Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5752655/

Topic: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 16:16:07 and read 30479 times.

Jon Ostrower Tweet: WSJ BREAKING: Boeing Board Of Directors Grants Authority To Offer 777X – Source

[Edited 2013-05-01 16:17:00]


tortugamon


[Edited 2013-05-01 16:17:38]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: jfk777
Posted 2013-05-01 16:34:24 and read 30362 times.

Lets hope so what "took them so long" ? BA ended ordering A350-1000 because it took them too long.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-01 16:48:51 and read 30223 times.

I cant find anything other than this link where he says its gonna happen. Suggesting this claim is true, we should see EK and the likes of ordering it sooner than later.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 17:10:32 and read 30098 times.

Follow up:

From https://twitter.com/jonostrower :
[No comment on BoD, but BA says: "We have begun to discuss additional technical, pricing and schedule details with customers regarding" 777X.]

followed by:

[Boeing says “The timing of a decision to launch [777X] will depend on market response during this next phase of our discussions."]

This does not sound like anything we do not already know other than Boeing seems to like this "soft authority to offer" similar to the 787-10.

If everyone is in agreement, lets have moderators take this thread down.

See this thread if anyone feels it has not already been talked about (trick question because it has):

787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year (by kaitak Apr 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 17:38:17 and read 29917 times.

Scott Hamilton (Leeham News) and Dominic Gates (Seattle Times) are calling this official authority to offer:

-The Boeing board has given the green light for the Commercial Airplanes unit to offer its proposed new 777X widebody jet for sale.
-It means that Boeing’s sales people can go ahead and negotiate tentative deals.
-A formal launch of the program, which means a Boeing committment [Not my typo!] to production, will follow if deals with airlines are pinned down to the Boeing’s board’s satisfaction.
-In the past, Boeing has launched only a few months after management received authority to offer.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...logy/2020902282_boeing777xxml.html


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-05-01 17:51:33 and read 29827 times.

Le Bourget is in roughly six weeks. There are lots of rooms there to have all the airlines that wish to sit down with Boeing and look at pretty mock ups of the 77X. I doubt there will be any firm orders since there's been no launch but I'm sure Boeing could put some info out there about MoUs or something to help build p.r. momentum.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-01 17:53:22 and read 29809 times.

Do we know what they will specifically be offering other than a name?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SonomaFlyer
Posted 2013-05-01 17:56:02 and read 29784 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 6):
Do we know what they will specifically be offering other than a name?

I suspect that is the subject of the current discussions with the airlines. Boeing looks at the MoUs at the end of the summer (for example) to see if there's enough interest to launch the 77X-8 and/or 8LR alongside the -9.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: wingman
Posted 2013-05-01 18:13:59 and read 29625 times.

WIth any luck they have Emirates wanting to pile drive the industry into the floor mat with the largest airplane order in history in Paris. Would be a nice counterpoint to the 787 saga. Announce the launch in Paris and then have Timbo walk on stage with a check for $25B.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 18:36:44 and read 29468 times.

Jon has now added this:

"As far as the cabin goes, Mr. Bair says that Boeing is trying to figure out “what’s the next bold step beyond” the 787, which he notes will be 15-20 years old from its original concept by the time the 777X delivers to airlines. Those familiar with the company's thinking say that taller windows and 787-style dimmers are on the table."
https://www.facebook.com/jonostrower/posts/10101953146246114

What do you think these changes to the cabin could be? Other than the internal stretching and adding 787 windows what else would you guys like to see?

I would like to see an option for carriers regarding underutilized cargo holds that actually gets chosen this time. Some regional flights are not going to fill the ~46 LD3 positions and an option that puts the lavatories or galleys (or a downstairs disco and a rat pack pool haul with a hot tub) in the cargo hold would definitely be a change of pace. Tell me the new plane I fly in 10 years doesn't look exactly the same as what we have all been flying for the last 10.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 5):
Le Bourget is in roughly six weeks.

Yes it is. We could be getting the formal -10 launch at the airshow and they could informally pitch the 777X alongside as the -10 is as relevant to the 787 as it is to the 777. If all goes well maybe the 777X is launched in EK's backyard at the Dubai airshow in November.


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-01 19:04:38 and read 29317 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 1):
Lets hope so what "took them so long" ? BA ended ordering A350-1000 because it took them too long.

If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders, I am 110% sure IAG ordered the A350-1000 either because they don't want the 777X or they believe they do, but also want the A350(-1000).

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-01 19:24:24 and read 29195 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders, I am 110% sure IAG ordered the A350-1000 either because they don't want the 777X or they believe they do, but also want the A350(-1000).

The BA part of IAG don't need more than ~ 15-hours of endurance. They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W. The caveat may be the need for a 4-class of about 350 seats. This is where the 777-9X could fit. But I don't see the need for the range that it offers.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 19:44:55 and read 29068 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders

I don't know Stitch. Maybe this is your point but something tells me Boeing offered enough premature details on pricing to IAG to give them a good idea on what was a good deal from Airbus on the A351. If anything I think it gave them an idea of how many/few 351s to order but I think timing was an issue and Airbus was the only one that seemed able to deliver in a time horizon they needed.

I think this just gives them the ability to not have to be launch customer to get the planes they need when they need them and it will give them another couple years to make a decision one way or the other on the 777X or exercising A351/A380 options. A 351 purchase was less risky and gives them more flexibility. So I take option C: they chose not to make a decision and bought an insurance policy instead. But I think we agree it was Boeing's deal to lose and they at least lost most of it by waiting to launch.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
The BA part of IAG don't need more than ~ 15-hours of endurance.

Does IB need more range either? I cannot come up with a city more than 6knm from LHR/MAD that is worth flying to (EZE at 13.4 hours). Dozens of -10s I suspect.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-05-01 19:48:30 and read 29042 times.

Presumably we should now find out the exact dimensions (and seat counts) of the new model?

I see that Boeing is saying that 787-size windows are now on the table; surely that's going to add a hell of a lot to design costs?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: baw716
Posted 2013-05-01 20:15:09 and read 28908 times.

I don't want to sound cynical, BUT

Hopefully, Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle and not build the 777-X the same in the same manner. Build the thing like the 777 is now built (I'm talking process) and things will be just fine.

If they had done that with the 787, I wonder if Boeing would be in the position it now finds itself...digging themselves out of a hole.

baw716

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: flyabr
Posted 2013-05-01 21:59:58 and read 28022 times.

What about the authority to offer the 781???

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-05-01 22:40:34 and read 27631 times.

I have a feeling it won't take too long for a launch order to come out, seeing as how some airlines (EK for example) have been foaming at the mouth for it.

And if that's the case, we might see the 777X launch BEFORE the 787-10.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-01 23:13:05 and read 27335 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 13):
Presumably we should now find out the exact dimensions (and seat counts) of the new model?

