23]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-27 11:39:43 and read 15772 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
The 787-10 is struggling to get enough traction to be launched.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 103):
I think this has more to do with delivery dates and lack of slots than the product...

Since it's also going to be a straight stretch of the 787-9, I can see potential customers wanting to wait and see how the 787-9 meets her numbers during NAMS testing. That way, Boeing will be able to very accurately predict the performance of the 787-10 and airlines will be able to have a very high degree of confidence in their own simulations.

Also, the real competition for the 787-10 will be the A350-900, so I can see airlines waiting for the NAMS data from that program, as well, so they can make the most accurate comparison they can between the two.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-27 12:09:27 and read 15663 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
The 787-10 would like require significant systems revisions to upsize hydraulic pumps & reservoirs, electrical generators, pneumatic systems, flight control actuators, etc which means it is more than a simple stretch.

If you mean the 787-10 B has been labeled it as a simple stretch as it has the same MTOW as the 787-9. I agree you need to upgrade the pacs as you have 35 more pax and those seats with IFE etc also require a bit more electrical power. But that must be almost nothing compared to the consumption of things like de-ice, back-up hydralics, avionics etc. Why " hydraulic pumps & reservoirs, electrical generators, flight control actuators" needs up-gauging with identical wings, empennage, gear and a longer tailarm I don't understand, I can't see a single force going up. The OEI power of the engines would increase due to higher drag from a longer body (or you get worse field performance for same power) but your tail arm is so much longer the rudder force should stay the same or be less. HTP forces should be less, high lift forces go slightly up if V1/V2 increases and aileron the same.

In short, except for an enlarged cabin driving bigger pacs requiring more KW (as they have electrical compressors) and the cabin taking some additional KW I don't see the beefing up outside those electrics and pacs, and I doubt the electric one. Cabin compressors, lighting and IFE are not KW eaters IMO, the starter-generators are dimensioned by other things. If wrong please enlighten me.

Now for a 270t 787-10 you need to work more, the biggest problem probably being MLG bogies space and that you need to spin the engines faster. But it has been done before, it is not a "shoot in the dark non autoclave CFRP bonding" adventure, it is known engineering done sigh times before. The wing-strecth of 3m has already been analyzed for the 789, should be know territory as well. That a 63m variant of the wing should be fine for 270t should be no doubt, CM (who was in the project) says the wing is spot on for 251t and 19t in addition raises the wingload from 680 to 730 kg/m2, the 77W flies around with 780kg/m2. Spanloading stays almost the same as the 789.


Now a 77W class 787 is another kettle of a fish, agree. I did not propose it, I just checked what a 8000nm 787-10 would look like, seems to make a lot of sense instead of a 777-8X and should be a low risk project. The end product would be a state of the art frame to compete with the A350-900. As it would be an end stretch product it has the chance to be one tick more efficient as well as the 350-900 has provisions for the -1000 as you write.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-09-27 12:13:08 and read 15651 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 102):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
The 787-10 is struggling to get enough traction to be launched.

Can you substantiate that? Leeham said "Boeing officials bragged that this model would have superior economics and would be an “A330-300 killer.” It would also replace the 777-200ER."
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...sted/

The 787-10 hasn't been launched and Boeing is not putting the resources behind getting it launched in the near term, hence the statement that it is struggling to get enough traction to be launched. It's been on the table for a few years, but no launch yet. That doesn't mean it won't be, just that it isn't getting off to an expeditions start for a variety of reasons.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ched-787-until-late-in-decade.html

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 103):

You may be right that increasing maximum weight or further stretching the 787 will be difficult, but the 787-10 should require minimal change, and should generate substantial economic benefit. I think once availability improves you will see it launch and get quite a few orders.

My comments were more geared towards a 787-11 in regards to the 77W capacity/payload. The 787-10 is not going to be like the 77W in capacity or payload.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-27 12:57:50 and read 15522 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
With the "787X", you're adding capacity and payload/range. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW.

Here is my first question.

Like a miracle the 777X would achieve exactly the same - with less MTOW.

There is no explanation, why that should work out. So in order to argue consistently I say, that the 787X would add capacity and range also without MTOW increase. If you want to scream at me because of that statement, first explain why the 777X could benefit from reduced weigth and the 787X would be plagued by increased weight. And no, a different gear is not a sufficiently valid explanation.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
The 787-10 as it is planned at present, does not have sufficient range to cover the 777-300ER replacement/A350-1000 competitor market.

And the 777X as it is planned at present has turned out too expensive.

Do you see how the present plans get changed all the time? And like all the discussions about the cfrp-winged 777X probably was for nothing, Boeings plans for the 787 could change all of a sudden too.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
A 787 with the same capacity as the 777-9X will probably have to be at least 80m long.

The first fundamental thing to understand is, that a A351 competitor would not have to be larger than the A351 itself. The 779X is so large, that it arguably will be operated side-by-side with the A351. So it is not even a competitor for the A351. The 779X would possess the 748 market and hand the 77W market to the A351. A large 787, that would approach the A351 size from below would be a much "closer" competitor.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
Sometimes it is not necessary to launch an all new aircraft, especially when an upgrade is quite capable of providing competition to its opponent.

Sometimes not. But not always.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
IMO it is the weak part of the A350 series. A lot of airlines probably would prefer a less capable entry-level widebody. That is the reason, why the 787 family spaning up to 77W would be so compelling. Such a 787X would not cost more than the 777X, but the long term success would be guaranteed....

Less capable (range wise) but more efficient, or more capable but less efficient?

The A358? Excessive capacity for the bulk of airlines at the cost of somewhat constraint efficiency...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 98):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 88):
Looks like the 748 product strategy team had no idea of the plans the 777 product strategy team could come up some years later...

I don't believe time machines are commonly available as yet.

Common. The day the A351 as cfrp aircraft was launched, only people in denial could have hoped, that the 77W without upgrade would keep its market.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
It won’t, it’s not going to happen, the design can’t be stretched that much without significant revisions.

I only say that your remark is about as applicable to the 787X as it is to the 779X... The idea I try to explain is, that the planned upgrades for the 777X are so far reaching and expensive, that the same effort put into the 787-family would yield a better A351 competitor. These would be significant revisions, I agree. But some people somehow seem to justify significant revisions only for the 777X...

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
Most airplanes design about 10% extra capability in the initial design to allow for stretches and modifications over the course of the lifetime of the airplane.

As you first assumption is so flawed, how could I believe the rest?

Without looking into the technical data of any aircraft I list from memory a number of aircraft, that were stretched far more than 10%. Other subjects that have also been increased more than 10% (I mean substantially more, in some cases probably doubled or trippled) are MTOW, range and payload of these aircraft:
- 737-100
- DC-9-10
- A319
- A340-200
- 777-200
- 787-8

I think you substantially underestimate the size and MTOW of the best 787 family member, that will be around. I bet, it will easily be as large and have the legs of the 77W.

I mean the today 787 family are high performance aircraft with ranges where any earlier aircraft needed upgrades only to match them. And it is 9 abreast. If you are allowed to spend it a new wing, it can be transformed into a real A351 competitor.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: scbriml
Posted 2012-09-27 14:38:07 and read 15311 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 100):
Aircraft sales are cyclical.

Of course, but four sales in five years is one heck of a trough. The depressed cargo market and the seemingly never ending financial crisis don't lend much weight to the claim that the 748F would keep the 748 program in orders since the 777X will likely kill off further sales of the 748i.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-27 14:51:48 and read 15279 times.

The 15 frame HX MoU and 4 frame UN MoU are worth about two years of production on top of the three-plus years they have in the passenger and freighter backlogs at the moment. I expect LH to also convert at least some of their options. So that gives Boeing around five years for the air cargo market to recover and start ordering again.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-28 06:48:13 and read 14759 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):

Thank you for the informative post.   

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 102):
Boeing must have learnt a lot since the launch of 787 and today's knowledge base is vastly different than yesterday's. My guess is this is what is agitating Boeing. Time shifts very fast and incidentally, the following is an interesting demonstration.

Those are indeed interesting tidbits. But while I get the point that technology is ever increasing exponentially, I fail to see the relevance. According to the article which is the subject of this thread, the "agitation" comes from internal arguments about how far to take the 777X upgrades. The 787 doesn't come into it at all, nor does - I might add - an all new replacement.

The fact that technology is ever expanding is precisely the reason why Boeing should take the 777X upgrades as far as they possibly can. The proposed prototype with 71m CFRP wings and all new engines, along with the 2.7m stretch and internal widening would produce an aircraft that has 21% better fuel burn per seat and 16% better cash operating cost per seat than the current class leading 777-300ER. I think Boeing would be silly not to take the opportunity to take such a leap forward in efficiency without the financial burden of developing an all new aircraft.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 102):
By the logic of not doing half hearted, would an all new trumps the extensive upgrade?

It would. But it would also cost a lot more. I am also not convinced that the technology is available as yet for Boeing to leap frog the A350 should they decide to go down the path of an all new aircraft. The way I see it, an upgrade to the existing 777 will take Boeing most of the way there, for possibly less than half of the development costs of an all new aircraft.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 102):
Can you substantiate that? Leeham said "Boeing officials bragged that this model would have superior economics and would be an “A330-300 killer.” It would also replace the 777-200ER."

The 787-9 would pretty much kill off the 777-200ER if it hasn't already been killed off by the latest A333, as will the A350-900. The 787-10 will have even better costs per seat, but its limitation is range. However, for routes that does not require the range of the 777-200ER, the 787-10 is a more than capable replacement; and where comparable range to the 777-200ER is needed, then the 787-8, 787-9, A350-800, A350-900 or A350-1000 will more than cover it.

The 777-300ER, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. Only the A350-1000 stands a chance at threatening the 777-300ER's position as the definitive large (possibly VLA depending on who you ask) widebody twin with trans-Pacific range. The 777-9X is Boeing's answer to the A350-1000.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
first explain why the 777X could benefit from reduced weigth and the 787X would be plagued by increased weight.

I already have in the previous thread relating to this subject. If you choose not to read what I post, that is your prerogative. Suffice it to say I shan't be repeating myself here.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
And the 777X as it is planned at present has turned out too expensive.

It will still be cheaper and easier than an all new aircraft or a "787X". Roseflyer in his excellent post has detailed the difficulties and limitations in stretching the 787 to become a 77W replacement/A350 competitor. Overcoming those isn't physically impossible, but would require extensive investment in redesigning components.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
A large 787, that would approach the A351 size from below would be a much "closer" competitor.

Assuming it has the range. If you have two aircraft from the same generation of the same family, the stretched version usually trades range for capacity. The A346 has less range than the A345. The 77W has less range than the 77L. The 773 has less range than the 772ER. The A321 has less range than the A320 or A319 ... need I go on?

The 787-10 at 68m long isn't quite as big as the A350-1000, and with the planned range of just 6900nm - it is going to be a very efficient medium haul aircraft, and a very capable A333 (or even A343) replacement. But it isn't an A350-1000 competitor nor a 77W replacement as it has neither the capacity nor the range. If you stretch it further than the -10, then either commonality will suffer due to the significant modifications required, or else it'll lack the range of even the 787-10.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
The A358? Excessive capacity for the bulk of airlines at the cost of somewhat constraint efficiency...

And that is precisely what the 787-8 would've been had Boeing followed your idea of designing the 787 to be capable of replacing the 77W.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
These would be significant revisions, I agree. But some people somehow seem to justify significant revisions only for the 777X...

The significant revisions for the 777X would dramatically increase its performance and fuel efficiency. It is also sized to be the A350-1000 competitor.

The 787 is not designed to be stretched to such an extent, and to do the extensive revisions that you propose would affect commonality between the 787 family and increase design and production costs. Out of designing an all new aircraft, doing the extensively revised 777X or the extensively revised "787X", the 787 based competitor seems like the least logical program to me, especially when Boeing already have a family of aircraft that is properly sized to be the 77W replacement/A350 competitor. That is the 777. Failing that, Boeing should look at going all-new, as a 787 based competitor would be too compromised.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
Without looking into the technical data of any aircraft I list from memory a number of aircraft, that were stretched far more than 10%. Other subjects that have also been increased more than 10% (I mean substantially more, in some cases probably doubled or trippled) are MTOW, range and payload of these aircraft:
- 737-100
- DC-9-10
- A319
- A340-200
- 777-200
- 787-8

You need to separate the 737 into three distinct generations, as they are not the same aircraft.

The 737-100 spawned the 737-200, which wasn't too much of a stretch over the -100. Then came the "Classics", which was optimised around the 737-300, with the 737-400 as the stretch and the 737-500 as the shrink. Then came the 737NG, which was a completely revised aircraft. If memory serves, the baseline 737NG is the 737-700, which had two stretches - the 737-800 and 737-900, and one shrink, the 737-600.

Likewise, the A319 was a shrink. The A320 was the baseline, and the A321 was the one and only stretch.

You mentioned that 777-200. That is the perfect example of an aircraft that was designed with bigger and more capable derivatives in mind. The 777-300 was already envisioned as early as 1992 when the original 777 development program was still in its infancy as the 747 Classic replacement. Boeing has also designed the 777 to be capable of longer range derivatives, and had been studying a 777-100X as early as 1995, along with 777-200X and 777-300X studies in 1996.

Result? The 777-200 and 777-200ER are more or less dead in the water today because the less capable A333 is lighter and burns less fuel per trip than the 777s, so on missions where both aircraft types are suitable, the A333 is the much more logical choice.

Boeing designed the 787 to be the light weight, highly efficient 767/A330 replacement aircraft. It cannot be both the most efficient 767/A330 replacement aircraft and a 77W replacement/A350-1000 competitor. If Boeing had made the 787 to be more capable at higher capacities and longer ranges, the 787-8 will likely be heavier and have more range, but also burn more fuel. That is not what Boeing were after when they designed the 787. They wanted an aircraft that is as light and efficient as possible as a replacement for current mid sized widebodies.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: deltadc9
Posted 2012-09-28 08:17:13 and read 14579 times.

I wonder if Boeing is intentionally letting Airbus pull the trigger on a clean sheet narrowbody first, as with the 350, so they can leapfrog them both after milking the 737 and 777 until they can evaluate and exceed the Airbus specs. If so, it's diabilical.

Seems like an agressive and risky strategy if that is in fact what they are doing.