I believe we are still looking at a 353-seat, 69.55m 777-8X and a 407-seat, 76.48m 777-9X and an 8LX with 9500nm range all with a 71m wing even though when they asked me I told them to try to make each of them a little bigger.  
Quoting baw716 (Reply 14):
Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle

We all hope so. I am just not sure the 7E7 would have been launched if it had the 777 production model when they decided to launch it. At least the 787 has years to run to gain some upside. I am just as fearful of the 747-8i case study and having them try to make/sell an aircraft that is not remarkably more efficient than the model sized below it nor above it instead of just the model it is replacing. I think the 9x has the makings to be a a rock star.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):
What about the authority to offer the 781???

I believe the sales team received that in the Fall.

Jon Ostrower quotes Mike Bair that 80-90% of the 777X's efficiency gains come from the new (4th generation) carbon fiber wing and GE engines (both bigger but lighter). Not sure I get how the 787 has three generations of wing technology in it? Also, I have a hard time understanding how a lighter possibly Al-Li fuselage and changes to the empennage are going to amount to more than 10% of the gains. Can these changes make >3% gain in fuel burn with a larger wetted area? Any, even uneducated, thoughts on either of these questions would be appreciated.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Hamlet69
Posted 2013-05-01 23:19:47 and read 27272 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):

What about the authority to offer the 781???


Supposedly was granted late last year. BA's recent order also supposedly includes -10's, pending formal launch.

From what I've heard, Boeing has put most public 787 developments on hold while the grounding/battery issues were resolved (not a good time to be putting out PR about a future development while your current offer is grounded). Also, per an interview last week, they're want to look at a potential production rate increase before they launch it (delivery dates would be part of any formal firm order).

If I were to make a prediction - we'll prolly be close to a formal 787-10 launch at Paris, while also hearing about tentative 777X launch orders then too. Formal 777X launch will then come at the end of the year (maybe Dubai, but prolly a few weeks after).


Regards,

Hamlet69

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-02 00:28:06 and read 26654 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W.

Do you think they will still fit in an 8-across Club World staggered seat in the smaller fuselage? Maybe a 7-across to preserve the 21.4" seat? That wouldn't be a big change to your figures though as Y, Y+, and F should not impacted.

A 10Y, 9Y+, 8ClubWorld, and 4F 777-9X should have 48 more seats or 292 vs ~340. IMO there is definitely room if the economics beat the 351, costs are competitive with the 388, customers are content with 10 abreast in Y, and its delivered without significant delay to plan. Lots of hurdles but they can do it for sure.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-02 00:38:37 and read 26558 times.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):
What about the authority to offer the 781???

October last year.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-02 02:50:40 and read 25602 times.

It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_05_01_2013_p0-575533.xml

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-02 03:05:53 and read 25459 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....3.xml

I was hoping that the 777-8x would have the 2 versions that have been floating around here on A.net. As much as many on here will disagree with me, I can see, from a certain standpoint, the aim that Boeing has with the 8x being pitted against the 351. What worries me in the EIS for it. 2021 is too late in my humble opinion, assuming things go according to plan.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-02 03:18:04 and read 25334 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
t looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph

Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-05-02 03:34:49 and read 25180 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 22):
What worries me in the EIS for it. 2021 is too late in my humble opinion, assuming things go according to plan.

2021 is an ideal EIS for many carriers, who use their 777s between North America and Asia (Delta, American, United). I'm sure advances in wing and engine technology, as well as usage of the advanced alloys pitched by Alcoa will make it at least on par, if not better, than A350-1000.

One thing is for sure - 777-8X will sell in far greater numbers than 777-200LR. Not everyone will need the 400-seater -9X will be.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-02 04:09:40 and read 25354 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
2021 is an ideal EIS for many carriers, who use their 777s between North America and Asia (Delta, American, United).



You forgot Qantas in that mix.   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-02 05:33:36 and read 24776 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Do you think they will still fit in an 8-across Club World staggered seat in the smaller fuselage?

BA won't be able to fit Club World at 2+4+2 in an A350. The A350-1000's cabin is also only about a half-meter longer than the 777-300ER, so BA will either have to reduce the CW seat count by ~7 (1 seat per row going to 2+3+2 as on the 787) or poach space from another class of service to put in the extra row of CW to maintain the same seat count.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Navion
Posted 2013-05-02 05:46:10 and read 24929 times.

Quoting baw716 (Reply 14):
Hopefully, Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle and not build the 777-X the same in the same manner.

This comment is already outdated as Boeing has brought or bought big parts of the chain "in house" on the 787. The well-performing partners are still doing their thing but the "weak-sisters" have been bought out or their share reduced. Boeing has already learned a lot and while they'll still have outsourced partners, I think we'll see more major components made in the U.S. such as (for example) the wings. The fuselage is also likely to remain here as it's not likely to be composite. There's been significant discussion on Boeing's ability to make the wings on-site at PAE using the buildings on the south side of the field.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-02 07:17:52 and read 23815 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 22):
I was hoping that the 777-8x would have the 2 versions

This is interesting - has the standard 8X been dropped ? Are there any other sources to confirm this ?



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-05-02 07:29:33 and read 23656 times.

Love, love the proposal to increase window size! I think it makes a big difference.

Any news on cabin width? I recall reading that Boeing was trying to increase interior width by decreasing insulation in the side walls - but to give economy seats a more spacious 18" seat would require finding 8 additional inches which seems impossible even if the side walls are narrower.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-02 07:47:39 and read 23388 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 28):
has the standard 8X been dropped

Was it ever official?  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Bogi
Posted 2013-05-02 08:06:21 and read 23098 times.

"Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?"

No, but certainly a plethora of words can explain what that is.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-02 08:39:53 and read 22651 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 28):
This is interesting - has the standard 8X been dropped ? Are there any other sources to confirm this ?

From what I have read the standard 8X offers absolutely no advantage over the A3510 (except a bit more weight capacity), and will burn more fuel. Why build it if nobody is going to buy it (especially since the A3510 will be available earlier)? The A-345/6 certainly showed the difficulty of selling a plane that is significantly outperformed by its competitor; but in that case it was available earlier. I don't think, based on what I have read, that the gap between the A3510 and the 778X will be as large as between the A346 and the 77W, but it will be enough to sway all but the most diehard Boeing fans towards the A3510, and the ranks of such diehard Boeing fans running airlines has dwindled down to just about zero.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: YTZ
Posted 2013-05-02 09:07:31 and read 22251 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....3.xml

Makes sense. The 777-8X wouldn't really be all that competitive with the A350-1000.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-02 09:57:09 and read 21557 times.

Also from Jon Ostrower on Twitter:

Quote:
Just two 777X models, says @avweekguy & my sources. 777-9X and -8LX. Boeing wants daylight between 787-10X & ULR 777.

Seems to be some debate about what the -8LX really is. Most likely just a name. 777-8X may have the capabilities of the -8LX.

This matches exactly what I said in some previous threads: there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment. The competition in this relatively small market is already very hard and the less economic airframe will eventually be killed. Instead of wasting money on killing each other, both Airbus and Boeing should offer a unique airframe so the market can be equally split.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-02 10:21:48 and read 21224 times.

At what point do the economics on a A351 vs. 778LR cross? When does the extra revenue from extra Cargo on the 778 offset the extra fuel burn?