They decided no for now on Y1 (Updated 737) and Y3 (updated 777 and 747-8) for reasons that have to be driven by some sort of overall strategy.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-28 08:33:32 and read 14534 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110):
And that is precisely what the 787-8 would've been had Boeing followed your idea of designing the 787 to be capable of replacing the 77W.

It is not my idea, that the 787 should have been designed as replacement of the 77W. You lay words into may mouth.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110):
The 787-10 at 68m long isn't quite as big as the A350-1000, and with the planned range of just 6900nm

It is not my idea that the 787-10 would be a A351 competitor. Not once I have been talking about the 781.

I mean it is perfectly ok to disagree, but it worries me that after all my posts you have not been able to just understand the idea, I try to explain (or - I failed to explain accurate enough - but that I would almost certainly rule out).

Let's make a survey:

Who agrees, that for the same effort Boeing planned to put into the Andersen 777X a 8000nm, 340 seat 787X could be done?

Consider, that the scope of the 777X would have been:

- New wings from cfrp scratch (the result would be a cfrp hybrid design!). Consider the certification efforts for the wing and the hybrid fuselage-wing mating

- Completely different and new wing planform. Again the certification efforts.

- Folding wings

- Stretched fuselage

- New fuselage interior design to allow better 10 abreast configurations

- Completely new engines

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110):
You need to separate the 737 into three distinct generations, as they are not the same aircraft.

So what. The 787X would also be another generation.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110):
You mentioned that 777-200. That is the perfect example of an aircraft that was designed with bigger and more capable derivatives in mind.

At that time the 744 occupied the space where the 777 eventually grew into. And despite the 744, the 777 was designed with all the basic assets to replace the 747 one day.

But still the range between 772 and 772LR has grown by 80% and the capacity has grown by 21%. These numbers somehow disqualify Roseflyer's analysis.

So why on earth should it not be possible to spend the 787 also 21% more capacity, if it already has the range-asset from the outset? Do you know that capacity scales up and down much easier than range?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Roseflyer
Posted 2012-09-28 09:21:17 and read 14436 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 99):
Most airplanes design about 10% extra capability in the initial design to allow for stretches and modifications over the course of the lifetime of the airplane.

As you first assumption is so flawed, how could I believe the rest?

Without looking into the technical data of any aircraft I list from memory a number of aircraft, that were stretched far more than 10%. Other subjects that have also been increased more than 10% (I mean substantially more, in some cases probably doubled or trippled) are MTOW, range and payload of these aircraft:
- 737-100
- DC-9-10
- A319
- A340-200
- 777-200
- 787-8

I think you substantially underestimate the size and MTOW of the best 787 family member, that will be around. I bet, it will easily be as large and have the legs of the 77W.

I mean the today 787 family are high performance aircraft with ranges where any earlier aircraft needed upgrades only to match them. And it is 9 abreast. If you are allowed to spend it a new wing, it can be transformed into a real A351 competitor.

My assumption is not flawed.

First off hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic, etc power by 10% is not equivalent to 10% increase in capacity. It is closer to 10% increase in MTOW, but even then it isn’t a linear relationship.

Secondly, based on MTOW which is the best estimate, here’s the numbers:

*737-100 saw an increase in MTOW of 16% with the 737-200 Advanced. The 737-300 required major system revisions just like I proposed.
*DC9 was originally designed with a -30 stretch included in the design. The -50 represents a 12% increase in MTOW over the -30. The MD-80 was a major revision.
*A319 is a shrink. Baseline was the A320. The A321 was an 18% increase in MTOW, yet it required more than a stretch. It got new flaps and a revised wing to help with the MTOW.
*A340-200 to A340-600 was a 30% increase in MTOW. It required again the major revisions like I detailed and ended up as an inefficient overweight design.
*777-200 I think I talked about that in my post as one of the few airplanes that did cover a 200,000lbs MTOW increase. This was done at the expense of the 777-200 which was relatively inefficient compared to the competition, which is something that Boeing didn’t repeat with the 787.

Most airplanes have a limited amount of MTOW increase that can be done before you get into major systems revisions. The MD-80 A340NG and 737-classic/NG were airplanes that had major systems revisions. A high MTOW 787-10 or a 787-11 would have to require major changes to the airplane which almost makes it a new family. Boeing put less margin in the 787 to begin with, so it just won’t work out well.

If you need to put a new wing on the 787 then that is a major revision. You also have to basically dump all the systems equipment and likely the type certification with it. Boeing is so far showing that starting with the 777 platform which is designed for the weights that are being proposed is better than trying to significantly scale up the 787.

You can propose a 787-11, but Boeing isn’t and Boeing engineers know more about airplane design than many armchair designers give them credit for.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 105):
If you mean the 787-10 B has been labeled it as a simple stretch as it has the same MTOW as the 787-9.

Sorry if I was a bit confusing. I was referring to a higher MTOW 787-10 and 787-11 idea that Rheinwaldner has been proposing.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-28 09:35:09 and read 14395 times.

The WSJ article suggests that Boeing may be leaning towards larger span metal wings(keeping 2/3rd of current wing), which is likely to result in 4% higher fuel burn relative to 777-9X with all new CFRP wings.

For many operators, like EK and AF with 10-abreast Y, that may be enough to make the B777-9X competitive against A351. It is going to come up short for operators with 9-abreast Y seating.

If GE is going to bear the cost of new engines, then Boeing is looking at a development cost of about $5 billion for 777-9X with metal wings. At $25 million operating profit per unit, the breakeven point is about 200 units. If my estimates are correct, then B777-9X with metal wings is a low risk project.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-28 10:02:43 and read 14329 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 114):
For many operators, like EK and AF with 10-abreast Y, that may be enough to make the B777-9X competitive against A351. It is going to come up short for operators with 9-abreast Y seating.

Well the 777X is only going to really work with 10-abreast Economy seating.

The real issue I see for the 777 and the 777X is that modern Business Class seating is 2+2+2, so the extra seat per row the 777 had over the A340 will no longer be applicable to the A350 as carriers update their hard product to a 2+2+2 configuration that fits as easily in the A350 (and 787).

IMO, Boeing needs the 777-9's plugs forward of the wing so they can add two rows of Business Class seating (for an extra 12 seats).

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-28 10:17:54 and read 14259 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
It is not my idea, that the 787 should have been designed as replacement of the 77W. You lay words into may mouth.

Then perhaps you can explain what you mean by

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 48):
I get that impression too. Which would have been a mistake.

Because it would be a clear case of silo-mentality, if they have constrained the design without any other reason, than to keep some clearance to the 777...

because if it was a "mistake" for Boeing not to design the 787 with the 77W replacement market in mind, then clearly the "right thing" would be to have such massive growth designed into the frame?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
It is not my idea that the 787-10 would be a A351 competitor. Not once I have been talking about the 781.

I was using it to illustrate the point that the 787-10 trades capacity for range, so the "787-11", if it is to be built, would have a better capacity and possibly better per seat costs, but I don't see it matching the range of the rest of the 787 family unless there are significant and costly improvements.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
Folding wings

Folding wingtips, not folding wings. Quite a difference there. If the folding wingtips are adopted, then it's only the raked wingtip that will fold. There will be no control surfaces affected.

Nevertheless, I don't believe it will be adopted on the new 777X wing as it will add unnecessary weight, cost and complexity.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
So why on earth should it not be possible to spend the 787 also 21% more capacity, if it already has the range-asset from the outset? Do you know that capacity scales up and down much easier than range?

Because if you add capacity, you trade range unless there is a major revision which will minimise or negate the trade off. A new composite wing for the 777X comprising of a more modern design that is both aerodynamically and structually more efficient and lower thrust engines with at least 10% lower TSFC than the GE90s currently used are what negates the trade off with the stretch on the 777X.

The 787 is already a majority composite aircraft. The 777 has only 10% composite by weight. It stands to reason that the 777 has a lot more to gain through the greater use of composites in a brand new wing than the 787 which already has a current state of the art composite wing compared to the 777's almost 20-year old alloy design.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
A high MTOW 787-10 or a 787-11 would have to require major changes to the airplane which almost makes it a new family. Boeing put less margin in the 787 to begin with, so it just won’t work out well.

You can propose a 787-11, but Boeing isn’t and Boeing engineers know more about airplane design than many armchair designers give them credit for.

  

Good point.

I don't get how an article about Boeing deciding how far to take the 777 upgrades spawned into a discussion about doing the "787X" instead. Boeing aren't doing that. They're doing the 777X. The only unknown at this stage is how far those upgrades will go.

[Edited 2012-09-28 10:26:30]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-28 10:24:51 and read 14256 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 107):
As you first assumption is so flawed, how could I believe the rest?

Without looking into the technical data of any aircraft I list from memory a number of aircraft, that were stretched far more than 10%. Other subjects that have also been increased more than 10%

I think you misunderstood Roseflyer. Clean sheets are typically built to handle 10% increase *without major redesign*. So, for example, the 737-700 becomes the 737-800 by inserting a fuselage plug and basically changing nothing else. This is drastically different than the major redesigns required to do things like the 737-300 to 737-700.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
Who agrees, that for the same effort Boeing planned to put into the Andersen 777X a 8000nm, 340 seat 787X could be done?

No me.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-28 10:56:12 and read 14175 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 115):
IMO, Boeing needs the 777-9's plugs forward of the wing so they can add two rows of Business Class seating (for an extra 12 seats).

Is that feasible and likely?

EK and AF both have 7-abreast J seats in 77W, which would continue to make 777-9X attractive to them even without the forward plug.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-28 11:16:42 and read 14125 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
Who agrees, that for the same effort Boeing planned to put into the Andersen 777X a 8000nm, 340 seat 787X could be done?

I do not believe that there is any argument that an 777X should be done. The argument is about metal or CFRP wing. So the discussion is really about whether Boeing should first do a metal wing 777X and save resources (including time to market) to do a major extension to the 787 family with a new wing and all the other structural enhancement that will yield a 787X family.

Assuming B only does the 777X, there will be a gap in its portfolio against A350-900. A dominating -900 can also drive strong sales of -1000 if the 777X is just competitive when the plane is filled. 787X as in -10HGW against -900 and -11 against -1000 will give Boeing equal footing in terms of overall product offer competitions. The lower risk 777-9X with metal wing can be in a class by itself that there is no foreseeable competition to its raw capacity.

Yes, I agree Boeing should do a 787X and not a CFRP 777X. The 787X will however come after a metal wing 777X as Boeing needs a product as well as production capacity to counter -1000 in the near term. Long term wise, I see sound biz arguments to have a strong 787 family with two distinct wings which was Boeing's plan in the first place.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110):
I think Boeing would be silly not to take the opportunity to take such a leap forward in efficiency without the financial burden of developing an all new aircraft.

As the topic suggests, Boeing is having a hard time trying not to be silly and I must assume there are good reasons.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-28 11:34:03 and read 14114 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 119):
Assuming B only does the 777X, there will be a gap in its portfolio against A350-900. A dominating -900 can also drive strong sales of -1000 if the 777X is just competitive when the plane is filled.

It is being reported that Boeing is likely to offer 323 seat B787-10 soon, which should affect A359 prospects as many carriers/routes don't need the range of A359.

It seems that Boeing will start work on 787-10 first, and will take a little longer to pull the trigger on B777-9X(2013?). Perhaps a 787-10HGW with a higher range/payload is likely in distant future.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-28 11:39:26 and read 14109 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 118):
EK and AF both have 7-abreast J seats in 77W, which would continue to make 777-9X attractive to them even without the forward plug.

Yes, airlines who will continue with 7-abreast Business Class will benefit from the 777X, however many customers consider that kind of product to be inferior to the herringbone (like DL, VS, NZ) or inverted-herringbone products (like QR, CX, LH).

Those who use the eight-abreast staggered (BA, UA, EY) would also benefit from the extra cabin width of the 777X.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-28 11:44:57 and read 14079 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 120):
It is being reported that Boeing is likely to offer 323 seat B787-10 soon, which should affect A359 prospects as many carriers/routes don't need the range of A359.

I am a believer of -10 and I believe B should launch it asap, even ahead of the 777X. However I have a hard time seeing Boeing, which is choked by the -8 and -9 production ramp, ramp -10 production capacity in near term. I suspect this is the biggest reason that they may put the -10 after 777X. My discussions above assume that the current wing will yield a family of -8, -9 and -10. A new wing 787X family will support -10HGW and -11.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-28 12:04:00 and read 14075 times.

I want to believe that Boeing has developed the 787-9 and 787-10 in parallel the past few years (since pushing the 787-9 MTOW to the point that the 787-10 would have the same), so I would like to think that the 787-10 could EIS anytime after the 787-9.

The reality of the situation will be probably a couple of years delay, both to know how the 787-9 performs and to not see a lull in the production line due to order conversions.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-29 03:48:18 and read 13565 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 119):
Assuming B only does the 777X, there will be a gap in its portfolio against A350-900. A dominating -900 can also drive strong sales of -1000 if the 777X is just competitive when the plane is filled. 787X as in -10HGW against -900 and -11 against -1000 will give Boeing equal footing in terms of overall product offer competitions. The lower risk 777-9X with metal wing can be in a class by itself that there is no foreseeable competition to its raw capacity.

Boeing's strategy to counter the A350-900 appears to be enveloping it from both ends - the 787-9 at the lower end, and the 777-8X at the other. Whether that works or not remains to be seen.

I agree the "787-10ER" might appear a few years down the track along with the first upgrade of the 787, but for reasons Roseflyer mentioned above, I don't believe we will ever see the "787-11". As he rightly points out, the only place were "787-11" is mentioned is here on airliners.net, which leads me to believe that the "787-11" is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of armchair experts. Boeing's competitor to the A350-1000 is the 777-9X. I don't believe any 787 derivative will supplant the 777-300ER (in terms of its combination of capacity and range, although it will no doubt burn a lot less fuel per trip), let alone the 777-9X, although if Boeing does do a longer range "787-10ER", then the base 777-8X would be all but dead, leaving the ultra long haul 777-8LX and a possible "777-8F".

For now, however, all that is speculation. Wait until Boeing gets the 787-9 and the mid ranged 787-10 out the door before thinking about increasing the range of those aircraft later.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 119):
Yes, I agree Boeing should do a 787X and not a CFRP 777X. The 787X will however come after a metal wing 777X as Boeing needs a product as well as production capacity to counter -1000 in the near term. Long term wise, I see sound biz arguments to have a strong 787 family with two distinct wings which was Boeing's plan in the first place.