I'm assuming the 778LR can tank a lot more fuel - does it have the belly/weight capacity at same passenger load to offset the extra fuel burn?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-05-02 10:25:09 and read 21283 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 35):
I'm assuming the 778LR can tank a lot more fuel - does it have the belly/weight capacity at same passenger load to offset the extra fuel burn?

What killed the A340-600 ???????????? it was not that ability to lift cargo..........

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-02 11:11:50 and read 20656 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment.

Agreed. Especially when they were already planning a range expanding 323 seat -10X. I had a hard time understanding the difference between the 8X and the 8LX anyway - same wing, engines, dimensions, hmmm

So an 8LX that should be able to do DXB-LAX with close to 35t and 350 passengers that EK wants and then make the 9X a super efficient cruiser with just a tick above 8knm range.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 35):
When does the extra revenue from extra Cargo on the 778 offset the extra fuel burn?

Do you think there is any way that Boeing & GE will be able to get the fuel burn per (10Y) passenger down to on par with the 351? I know the wing and the engine will be too big/heavy but 5 years of additional engineering time should help a little. Fleet commonality with better legs and more cargo could be dangerous against a similarly fuel burning 351.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
What killed the A340-600 ?

Good point but at least this will be a twin vs a twin so it could be more competitive.

When does Boeing start the price drop on the 77W so that anyone that needs 350 seats is good until next decade?

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-02 11:26:58 and read 20405 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 23):
Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.

Correct, and that won't change much but the current generation ULH planes are also relatively small. The range of the LR (9400nm) combined with the amount of seats of the 77W (350) should turn the -8LX into an excellent payload/range airframe. Something EK could use. Boeing can easily sell 50 units to EK and make money on it.

The -8LX frame should also become the basis for a future freighter.

[Edited 2013-05-02 11:31:04]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: BigJKU
Posted 2013-05-02 12:02:29 and read 19989 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
The -8LX frame should also become the basis for a future freighter.

I also would not be shocked if the 777 freighter in this incarnation was the basis for at least one run of USAF tankers (order to be in 3 groups) when it comes time to retire the KC-10's. Most will be 767's but I would guess some will be 777's.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-02 12:13:36 and read 19880 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
The range of the LR (9400nm) combined with the amount of seats of the 77W (350) should turn the -8LX into an excellent payload/range airframe.

To get into the ballpark , take a look at the 77L load/range chart and move the MZFW line up to ~230t and to the right by about 1000nm.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 23):
Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.


so far as the 77L is concerned it was too late . Many operators had settled on the 77E and the advantages of the 77L over about 1500nm and up only became obvious after its EIS.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-02 12:16:16 and read 19840 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 40):
To get into the ballpark , take a look at the 77L load/range chart and move the MZFW line up to ~230t and to the right by about 1000nm.
http://oi37.tinypic.com/2hhdipw.jpg

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-02 18:03:00 and read 17803 times.

I ran across this quote from this Jefferies analyst Howard Rubel today in Bloomberg: "Our industry order estimates had factored about 200-250 launch orders from a range of carriers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-777x-jet-starts-marketing-to.html

200 seamed high to me in terms of launch orders 6 years out. So I penciled out some customers that came to mind and how much I thought they might be interested in after I glanced at their fleets. This is total firm frames for both models. I would not expect them all to come through, just trying to see how to get to 200. Thoughts?

Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-02 18:54:17 and read 17637 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

This might be wishful thinking but SAA could make a good candidate. Maybe the 8LX, the 9x, not so much. Also PR might be on the upper end of 20 or so frames.
http://www.stasiareport.com/the-big-...oking-buy-20-boeing-777x-jets-2013

BR has current model 773's on the way but they do have some 744's still flying so them buying the 7778/9x could depend on either growth/expansion or replacement.

Since DL flys their planes to the very death, I could see them grabbing some slots to make more sense of the RFP that they had out recently http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/03/...boeing-airbus-aircraft-order-jets/

But time will have to tell.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-02 18:55:48 and read 17683 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
This might be wishful thinking but SAA could make a good candidate.

Newspaper reports state that SAA have already decided on the A350.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-02 19:04:07 and read 17648 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
Why build it if nobody is going to buy it (especially since the A3510 will be available earlier)?

No doubt that is what has killed it. The 8X had a very cool reception from airlines right from the start

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment. The competition in this relatively small market is already very hard and the less economic airframe will eventually be killed.
Agreed. Especially when they were already planning a range expanding 323 seat -10X.

The 350 seat segment is not that small (the 77W has close to 700 orders) and it is extremely lucrative. I'm sure Boeing would be delighted to offer a direct 1 to 1 competitor if they had an appropriate airframe - no OEM would voluntarily abdicate from a market segment that had served them so well just to avoid a sales brawl. It is Boeing's customers who have pulled the plug on the 8X. As you say - the 787-10 is well placed to fill some of that gap even though its primary role is 330/772 type routes.

I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-05-02 22:00:18 and read 17255 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):
I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.

Boeing will not need to do this. 787-10 will be excellent aircraft for North America - Europe, North - South America, intra-Asia, as well as Europe - Middle East - type routes. 777-8X will nicely complement it on North/South America - Asia and Africa - North America routes, as well as Asia - Europe ones for everyone, who will not need 400 seater and who would like to "keep it in the family" with Boeing.

I could see many carriers ordering combination of 787-10, 777-8X and -9X for their operations. Only in North America, there are four prime candidates for it, with quite a few more from other places in the world. Keep in mind that it will be more difficult to obtain early delivery slots for the A350-1000, and for deliveries after 2021, it will be an even match.

Again, I do expect 777-8X to sell in significantly larger numbers than 777-200LR due to its lower fuel burn per seat and capabilities. A lot of airlines do require 350-seater, not many need 400-seater.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-02 22:07:05 and read 17252 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
Also PR might be on the upper end of 20 or so frames.

They were quoted saying: "It depends on the price. We are looking at the new Boeing 777X. We may buy 10 and, if it performs well, we'll exercise an option for 10 more," sounds like 10 and 10 to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pines-boeing-idUSL3N0CH1GM20130325

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
BR has current model 773's on the way


Yes, they are a bit of a stretch for them but their CEO came out last month and said: Both types are on our shopping list, and we are waiting for Boeing to reveal more information with respect to the 787-10 and 777X when the programs are launched,

RE: Delta Looking at 777 and 330
The story you are referencing applies to current 777 technology not future designs. Delta likes mature products with reliable delivery dates. They are still trying to negotiate another 737NG order for the end of the run. I could see a handful of last off the line 77Ls and 77Ws if Boeing wants to meet their price demands.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):
I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X

Saw your post today on planetalking. Mr S obviously really know his stuff but he has it out for Boeing right now; the 787 and the 10Y 777. Anyway, I think it is critical for Boeing to be able to sell the -10 with a lower trip cost (and more seats) than the A359. I believe that will keep sales of the excellent looking -900 from selling unchecked. Stretching it any further or trying to give it more range will certainly hurt fuel burn and that is its biggest selling point IMO. If a carrier absolutely needs to carry 9% more capacity or fly over 5,500nm with a decent load, then it is the 777-8LX territory or more likely the 351  . The -10 can take some sales away from the 351 as long as it is more efficient on 10 hour routes and I think that should be the focus. What gap is there to fill? 9% more capacity than the -10 and 12% more range, appears niche.

Speaking of efficiency, Randy Tinseth came out with this quote today when speaking of the 77X: "Its also expected to provide the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane in commercial service." http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

I have definitely heard the claim that it will be the most efficient two engine aircraft but this is the first quote about competition with the A388. Very interesting. Cue A389.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-02 22:12:02 and read 17234 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 46):
not many need 400-seater.

747 didn't do too bad and if the -9 has the lowest seat cost of any commercial jet liner I think some carriers will find a home for it.  

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-03 01:17:18 and read 17025 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
if the -9 has the lowest seat cost of any commercial jet liner I think some carriers will find a home for it.

It's not that easy. For example, the A380 offers the lowest seat cost but is struggling for new orders due the weak market. The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.

[Edited 2013-05-03 01:18:19]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-03 01:21:33 and read 17016 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
Speaking of efficiency, Randy Tinseth came out with this quote today when speaking of the 77X: "Its also expected to provide the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane in commercial service." http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

Of course he says that. You know who Randy is? It's the same like Leahy would say "Airbus has the best products".

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-03 01:42:34 and read 16958 times.

Hello guys,
it's difficult to compare the 525 PAX typical PAX layout with other "typical" 3 classes layout.
All other use 60 in for first, 39 for biz and 31-34 for eco, but A380 seems to use 60 in for biz also...
Some airlines have modern and confy A380 in 3/4 layout with almost or more than the typical pax count (LHA, AF...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_configurations_of_the_Airbus_A380

EKA380 is 517 PAX "medium" haul config 14/76/427 and typical 525 PAX config is 10/76/439
EK777-300ER is 354/364 the later being 12/42/310 and typical 380 PAX ten abreast is 22/70/288

EKA380 : 17.5% seats is First or Biz
EK777-300ER : 15% seats is First or Biz

So if Boeing compares 525 PAX A380-800 with 407 PAX 777-9X there's a bias (however, it sometimes use 555 PAX for A380 specially when the want to show the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380-800

Have a nice day

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-03 03:00:25 and read 16862 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 46):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.
Boeing will not need to do this. 787-10 will be excellent aircraft for North America - Europe, North - South America, intra-Asia, as well as Europe - Middle East - type routes.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
Anyway, I think it is critical for Boeing to be able to sell the -10 with a lower trip cost (and more seats) than the A359.

Sorry guys - my section on the 787-10 was a bit messy and clumsy. I should have said that Boeing might consider a new larger model of the 787-10 with greater range and capacity (ie a 787-11) in addition to the currently planned 787-10. I agree that the current spec 787-10 has a huge market in its own right and doesn't need any changes.
My apologies for not making it clearer.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: LH422
Posted 2013-05-03 03:52:41 and read 16764 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
"As far as the cabin goes, Mr. Bair says that Boeing is trying to figure out “what’s the next bold step beyond” the 787, which he notes will be 15-20 years old from its original concept by the time the 777X delivers to airlines. Those familiar with the company's thinking say that taller windows and 787-style dimmers are on the table."

I think he really means 3-5-3 seating in Y.     

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-03 05:00:11 and read 16581 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):

I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.

I do think there comes a point where more range does not improve a plane's overall appeal if it comes at the expense of efficiency at shorter ranges; very few planes actually fly to the limit of their ranges. If a plane's range at full payload exceeds the longest route of an airline, why would they want more range? I do see the advantage in having a flexible fleet rather than having only a few aircraft able to do certain routes, but I really do not see why so many airlines want 8,000NM range when very, very few of their routes require it. Certainly the sales split between the 77E and the A333 shows this-the A333 has sold well when extreme range was not required, while the 77E sold well for the longer ranges. Of course the 77W has sold even better. But I think the 7810 and A3510 can achieve a similar split. Trying to make the 7810 into a direct A3510 competitor would be a mistake, IMHO.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-03 06:59:59 and read 16379 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Do you think they will still fit in an 8-across Club World staggered seat in the smaller fuselage? Maybe a 7-across to preserve the 21.4" seat? That wouldn't be a big change to your figures though as Y, Y+, and F should not impacted.

The 787-8 seat map gives you all the answers you need:



World Traveller (economy) = 3:3:3
World Traveller Plus (premium economy) = 2:3:2
Club World (business) = 2:3:2

It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2013-05-03 07:03:06 and read 16367 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
Certainly the sales split between the 77E and the A333 shows this-the A333 has sold well when extreme range was not required, while the 77E sold well for the longer ranges. Of course the 77W has sold even better.

The 77W has virtually a monopoly over 10 hours, but when it is up to 7-8 hours and a WB is needed, the choice is still A333.
Also to me, the 77W is an exception to the downsizing trend: A333/772 replaced by 788/789. 77E replaced by 359. 744 replaced by 77W, A350-10 and even 787-10.
I wonder of the 777-9 is too big. Don't forget the 77W already seats 425 in KLM configuration - at this density the 77W is a real winner. Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-03 08:54:04 and read 16148 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
Also to me, the 77W is an exception to the downsizing trend: A333/772 replaced by 788/789. 77E replaced by 359. 744 replaced by 77W, A350-10 and even 787-10.

What it appears to me is happening is that airlines want the most efficient aircraft for their routes in the smallest size possible. This works against the principle that the easiest way to improve efficiency is to make the plane larger. The 77W has done so well because of its huge improvement in efficiency over anything else that had similar range (except the A380); if the 779X can meet its efficiency targets then it should sell well because it will probably be the most efficient aircraft out there, bar none (as I understand, it may even beat the A380.) The problem with the A380 has been that it is just so big and expensive that it represents too much risk for most airlines; the danger of not being able to consistently fill it just looms too large. The 779X is venturing into this territory, but I think it is still within the bounds of reasonableness in the minds of most fleet planners. After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: bmacleod
Posted 2013-05-03 11:12:36 and read 15895 times.

Really hate to say it, but sounds like this is "nail-in-the-coffin" and    for the 747-8I.

Unless CA and other big market Asian carriers still see market for the 747-8I but doubtful now that all systems go for 777X...

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-03 13:46:29 and read 15659 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?

Its very easy to see a 400+seat figure and say that is too big and tough to fill. However I think it is important to remember that it is only 2.5 meters longer than the 77W. That is one row of business and maybe one row of Y. In EK configuration that will be 17 more people or 381. For those that are already at 10Y there won't be a dramatic change at all and those have been being filled up ok. Regardless, it will cost less than an A380 and if it has lower seat costs, airline risk is low. AngMoh, KLM's partner AF has even more with 468 in their Caribbean 77Ws. Most of the combined fleet has less than 385 seats though. Even in high density two class it is hard to see how the 77X will add more than 30 seats tops (assuming 10 Y!).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50):
Of course he says that. You know who Randy is? It's the same like Leahy would say "Airbus has the best products".