I believe Boeing should do a CFRP winged 777X that will last them until the Y3 enters service, perhaps around the early 2030s. If Boeing takes the 777X upgrades far enough, it should be able to hold its own against the A350-1000 for the next decade.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-29 05:05:59 and read 13496 times.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
A high MTOW 787-10 or a 787-11 would have to require major changes to the airplane which almost makes it a new family.

I don´t disagree. The first A350´s have been planned as a new family, though the scope was more or less the same as for the 777X. But we definitively speak about major changes. Like for the 777X.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
If you need to put a new wing on the 787 then that is a major revision.

Agreed, a major revision. Like for the 777X.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
You also have to basically dump all the systems equipment and likely the type certification with it.

Certainly not all the systems. The software stuff could stay which is a large chunk of the systems. And the highly electrical architecture scales better upwards than e.g. the A330 system architecture (which would have been beefed up for the initial A350 too).

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 113):
You can propose a 787-11, but Boeing isn’t and Boeing engineers know more about airplane design than many armchair designers give them credit for.

Agreed. But whatever Boeing does, some armchair designer has proposed it before. Let´s have the fun, and see whether the reality will confirm our armchair analysis or not.

In just one week news have popped up, how Boeing has revised two of their plans about the 777X and the 781. This means, that Boeing itself are still in the "strategy finding" phase. Don´t be fooled by strongly expressed confidence in their talk...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 116):
I don't get how an article about Boeing deciding how far to take the 777 upgrades spawned into a discussion about doing the "787X" instead. Boeing aren't doing that. They're doing the 777X.

Maybe they will rethink their current standpoint? Maybe tomorrow, maybe in one month, two months, half a year or one year. It is not unseen that they bury previous plans and start pursuing another strategy...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 117):
I think you misunderstood Roseflyer. Clean sheets are typically built to handle 10% increase *without major redesign*.

In that case he misunderstood me. Because from post #1 I never have spoken about anything else than a *major* 787 redesign. About as major as the 777X....

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-29 07:10:52 and read 13320 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 125):
Maybe they will rethink their current standpoint? Maybe tomorrow, maybe in one month, two months, half a year or one year. It is not unseen that they bury previous plans and start pursuing another strategy...

In the highly unlikely event that they decide not to launch the 777X, then the only other alternative would be to go with an all new aircraft to replace the 777. I don't believe any 787 derivative will ever be able to supplant the 777-9X for reasons already mentioned above.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-29 07:46:39 and read 13309 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 78):
Boeing used to be willing to take big gambles; that is what put them on the top of the commercial aircraft business in the first place.

SUH has described Boeing as being "gun-shy" on the 777X due to the 787 fiasco, and personally I don't blame Boeing if they are. Other than keeping Tim Clark happy (which probably won't happen anyway), is there any reason for Boeing to move forward on the 777X all that quickly?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
Nobody mass produces autoclaves at that scale...they're custom machines or, at best, ultra-low run. There's probably about a dozen on the entire planet capable of doing 787/A350-panel sized pieces right now. The problem isn't really technology or process, it's that you're trying to built a *giant* pressure vessel. We're basically talking about submarine hulls (except for tension rather than compression).

Just wondering - are the spars as much as an issue? Clearly they don't need the volume that a panel does, but they need as much length as possible. Are the spars made using similar processes and the same autoclaves as the panels are, or are different ones used?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 117):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 112):
Who agrees, that for the same effort Boeing planned to put into the Andersen 777X a 8000nm, 340 seat 787X could be done?

No(t) me.

I'm not sure which side you are taking. You've argued that the margin doesn't exist for the 787X to be a relatively simple project, and you've argued that the Uber-777X requires a huge investment in autoclaves.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-09-29 08:17:00 and read 13230 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 126):
I don't believe any 787 derivative will ever be able to supplant the 777-9X.

Me too.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2012-09-29 09:06:39 and read 13163 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 127):
SUH has described Boeing as being "gun-shy" on the 777X due to the 787 fiasco, and personally I don't blame Boeing if they are.

This is one of the reports that have led me to question whether or not Boeing has the same courage (for want of a better word) to tackle huge risks that they have demonstrated in the past.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: flylku
Posted 2012-09-29 09:09:19 and read 13149 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 35):
There is no shortage, except of oil that can be prospected for, extracted and sold for $60 to $70 a barrel that leaves something for the shareholders and cash to find replacement reserves.

Agreed. The low hanging fruit - the oil that cost almost nothing to find - has been exploited. Now we drop pipe 10,000 feet to the bottom of the ocean and then another 5000 below the sea floor to find what is left. Eventually that wont be available. Barron's is suggesting 200-300 a barrel oil in the next 10 years. All I know is that I don't know what it will be but odds are it will be more than it is today. How much more is a big factor in how much an airline can justify in the cost of a more efficient airliner.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-29 10:33:50 and read 13069 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 127):
SUH has described Boeing as being "gun-shy" on the 777X due to the 787 fiasco, and personally I don't blame Boeing if they are. Other than keeping Tim Clark happy (which probably won't happen anyway), is there any reason for Boeing to move forward on the 777X all that quickly?
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 129):
This is one of the reports that have led me to question whether or not Boeing has the same courage (for want of a better word) to tackle huge risks that they have demonstrated in the past.

I would expect that it's the 747-8 that is causing Boeing more worry than the 787. That program is in a forward-loss position at the moment because Boeing does not feel they can sell enough passenger and freighter models to recover the billions they have sunk into bringing it to market.

Also, Tim Clark said he'd buy the 747-8 if it could fly 8300nm. Once GE has the engines at or better than spec, the MTOW boost should give him that, and yet he's now said he has no interest in the type. Instead, he wants a larger 777 that I expect won't be able to fly as far as the current 777-300ER at full payload.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-29 12:52:47 and read 12895 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 131):
Instead, he wants a larger 777 that I expect won't be able to fly as far as the current 777-300ER at full payload.

It is pretty clear it will, the present 77W has a pretty high drag when flying legs when it need to be filled to MTOW. The wing is on the small side for such trips. The drag at mid cruise weight of 290t is some 33klbf vs the 35Js drag of 27klbf at the same part of a 8000nm ESAD. Get the projected 71m wing on there and your drag goes down below 30klbf.

On the available info on the 777-9X is should fly a spec range of more then 8300nm, it's MZFW range should be slightly higher as well or at least equal (I have the -9X as equal to the 77W at 5600nm with the known data).

[Edited 2012-09-29 13:02:49]

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-29 13:00:56 and read 12874 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 127):
Just wondering - are the spars as much as an issue? Clearly they don't need the volume that a panel does, but they need as much length as possible. Are the spars made using similar processes and the same autoclaves as the panels are, or are different ones used?

Spars are made using a very similar process. As far as I know, they use the same autoclaves but that's just because they're there...if you were just doing spars you could go with a much smaller diameter (length isn't as much a problem as diameter).

Quoting Revelation (Reply 127):
I'm not sure which side you are taking. You've argued that the margin doesn't exist for the 787X to be a relatively simple project, and you've argued that the Uber-777X requires a huge investment in autoclaves.

I'm answering rheinwalder's question:
"Who agrees, that for the same effort Boeing planned to put into the Andersen 777X a 8000nm, 340 seat 787X could be done?"