I hear you. Randy is in marketing and not sales but that is splitting hairs. I would expect Leahy to say they have the best products as well as Randy. They should drink the cool aid especially with subjective terms like 'the best'. However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 52):
My apologies for not making it clearer.

None necessary, figured I was reading that wrong.

Quoting LH422 (Reply 53):
I think he really means 3-5-3 seating in Y.

Ha ha. On a serious note though, I have done some reading on what is going on in cabin interiors and I am not blown away. I am hoping someone can mention something they can do in the cabin for this next design. With such a big canvas it will be a shame to mail it in.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
but I really do not see why so many airlines want 8,000NM range when very, very few of their routes require it.

Very true. Do you think the extended range of narrow bodies has something to do with it? Single aisles are now pretty prevalent on six hour routes and its tough to beat their economics and the convenience of frequencies so new widebodies are focusing on larger routes to give that dynamic space. It appears that the airlines that are doing well carry cargo so how far does a full 8knm aircraft fly with full cargo? 5000? Maybe it isn't the distance but the lift and its the additional revenue?

Regardless, I would love to read an analysis on how less efficient an 8knm aircraft is on a 5knm trip vs an optimized plane at 5knm. Would it be worth A, B, GE, and/or RR to spend the development money for a completely new lighter frame and engine to make up for that lack of efficiency or are airlines ok sacrificing a small amount of fuel burn for flexibility and cargo revenue potential? I suspect some smart people have been doing that math and with only 2 players in the market that decision is easier. New technology beats old even if old is efficient at short distances (787 has over 2t more in just engine weight vs a330 and its still a couple t lighter) and there aren't enough new models or capital for them for further differentiation/specialization IMO.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 55):
It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.

Yes, and that means that the A351 will have one less Business Class seat per row vs the 777X and it means that the 787-10 will have the same number of seats per row as the A350 in BA configuration which may prove to be an interesting dynamic for future comparisons and decisions.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-05-03 18:08:22 and read 15324 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351, combined with the 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x.

I would also add SU, MH, and TG to the list. Possibilities include TK and KE, although I would expect both to go with the A351. I still wouldn't rule out a 777x order from BA either, but I do think the chances of that are slim.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-03 18:55:50 and read 15253 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

Until specs are contractually guaranteed, they can promise whatever they want in press releases. I'm sure that he'll be right for some very specific interpretation...whether or not it's a practical interpretation is irrelevant for folks doing the shilling.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-05-04 00:31:04 and read 14975 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat
"That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351, combined with the 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x."

Has this JAL order actually happened ? I heard the rumours but I haven't seen anything - maybe I missed it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 01:25:46 and read 14902 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 61):
they can promise whatever they want in press releases.

Sure. But for a company that has not even publicly stated the words '77X' and 'authority to offer' in the same sentence yet, it seemed out of place for that type of quote to slip out.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
The recently ordered A351,

Nothing official yet from JAL, just rumors. You may be right in the end though:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-to-buy-a350s-lacks-detail-so-far/

Interesting additions. I was trying to list launch customers and so I chose airlines with a need for early aircraft and/or a penchant for being launch customers. I also think IAG is a stretch as I noted up thread. I just don't see TG, DL, SU, TG, TK, or KE being launch customers for one reason or another but maybe down the road.

MH is an interesting one. The last thing I heard was this quote from their CEO: We need a good mix of long-range aircraft to face the future challenges as well as business opportunities%u2026 We need an aircraft that flies about 300 to 350 people. They still have 747s even though I thought they were supposed to be phased out by the A380. 787-10 could get them the 300 and the 77X could get them the 350 seats but the A351 would be right in the middle and would work with all of their A330s and A380s. Interesting.

In regard to new cabin features Mr Bair mentioned above (comment #9). The 77W & 77L changed the way the crew rest areas were tackled putting beds, chairs, even full bathrooms mainly in the crown of the plane and expanded the main cabin floor and cargo capacity adding millions to airlines revenue stream over the life of the plane. Can that be taken a step further? Can Boeing put Galley storage up there?


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 01:42:29 and read 14897 times.

Quote:
MH is an interesting one. The last thing I heard was this quote from their CEO: We need a good mix of long-range aircraft to face the future challenges as well as business opportunities%u2026 We need an aircraft that flies about 300 to 350 people. They still have 747s even though I thought they were supposed to be phased out by the A380. 787-10 could get them the 300 and the 77X could get them the 350 seats but the A351 would be right in the middle and would work with all of their A330s and A380s. Interesting.

MH said they want 1 manufacturer for their wide-body fleet to cut maintenance costs. Those 747 and 777 aircraft will be gone soon.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-04 03:09:58 and read 14777 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
Newspaper reports state that SAA have already decided on the A350.

That is news to me.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.

Which will be the risk for the B777-9X, just as the A380 is at (even more) risk. If you can fill them, they are the best high-capacity and high-comfort choices. But if you at some point in time cannot fill them enough, then you are entering dangerous territories.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351, combined with the 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x.

I would also add SU, MH, and TG to the list. Possibilities include TK and KE, although I would expect both to go with the A351.

I think there will be enough airlines interested in the B777-X-versions. But this time with the A350-1000 there is very serious competition. Something the B77W has not had for quite a number of years now.  .

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 03:14:23 and read 14751 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I hear you. Randy is in marketing and not sales but that is splitting hairs. I would expect Leahy to say they have the best products as well as Randy. They should drink the cool aid especially with subjective terms like 'the best'. However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

I understand your point. As for myself, I don't believe in "objectivity" and "marketing guy" in once sentence   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-04 03:15:48 and read 14771 times.

The 9X is a given model, the 8X/LX/F should be the one and same frame, only that the non L 8X would have a lower MTOW and less tankage? Maybe even derated engines of the L/F model.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-04 06:48:03 and read 14643 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
(The) 747 didn't do too bad and if the -9 has the lowest seat cost of any commercial jet liner I think some carriers will find a home for it. 
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
It's not that easy. For example, the A380 offers the lowest seat cost but is struggling for new orders due the weak market. The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.

I think what is going to matter more for the 777-9 is what her trip costs are compared to the A350-1000. If it's close, then those extra seats become "nice to have" because if you can sell them, it's extra revenue for the flight and if you cannot, it's not extra sunk costs for the flight (dragging on the overall profitability of the flight).

If the 777-9's trip costs are a fair bit higher, then airlines will need to sell more of those extra seats to cover that. This is what I think is hurting the 747-8: it's trip costs are a fair bit higher than the 777-300ER so it needs to sell those extra seats. On the flip side, the trip costs of the A380-800 are not much higher than the 747-8, so if you can sell those extra seats, the A380-800 offers significantly more revenue potential.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-04 06:58:07 and read 14603 times.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
I wonder of the 777-9 is too big. Don't forget the 77W already seats 425 in KLM configuration - at this density the 77W is a real winner. Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?

It might be too big for some airlines, but not all. The fact that there are already 777s configured with over 400 seats suggests to me that there is demand for larger 777s. This is where the 777-9X will slot in. The 777-9X will also be a very effective 747-400 replacement aircraft, and as alternative to the 747-8i.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.

Indeed, especially considering that the 777-9X is projected to be only 2.7m longer than the 777-300ER, which isn't a lot.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351, combined with the 787, should cover JAL's network nicely.

As far as I'm aware, JAL have not ordered the A350-1000. Even if they were to order it, it does not preclude the possibility of ordering the 777X in future.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 63):
Can Boeing put Galley storage up there?

Good question. I don't see why not, and it would free up some space on the main deck for more seats.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 07:02:18 and read 14597 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
I think what is going to matter more for the 777-9 is what her trip costs are compared to the A350-1000. If it's close, then those extra seats become "nice to have" because if you can sell them, it's extra revenue for the flight and if you cannot, it's not extra sunk costs for the flight (dragging on the overall profitability of the flight).

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
This is what I think is hurting the 747-8

And the overweight plus the fuel burn not being at spec are also not helping.

[Edited 2013-05-04 07:03:06]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-04 07:41:58 and read 14522 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
The 779X is venturing into this territory, but I think it is still within the bounds of reasonableness in the minds of most fleet planners. After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.

There are a number of carriers operating a significant fleet of 77W with spacious seating layouts significantly less than the standard 3-class 365 seat configuration ( Asiana -233 seats,BA-299,CX-275-297,JAL-272,SIN-278). These would all be candidates for a 350- seat layout -9X.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-04 07:41:58 and read 14540 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.
Indeed, especially considering that the 777-9X is projected to be only 2.7m longer than the 777-300ER, which isn't a lot.

Agreed - the 9X is actually quite a subtle stretch over the 77W. It is Boeing's creative arithmetic that makes 407 seats sound a lot larger than 350 seats but the first is based upon a 9 abreast layout while the second is based upon a 10 abreast layout. This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

If we use the 9 abreast nomenclature that makes the 77W a 350 seater then the 9X is really something like a 380 seater to compare apples with apples. Airlines running their 77W's at 10 abreast such as EK seat around 383 pax - this will increase to 407 for the 777-9X. It is difficult to generalise as there are huge variations in both 9 and 10 abreast configurations but the increase in capacity of the 777-9X over the 77W is not as large as suggested by 407 seats vs 350 seats.

The extra 4 inches of internal width in the 9X doesn't do any harm but I don't see it as being a key driver for airlines converting from 9 abreast in the 77W to 10 abreast in the 9X. That is more likely to be driven more by fuel prices and other costs - and it has been happening with the 77W long before the 777X program came on the scene.

No doubt premium carriers will configure the 9X with a lot less than 380 seats on some long haul sectors.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-04 07:57:07 and read 14495 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

I don't see it as a marketing tactic which I define as taking some intangible and trying to make a tangible from it. 10 wide is a reality not an intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 23:25:44 and read 14180 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
It might be too big for some airlines, but not all. The fact that there are already 777s configured with over 400 seats suggests to me that there is demand for larger 777s.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 71):
There are a number of carriers operating a significant fleet of 77W with spacious seating layouts significantly less than the standard 3-class 365 seat configuration ( Asiana -233 seats,BA-299,CX-275-297,JAL-272,SIN-278).
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
It is difficult to generalise as there are huge variations in both 9 and 10 abreast configurations

I collected data regarding seating on all 77Ws in the field and on order and have been sharing some of the highlights in a new thread:
777-300ER Deliveries And Orders Analysis (by tortugamon May 4 2013 in Civil Aviation)


tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-05-05 00:26:49 and read 14122 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
As far as I'm aware, JAL have not ordered the A350-1000.

Just six weeks of patience will be rewarded.   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-05 02:05:54 and read 13991 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.
I don't see it as a marketing tactic which I define as taking some intangible and trying to make a tangible from it. 10 wide is a reality not an intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.

The marketing tactic is one of taking the best case scenario (9 abreast 77W to 10 abreast 777-9X) and using that to represent the efficiency gains (20%) in all cases whereas the true gains in efficiency for the airframe/engine combination is somewhere between 10 to 15%. This is still a very respectable gain for a derivative - particularly one following the 77W but a 20% improvement would likely require a clean sheet design (the 787 was marketed as having a 20% improvement over the 767).

10 abreast seating is definitely very tangible - but airlines don't have to wait (and won't wait) for the 777X to realise those gains - they are doing it now with the 77W. Around 50% of the worldwide fleet of 77W's are now configured at 10 abreast and that will no doubt increase as time goes on. Airlines moving from a 10 abreast 77W to a 10 abreast 777-9X won't realise a 20% efficiency gain - same story if both are configured 9 abreast.

This type of marketing hype is basically harmless (and both OEM's indulge regularly) - the airlines know exactly what they are getting for their money.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-05 02:44:58 and read 13979 times.

It's also going to be a significantly larger and more expensive. So the efficiency gain is really for a different plane, which is going to address a different market.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-05 05:31:58 and read 13847 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 77):
It's also going to be a significantly larger and more expensive.

Define "significant". The 777-9X isn't that much bigger than the 777-300ER, being only 2.7m longer.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: OldAeroGuy
Posted 2013-05-05 06:41:48 and read 13791 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
It is Boeing's creative arithmetic that makes 407 seats sound a lot larger than 350 seats but the first is based upon a 9 abreast layout while the second is based upon a 10 abreast layout. This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

Yes, it is a 20% fuel burn per pax gain when going from 9ab (773ER) to 10ab (779X). Except that the 773ER 9ab seating is 365, not 350. This is a about a 11.5% increase in pax rather than the 16.3% you'd get using a 350 pax base.

The airframe/engine improvements are more on the order of +15%, not 10%. Remember, carrying 40 more pax will increase your fuel burn on a given mission by at least 5% for airplanes in this size category.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-06 01:21:14 and read 13471 times.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 79):

Thanks


Here's an interesting quote from an article on Reuters regarding the 777X program:


..... The cost of the 777X development has not been disclosed but after industrial delays followed by a grounding of its 787 Dreamliner, Boeing will hope that upgrading a familiar jet costs significantly less than the $15 billion for an all-new aircraft.

"Boeing has been waiting to see what happened with the A350-1000, and the BA order clearly swung their decision," said Agency Partners analyst Nick Cunningham in London.

"It could be an awesome competitor, given the success of 777-300ER, but I suspect it will end up having most of the cost and risk of a complete new program." .......


I think Nick Cunningham's assessment is a good one. I had a figure in mind of approx 50% to 70% of the cost of a clean sheet design (back of the envelope stuff). While it is not cheap, Boeing do seem to be getting close to the level of performance gains realised with a clean sheet design but within a timeframe that would not be possible if a clean sheet program was launched. The impending EIS of the 35J in 2017 has made that timeframe crucial in importance. Long term ROI on the 777X will be an interesting issue.

Another article here on Planetalking.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-06 01:26:54]

[Edited 2013-05-06 01:37:42]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-06 01:39:31 and read 13430 times.