I think the 340-seat 787X would require effort than the 777X.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-29 13:26:17 and read 12813 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 133):
I think the 340-seat 787X would require effort than the 777X.

Ok, got it now. Thanks for the answers!

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-29 14:26:54 and read 12737 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 133):
I think the 340-seat 787X would require effort than the 777X.

Even if true, may be for Boeing's part only. As a project, the 787X can use the A350 engines which mitigate schedule risks substantially.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-29 17:04:04 and read 12587 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 135):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 133):
I think the 340-seat 787X would require effort than the 777X.

Even if true, may be for Boeing's part only.

Well, yes, but since it's Boeing that has to launch the plane (or not), isn't that the part that matters?

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-09-29 18:28:45 and read 12431 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 126):
In the highly unlikely event that they decide not to launch the 777X, then the only other alternative would be to go with an all new aircraft to replace the 777. I don't believe any 787 derivative will ever be able to supplant the 777-9X for reasons already mentioned above.

It is not highly unlikey at all. Short term thinking due to the current economic conditions is dominating much capital planning at the moment. Everybody agrees it is short term thinking that loses in the long term, but the evidence is in the investment that is occurring. Many of the economies around the global are barely expanding or even shrinking. By cancelling the 797X, Boeing saves a fortune, and, in the short term, makes some very handsome profits from the 77W. They already have the MAX and 787 as committed programs with comitted sales, and plenty of work to do on both of them still.

Technical arguments are often relegated to second place behind financial ones.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-09-29 20:42:26 and read 12260 times.

In Boeings defense I can understand they want to take the max time available to make the right decision, whatever they decide they have then pulled their shot and have to live with it for say 20 years (except for a 777+ which is a stop-gap). It really depends what airlines are in a hurry to decide on a 350-400 seater just now and how inclined they are to stay at the lower end of that scale.

We know EK don*t want to wait, they even want the solution in 2017, before any 777X except a + would be available, they want more pax then the 35J can offer however so want run away easily. Who else do they risk with a late decision?

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-09-29 22:43:57 and read 12151 times.

Bottom line is there really isn't a rush for the 777x and they can afford to take their time. Once in a while, they float the 777x idea as something tangible to get some buzz going but I doubt it's even made it as far as paper airplane at this point.

They probably have as much as a couple of years before they have to pull the trigger on this project. Getting the MAX and 789 right and getting their current production rates up are much more urgent and critical than nailing down specs for the 777x.

When they do feel the need, I'm betting on the biggest damned twin ever.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-09-29 23:50:47 and read 12094 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 79):
Nobody mass produces autoclaves at that scale...they're custom machines or, at best, ultra-low run. There's probably about a dozen on the entire planet capable of doing 787/A350-panel sized pieces right now. The problem isn't really technology or process, it's that you're trying to built a *giant* pressure vessel. We're basically talking about submarine hulls (except for tension rather than compression).

Nobody "mass" produces autoclaves.
The Petrochem industry, though, does build pressure vessels as big as, or bigger than, these autoclaves on a very regular basis.....

Rgds

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-09-30 03:02:47 and read 11866 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 137):
Technical arguments are often relegated to second place behind financial ones.

Fair point. However, Boeing have stated that they remain 'absolutely committed' to the 777X program, so unless there is a sudden and drastic change to Boeing's financial situation, I can't see it not being built. It's a question of how far those upgrades go (and by implication, how much they're willing to allocate to the program) and when they'll launch it.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 139):
Bottom line is there really isn't a rush for the 777x and they can afford to take their time.

  

I agree.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: PW100
Posted 2012-09-30 03:55:47 and read 11798 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 140):
The Petrochem industry, though, does build pressure vessels as big as, or bigger than, these autoclaves on a very regular basis

To be fair though, those are usually sititng vertical. That completely changes the dynamics of homogeneous condition control throughout the pressure chamber (which is quite different to start with . . . ).

PW100

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-09-30 04:07:52 and read 11786 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 142):
To be fair though, those are usually sititng vertical. That completely changes the dynamics of homogeneous condition control throughout the pressure chamber (which is quite different to start with . . . ).

They are. But you've made the point. IMO it's the condition control that is the crucial technology in an autoclave, not the pressure vessel aspects per se.

Rgds

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-30 07:41:30 and read 11618 times.

Since EK is the largest buyer of 777-300ERs, I still think just slapping GE9X engines on the plane would be sufficient, as that would give EK the ability to fill all 354 seats to LAX and SFO. Even if EK is the only 77W customer after 2017, they'll still take a couple a month until Y3 is ready in the 2030s.  

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-09-30 08:04:46 and read 11543 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 139):
Bottom line is there really isn't a rush for the 777x and they can afford to take their time.

It seems then that Boeing senior management is a bit wrong-footed on their messaging both internally and externally.

The external messaging from Conner is that the program is not being slowed, yet we read that Andersen left out of frustration with the pace then had to be asked to come back. We've also seen Albaugh being shown the door very quickly after not a particularly long stay on the job, amidst some suggestions that his approach to the scope and timing of various programs wasn't being accepted.

I don't know where to put the blame for this. Perhaps these folks just misread the support they had at higher levels, or perhaps facts and circumstances changed and these folks just couldn't adjust to these changes, or perhaps they were simply misled.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-30 08:09:08 and read 11543 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 140):
Nobody "mass" produces autoclaves.
The Petrochem industry, though, does build pressure vessels as big as, or bigger than, these autoclaves on a very regular
basis....

In addition to horizontal vs. vertical, how many of the petrochem autoclaves have full-diameter doors?

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-09-30 08:47:20 and read 11458 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 146):
In addition to horizontal vs. vertical, how many of the petrochem autoclaves have full-diameter doors?

Not many  

Rgds

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-09-30 10:30:08 and read 11330 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 144):
Since EK is the largest buyer of 777-300ERs, I still think just slapping GE9X engines on the plane would be sufficient, as that would give EK the ability to fill all 354 seats to LAX and SFO. Even if EK is the only 77W customer after 2017, they'll still take a couple a month until Y3 is ready in the 2030s.

Minimal change, perhaps with internal widening, 77W-NEO can not be ruled out as a low risk/decent reward option. One would think this option should enable about 7-8% lower fuel burn than the current 77W. Could it be done fast enough to match the EIS of A351?

I still think Boeing is more likely to do a bigger revision to 77W, with longer fuselage, internal widening, and larger metal wing.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-30 12:50:59 and read 11133 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 148):
I still think Boeing is more likely to do a bigger revision to 77W, with longer fuselage, internal widening, and larger metal wing.

I also believe Boeing should go as big as it can with the following optimization constraints:
- Larger wing but not heavier wing
- Same fan size but new engine core
- Same MTOW (ok may be a bit more) but longer fuse with less fuel.
- Enhance manufacturing processes, such as more welding and less rivets, to lower production cost and probably weight.

It will be a faster time to market 777X with no foreseeable direct competition (except the 748i as a casualty)

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: PW100
Posted 2012-09-30 14:07:41 and read 11020 times.