He surely has a point but if Boeing does it right, the upgrades can extend the life of the 777 by another 20 years.

[Edited 2013-05-06 01:41:27]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-06 01:57:53 and read 13426 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

Sorry. But unless you know several things, like the assumed seat count in both cases, the assumed capital outlay in both cases, and many, many other variables, it is a long way from being "an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure".
If it really really has lower seat costs than the A380 then there will be no more sales of the current A380. Period.
Watch this space.
This isn't A380 fanboyism either.
Its a reality that CASM is affected by many factors, assumed CASM is affected by many assumptions, and those assumed factors themselves will be variable from application to application.

The spread of seat counts applied by the operators in reality on both the 777 and A380 should be a big warning flag for all on this subject.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
Do you think the extended range of narrow bodies has something to do with it? Single aisles are now pretty prevalent on six hour routes and its tough to beat their economics and the convenience of frequencies so new widebodies are focusing on larger routes to give that dynamic space.

Absolutely so IMO.
For me, this is where the real "fragmentation" has taken place over the last 20 years, and the real reason average aircraft size has dropped, when in fact the average size of long-haul aircraft has trended ever upwards (I know the anti-A380 brigade wont like that, but its unavoidably true).
The number of single-aisles has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
I don't see it as a marketing tactic which I define as taking some intangible and trying to make a tangible from it. 10 wide is a reality not an intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.

Only if the known reference point the comparison is tangible. Unless you know the actual seat counts used for the comparison, your "tangible" wont tell you anything tangible

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-06 04:44:45 and read 13256 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 81):
He surely has a point but if Boeing does it right, the upgrades can extend the life of the 777 by another 20 years.

Boeing have chosen this somewhat unusual and costly strategy for the 777X because it satisfies specific requirements in terms of realising significant efficiency improvements within a certain timeframe (Y3 could never be launched so soon) - it will work well in the short to medium term after EIS.

As with any business strategy it also has its downsides. The 777X program may significanty extend the life of the 777 but it can never do what a clean sheet program would do - particularly in the longer term. There is limited room for fuselage growth to produce further derivatives - this is a hallmark of any clean-sheet program and adds enormously to the combined ROI for any program. There will likely be other legacy issues of a 1990's design that will make their presence felt as the 777X matures in time. A big test will be how well it competes with the 35J after the 35J has had a mid-life upgrade - any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.

I'm not saying that Boeing have chosen the wrong strategy for the 777X but rather they have chosen a different and unusual strategy to upgrade a mature platform and that strategy has opportunity costs along with other significant implications further down the line. The big opportunity cost of launching the 777X now will be the inability to launch Y3 early in the 2020's - a platform that would be far more future proof than the 777X and could spawn a large family of derivatives whereas the 777X is largely a one trick pony - admittedly a good one but a family could do far more as evident from the 787 program.

The effective life span of the 777X will largely depend on what Airbus can do in the competing space - they have a much newer platform in the 35J and likely more room to move. Boeing would be hoping for at least a 20 year life span from the 777X but I think there are quite a few unknowns in there.

If the costly 777X strategy is an overwhelming success then it is likely that both Boeing and Airbus may employ it on other platforms in the future where it is considered appropriate - if it fails to deliver as expected (in terms of ROI) then we won't see such an approach used again.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-06 05:07:12]

[Edited 2013-05-06 05:10:05]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-06 06:14:22 and read 13108 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
The effective life span of the 777X will largely depend on what Airbus can do in the competing space - they have a much newer platform in the 35J and likely more room to move. Boeing would be hoping for at least a 20 year life span from the 777X but I think there are quite a few unknowns in there.

I would be very surprised if they get 20 years out of it. They are being forced to significantly upgrade the 77W after only about 10. But that's okay as at 100 frames per year that's another 1,000 sales (more than 77W/77L to date) getting them to the end of the 2020's - more than enough to amortize the 777X development cost

As Stickshaker points out they aren't ready for Y3 yet - (Which I think will look significantly different than a tube and frame airplane - maybe a cross between traditional and BWB).

With advances in composites by the end of the 2020's they should be able to significantly outperform traditional frames.

Y3 will need to be launched right after 778 entry anyways to meet end of 2020's.

However given the 787 experience with radical designs I think Boeing would be very wise to continue with there course of experimentation on BWB's.

There next step is a larger prototype, let's say tests are done on that by 2017-2018. Then they move to building a full scale prototype for testing in the early 2020's (Just like the Dash 80), then based on lessons learned move to a production standard craft based on lessons learned for end of 2020's.

No more ramp up of production like 787 until the first prototypes have actually flown - especially with something as radical as the next generation of airliners.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-06 06:29:30 and read 13080 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
A platform that would be far more future proof than the 777X and could spawn a large family of derivatives whereas the 777X is largely a one trick pony - admittedly a good one but a family could do far more as evident from the 787 program.

To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond. IMO Boeing will first have to focus on the 737 successor and EIS it between 2027-2030 or so (I expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

And that should be fine IMO, because the A350 will be around here for the next 20 years or more after EIS, and if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.

I however agree that 20+ years is a long period, the A350 performance can be easily increased while this will be harder for the 777X.

[Edited 2013-05-06 06:34:38]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-05-06 06:41:52 and read 13026 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 55):
World Traveller (economy) = 3:3:3
World Traveller Plus (premium economy) = 2:3:2
Club World (business) = 2:3:2

It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.

I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-05-06 06:45:39 and read 13039 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 86):
I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?

Well, BA's seat map for the 787 shows that as doing 2-4-2 for WT+ and 3-3-3 for WT, so it shouldn't be an issue for the wider A350 to do the same and be more comfortable.   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-05-06 06:49:58 and read 13032 times.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 87):
BA's seat map for the 787 shows that as doing 2-4-2 for WT+

The map in reply 55 shows 2:3:2 for WT+ in BA's 787 not 2:4:2.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: scbriml
Posted 2013-05-06 06:55:37 and read 13023 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 88):
The map in reply 55 shows 2:3:2 for WT+ in BA's 787 not 2:4:2.

It does. I may need to visit Specsavers.   

But I'm actually surprised that they're only doing seven across in WT+ when CW is also seven across.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-06 06:58:43 and read 13022 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 86):
I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?

I seriously doubt it, there's a 12cm difference in cabin width between the 787 and 350 or 26cm between the 350 and 777 that currently has that config. I think they'll go with the same config as the 787, it'll just have wider aisles.

If they did go 2:4:2 on WT+ on the 350, those aisles will be really narrow.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-06 07:12:17 and read 12990 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond. IMO Boeing will first have to focus on the 737 successor and EIS it between 2027-2030 or so (I expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

Yes the 737 replacement does need to be done for end of 2020's.

Which is why it seems really silly to do 777X now and not do 777+ to get to early 2020's and cleansheet Y3 (777/747) replacement now (entry 2021-2022 - 8-10 years should be enough) to prove new manufacturing technologies, shapes and materials they will need to crank out 50 Y1's per month by end of 2020's. Y3 at this point may not be BWB but may be some sort of cross leaning more towards traditional Tube and Wing.