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 148):
I still think Boeing is more likely to do a bigger revision to 77W, with longer fuselage, internal widening, and larger metal wing

Wouldn't they need a 110k engine at minimum to do just that?
I'm not sure if the GEnX would scale to 110k? I'm inclined to think not - at least not without a billion dollar investment. Again, not sure, so this is more a question from me than a statement.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 144):
I still think just slapping GE9X engines on the plane would be sufficient, as that would give EK the ability to fill all 354 seats to LAX and SFO. Even if EK is the only 77W customer after 2017, they'll still take a couple a month until Y3 is ready in the 2030s

Would GE be willing to spend Billions to come up with a next gen GE90 at 110k (or even higher) as a bridge engine until Boeing hangs a PW/RR GTF on a Y3? Maybe yes, if EK would otherwise take a couple of RR powered 351's per month until Y3 is ready . . .

Rgds,
PW100

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-30 14:19:25 and read 11021 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 150):
Would GE be willing to spend Billions to come up with a next gen GE90 at 110k (or even higher) as a bridge engine until Boeing hangs a PW/RR GTF on a Y3?

GE is already working on the GE9X, which will see an improved version of the GEnx compressor combined with a second generation of the advanced eCore (Gen 1 will be used on the LEAP engine). I see no reason that can't be designed around a 115k engine.

And Saj Ahmad has tweeted that GE have secured an exclusive deal to power the 777X, so I see no reason why they would not be one of the favorites for Y3 whichever path Boeing takes.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-09-30 16:53:12 and read 11041 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 151):
GE is already working on the GE9X, which will see an improved version of the GEnx compressor combined with a second generation of the advanced eCore (Gen 1 will be used on the LEAP engine). I see no reason that can't be designed around a 115k engine.

Possibly not, but what is GE to make of the mixed messages coming out of Boeing at the moment. GE is very strict on making an ROI, it doesn't like making any guesses. At present, it has a real risk that it could waste money on a project that is internally the subject of an ongoing debate, and probably internal political power struggles.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-30 17:48:29 and read 10979 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 152):
Possibly not, but what is GE to make of the mixed messages coming out of Boeing at the moment.

Whether the GE9X is the only engine that hangs off the current 777 or the only engine that hangs off the 777X, GE is going to continue to be the sole supplier of power.

So either way Boeing moves, they're going to sell engines.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-09-30 18:19:24 and read 10929 times.

Sure, the issue is, do they want to invest in a significant upgrade of that engine when they don't know if that investment will pay off. At the moment, I am betting they have no more idea than we do which way Boeing will jump. That engine that hanges off the 777 at the moment is doing a very good job just as it is.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-09-30 18:36:01 and read 10907 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 152):
At present, it has a real risk that it could waste money on a project that is internally the subject of an ongoing debate, and probably internal political power struggles.

If Boeing decides to keep the wing metal and extend the length of the fuse, the thrust requirement may not be reduced, but Boeing sure needs a state of the art core with the latest advancements for the best possible efficiency.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-30 18:52:34 and read 10877 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 154):
Sure, the issue is, do they want to invest in a significant upgrade of that engine when they don't know if that investment will pay off.

Well if they don't launch the GE9X, then they're going to be dependent mainly on the 777 Freighter, as I don't expect the 777-200LR or 777-300ER to sell strongly with the current GE90 once the A350-900 and A350-1000 are in service.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-09-30 19:36:26 and read 10811 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 156):
Well if they don't launch the GE9X, then they're going to be dependent mainly on the 777 Freighter, as I don't expect the 777-200LR or 777-300ER to sell strongly with the current GE90 once the A350-900 and A350-1000 are in service.

Given current backlogs, I'm not sure that's such a problem.

777-200LR: 58 orders / 54 delivered = 4 backlog
777-300ER: 619 ordered / 355 delivered = 264 backlog

So even if 777-200LR/300ER orders drop to zero today, GE still has 268 shipsets to go (or about 65% more than they've shipped now), plus all the support and spares for that fleet.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-09-30 19:48:50 and read 10780 times.

A hard nosed CFO might decide that the 737MAX and 787 are where the near term profits are. The 737 has a loyal customer base, with good short and long term orders. Airbus has no direct competitor for the 787. Despite the painful process of bringing the 787 to market, it is a good plane at a popular size. The approval of the 10 is to be moved forward, ahead of the 777X. The VLA is not going to make them any money, the 777, just as it is, is easy money for the short to mid term.

So, go where the easy money is, with the smaller planes and 777. It's going to upset some people, but be popular with the shareholders. Once that is sorted out, the profits are rolling in and the global economy stabilises, look to the long term again.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-30 19:50:40 and read 10787 times.

Well Boeing could do the reverse of the LR777 deal - help fund the GE9X and then take some of the revenues.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-09-30 21:09:12 and read 10688 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 145):
It seems then that Boeing senior management is a bit wrong-footed on their messaging both internally and externally.

They have the same relationship with the -10. Boeing management has shown themselves to be pragmatic when they have to be...hence, the MAX, when they much rather would have gone with the NSA.

I really doubt they want to be offering a plane to compete against the 350-1000 that isn't quite ready for prime time.

The 777x is a plane they know they will do and they are certainly working on it but it has to be a very special aircraft other wise it'll be another 748i...a great aircraft but not quite great enough.

In comparison with the 777x, the 787-10 will be a walk in the park, (relatively speaking), much less work overall.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-10-15 14:27:17 and read 9497 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 82):
Well, they started with the 707 in the 60's, and spent more than the company's net worth (and far more than they expected) developing it. In the 60's they did three; the 727, 737, and 747. Again, with the 747 they spent more than the company's net worth and, when the economy tanked just when it was entering production they nearly went under. Then they did two at once in the late 70's early 80's.

Sir,
The 707 development was started in the early 50's, not the 60's. Also, the 50's were significant for 2 airframes, the 707 and the KC-135, which were pivotal to American aviation at the beginning of the Jet Age.

Regards,

135Mech

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-10-15 14:59:43 and read 9340 times.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 161):
Sir,
The 707 development was started in the early 50's, not the 60's. Also, the 50's were significant for 2 airframes, the 707 and the KC-135, which were pivotal to American aviation at the beginning of the Jet Age.

Yes, and the common ancestor of all of these, as well as the mighty B-52 (that is still serving in the USAF and will be for decades to come), is the B-47.

A good read on Boeing history:

http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Legacy-...1350338242&sr=1-16&keywords=boeing

It's worth the few bucks it will cost on the used book market to get a copy.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-10-15 17:50:58 and read 8928 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 160):
The 777x is a plane they know they will do and they are certainly working on it but it has to be a very special aircraft other wise it'll be another 748i...a great aircraft but not quite great enough.

With all due respect, the 748i is quite great enough. It was explicitly built to shoe in under the A380 and supposedly offer better economics in a smaller (more reasonable, as a salesperson would say) size. The idea is to sell it to carriers who don't need a 380 and are intrigued at the potential of beating A380 CASM without carrying that many pax. On the business case for Boeing, it serves to flesh out 748 orders beyond what the -F will bring in, which should be quite respectable. It's like a 767-400 in that it may well end up being a small volume varient, but it's pretty much all upside for Boeing since there was very little unique engineering required.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-10-15 18:37:16 and read 8803 times.

Maybe Boeing is waiting for GE to come up with some development cash again? They have done it once

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 160):
The 777x is a plane they know they will do and they are certainly working on it but it has to be a very special aircraft other wise it'll be another 748i...a great aircraft but not quite great enough.
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 163):
With all due respect, the 748i is quite great enough. It was explicitly built to shoe in under the A380 and supposedly offer better economics in a smaller (more reasonable, as a salesperson would say) size. The idea is to sell it to carriers who don't need a 380 and are intrigued at the potential of beating A380 CASM without carrying that many pax. On the business case for Boeing, it serves to flesh out 748 orders beyond what the -F will bring in, which should be quite respectable. It's like a 767-400 in that it may well end up being a small volume varient, but it's pretty much all upside for Boeing since there was very little unique engineering required.

What upside is involved in building a plane with so few orders? It was not a trivial exercise, it required a completely new wing which it turns out has a flutter problem, (which can be managed). The CASM is not beating the A380. It should never have been built, but the the resources allocated to a 777X instead, which would have been available years earlier, and been much more in demand consequently. The money wasted on the 8i would be a part of the argument of why the 777X should be a minimalist increment rather than a major one. A new wing on the 777 would have been a much better investment.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2012-10-15 18:38:44 and read 8814 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 163):
With all due respect, the 748i is quite great enough.

The problem with the plane is what it cost to develop...and what it took away from the 787 program, which was a lot more than they expected. Part of that was because of the 787 problems but it also had unique, unexpected issues of its own.

Unlike the 767-400, there was significant unique development, (with the time and expense that entailed), in making the 748.

The only way a derivative really makes sense is if it makes money...and it's doubtful the 748 will. The 777er already has taken a large chunk of the 747 passenger market. The 350-1000 will take more and the 777x will take the rest.

I suspect that in retrospect, knowing what it does today, Boeing wouldn't have bothered with the 748. The -400F would have lived on indefinitely for those who needed its size and front door.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-10-15 18:55:05 and read 8760 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 165):
The -400F would have lived on indefinitely for those who needed its size and front door

The A380F was about to be born and who knows, the 400F number game might not have stopped it.

IMO, changing window size was a wasted effort.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2012-10-15 18:56:29 and read 8754 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 164):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 165):

I was referring to the pax version, in terms of being built as a variant of the 748F, but if you want to debate the merits of the 748 program, I won't weigh in until we see it through over the next decade or so. So to my mind, the investment is pretty minimal in the 748i itself, which is great for Boeing.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: tdscanuck
Posted 2012-10-15 20:14:27 and read 8610 times.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 164):
What upside is involved in building a plane with so few orders?

None. If the orders it has now are all it will ever get, I think even Boeing will admit they shouldn't have done it. But I doubt that the orders it has now are all it will ever get.

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 164):
It should never have been built, but the the resources allocated to a 777X instead, which would have been available years earlier, and been much more in demand consequently.

At the time they launched it, they didn't know that. Especially given that it was supposed to be in the market several years earlier, therefore not overlapped with the 777X.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 166):
IMO, changing window size was a wasted effort.

How so? They just cribbed the existing design off the 777.

Tom.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2012-10-15 23:02:42 and read 8415 times.

While the 777 window belt proved to be harder than Boeing expected, it will save Boeing and their customers both money using the newer and more common windows.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ricknroll
Posted 2012-10-15 23:49:19 and read 8277 times.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 168):
At the time they launched it, they didn't know that. Especially given that it was supposed to be in the market several years earlier, therefore not overlapped with the 777X.

I'm using the benefit of hindsight here.  

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-16 06:39:01 and read 7779 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 165):
I suspect that in retrospect, knowing what it does today, Boeing wouldn't have bothered with the 748. The -400F would have lived on indefinitely for those who needed its size and front door.

I've long argued the same, but the 777F turned out to be better than expected and is close enough to the 747-400F family that I think it would have made the 747 uneconomical for Boeing to build (as in the production rate would have dropped to or below one per month).

And even with the air cargo market in the toilet and the 747-8 underperforming on fuel burn, cargo operators are parking 747-400s and taking delivery of 747-8s because the economics appear to outweigh the capital costs. So while the program is in a forward-loss position at the moment, it probably will dig itself out over time.



Quoting ricknroll (Reply 170):
'm using the benefit of hindsight here.  

Unfortunately, neither Boeing nor Airbus are prescient.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-10-16 11:58:38 and read 7359 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 163):
The idea is to sell it to carriers who don't need a 380 and are intrigued at the potential of beating A380 CASM without carrying that many pax.

Dream on. Not a single A380 would have sold since a long time if that would be true.... While the carriers certainly like the idea, they obviously don't believe that it can be true either...

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: SQ22
Posted 2012-10-16 12:29:14 and read 7246 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 162):

It's worth the few bucks it will cost on the used book market to get a copy.

Thanks, well noted. 

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: cosmofly
Posted 2012-10-16 14:20:38 and read 7043 times.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 169):
While the 777 window belt proved to be harder than Boeing expected

It was done during a time when resources were very constrained and it was unnecessary direct cost as well as opportunity cost. 777 commonality was desirable, but not necessary. I doubt it makes any difference to pax or the value of the Queen.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: XT6Wagon
Posted 2012-10-16 18:18:41 and read 6814 times.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 174):
I doubt it makes any difference to pax or the value of the Queen.

Today it might not be that horrible to get a 747-400 window or parts for it. 10 years from now? 20 years from now? Not to mention the assembly itself is likely cheaper to make with modern design for manufacturing being applied to the 777 window assembly.

You are also using 20/20 hindsight to blast Boeing for something they couldn't predict.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2012-10-16 23:10:54 and read 6516 times.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 172):
Dream on. Not a single A380 would have sold since a long time if that would be true.... While the carriers certainly like the idea, they obviously don't believe that it can be true either...

It is more efficient per trip and useful for carriers that don't need as many seats.

It can also be more efficient per seat if carriers configure their 747-8s in the same way as Boeing does: it claims a CASM advantage of 11% with 467 seats.

CASM by definition is dependent on the number of available seats, which depends on configuration of the aircraft.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: rheinwaldner
Posted 2012-10-17 05:08:43 and read 6200 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 176):
It is more efficient per trip and useful for carriers that don't need as many seats.

Efficiency is the ratio between reward and effort. So a trip as reward is meaningless.... The most efficient trip you get by flying a Cessna 150...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 176):
It can also be more efficient per seat if carriers configure their 747-8s in the same way as Boeing does

Only if the A380 would not be configured "as Boeing does" too. So getting an advantage by only configuring one of the two "a certain way" is meaningless...

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: ferpe
Posted 2012-10-17 05:35:34 and read 6151 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 176):
It can also be more efficient per seat if carriers configure their 747-8s in the same way as Boeing does:

There is a way to avoid all this crap about how many seats the 748 holds vs 380, compared their costs per m2 flown as proposed by Wingedmigrator. For DA frames we are close to a Pax per 1m2 cabin area. If we do that on their spec missions of 8000nm (which is a bit flattery for the 748 is the OEW is not there yet for a spec 8000nm range) they consume per 1000nm and m2:

A380 45kg fuel/pax calculated on 580m2

748i 48kg fuel/pax calculated on 445m2

all according to my modeling of these frames which should be within some % of reality. So that is fuel burn, now for someone like LAXDESI to tell us what that means in predicted costs.

Topic: RE: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-10-17 12:01:05 and read 5631 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 162):
A good read on Boeing history:

http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Legacy-...1350338242&sr=1-16&keywords=boeing

It's worth the few bucks it will cost on the used book market to get a copy.

Great, thank you! One of the few books I don't yet have!

 


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/