Y3 would last for 20-30 years.

Just remember that by early 2030's 787 will be 20 years old as well and will probably need a replacement as well - based on technologies proven on Y3 and Y1.

In the future 20 years of production for a frame may be about the max that can be expected - especially with exponential increases in Computer power and material science advancements coming - Graphene anyone?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-06 07:20:51 and read 12977 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
And that should be fine IMO, because the A350 will be around here for the next 20 years or more after EIS, and if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.

I see the clean sheet 350 family being around for a good 30 to 40 years - same story for the 787 family. I don't see quite the same longevity for the 777X.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond

That's only if the 777X remains competitive up until then. Airbus never wanted to launch the 350 until the 787 launch forced them to do so - otherwise they would have happily continued with just the 330 for many more years.

OEM's always have their preferred timetable but sometimes the other guy forces their hand.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-06 08:16:52 and read 12863 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 80):
Here's an interesting quote from an article on Reuters regarding the 777X program:

Interesting article indeed. Thanks for sharing. I would agree with the article in that part of the reason for Boeing choosing to do the 777X is cost. As extensive an upgrade as it is, it will still cost less than a clean sheet design.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.

This is what I don't agree with. Based on today's available technology, it may be true tha the 777-8X/9X is the best that they can hope to achieve on the 777. A decade ago, the 777-300ER and the 777-200LR were likewise the "pinnacle" of technological upgrades to the 777 limited by the allocated cost of the project. I would think that how much of an upgrade the 777 frame can take would depend largely on how much money Boeing is willing to throw at it. Maybe another decade from now, technological advances would allow a further derivative to be made?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 84):

Y3 will need to be launched right after 778 entry anyways to meet end of 2020's.

If the 777X is a success, the Y3 doesn't need to EIS in the late 2020s. It can be pushed back into the mid 2030s.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond. IMO Boeing will first have to focus on the 737 successor and EIS it between 2027-2030 or so (I expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

I would agree with that too.   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
Yes the 737 replacement does need to be done for end of 2020's.

Which is why it seems really silly to do 777X now

No, I don't agree that it's silly at all. The 777X is needed to compete with the A350. Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-06 08:52:29 and read 12786 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
No, I don't agree that it's silly at all. The 777X is needed to compete with the A350. Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.

Aren't they already talking about 777X costs as 60-70% of a cleansheet, even before launch.

It's like renovating a house - at some point you realize that you would have been way better off just to rip the thing down and start again saving money and time.

A 11w of 12W Horizontal oval Twin Y3 could take away the A380 market as well for not much additional cost....

Make it in 400 and 500 seat versions to start with lots of room to grow.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-06 09:21:16 and read 12748 times.

I can't see Boeing launching the 777X if they believe they could get Y3 for twice as much.

The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-06 10:38:17 and read 12602 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.

I'll be stunned if it's less than 60-70% and less than $7-8 Billion.

The only real difference between Y3 and 777X is the barrel, nose section and tail.

It sounds like most of the systems will be revised.

They are doing a new wing anyways - new engines - and Widening the fuselage inside.

Graft the new wing and engines onto a 787 nose section/avionics and use it's basic systems architecture (an electri system should be more scaleable) with a widened ovalized composite fuselage.

All your really talking about from a tooling standpoint is how to build ovalized composite sections, which they are already doing with the 787 Vertical Oval.

With an optimized fuselage/aero - you should be able to get more than decent range with 77W Gross weights meaning you can reuse the landing gear design.

They are underweight on 789 why throw all that valuable engineering away - have the team start to work on an 787XW - with another 7-8 years of optimization they should be able to build an incredibly efficient frame.

If they change the 777X Skin (to a lighter alloy) and ribs - all the engineering has to be done anyways

Plus eventually they should be able (I would hope within 5 years) be able to produce an Composite Fuselage at less cost than a 777 barrel - helping to offset the additional cost.

Say worst case a Y3 costs $10 Billion more to do a composite barrel - over 1,000 frames that's only $10 million each - not that significant.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-06 10:56:25 and read 12592 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
I'll be stunned if it's less than 60-70% and less than $7-8 Billion.

Then Boeing should slap the GE-9X on the current 777 family, call it the 777 MAX, and move with a dual Y1 and Y3 launch in the late 2020s.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-05-06 11:33:04 and read 12505 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 97):
Then Boeing should slap the GE-9X on the current 777 family, call it the 777 MAX,

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if 777 MAX does become the official designation of it. After all the 777-X is only a code name.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-06 12:04:10 and read 12425 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
Sorry. But unless you know several things, like the assumed seat count in both cases, the assumed capital outlay in both cases, and many, many other variables, it is a long way from being "an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure".

I would think each individual airline will have a handle on most of those variables sometime between now and 2020 to determine if it has lower costs For Them (could not figure out how to bold 'for them' but picture me bolding that for emphasis). Each airlines would have to analyze each aircraft relative to their own routes, seating preferences, cost of capital, landing fees, weights, TSFC, yields..etc would all have to be considered.

Maybe it will not be objectively measured by an airline before entry into service and this far out it would be throwing darts in the dark. I have zero information to know if it is plausible that the 77X could have lower seat costs than the A380. It could be they are assuming a 500 seat 77X vs a 400 seat A380, I do not know. To me, the news was the claim. full stop. We will have to wait before we can determine under which circumstances it may be true.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
The number of single-aisles has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so

Absolutely agree. Look no further than AA's 321s being fit with three classes, 2 of which have lay flat seats. These planes are flying further and taking market share from wide bodies at rapid pace.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 97):
Then Boeing should slap the GE-9X on the current 777 family, call it the 777 MAX, and move with a dual Y1 and Y3 launch in the late 2020s.

I also believe Boeing has roughly a $5 B target on this project. With the BCA gross margins being considered it will probably take around 150-200 aircraft before they start making money. If they do not feel like they are gaining enough interest to sell multiples of that figure then it would be unwise to go forward. Better spend the $10 B plus for the clean sheet and have 30 years to amortize that other $5B plus invested.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-06 13:47:01 and read 12237 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
Just remember that by early 2030's 787 will be 20 years old as well and will probably need a replacement as well - based on technologies proven on Y3 and Y1.

I thought the 787 was Y2 ?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 92):
I see the clean sheet 350 family being around for a good 30 to 40 years - same story for the 787 family. I don't see quite the same longevity for the 777X.

40 years? Maybe as a freighter or tanker, but not as a passenger jet. The 767 is 30 years old now and will survive for another 10 years tanks to those 180 tankers on order. And the same story applies for the A330: by the end of the decade this airframe will be 30 years old and it will mostly survive as a freighter afterwards.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
Which is why it seems really silly to do 777X now and not do 777+ to get to early 2020's and cleansheet Y3 (777/747) replacement now (entry 2021-2022 - 8-10 years should be enough) to prove new manufacturing technologies, shapes and materials they will need to crank out 50 Y1's per month by end of 2020's. Y3 at this point may not be BWB but may be some sort of cross leaning more towards traditional Tube and Wing.

The launch window for Y3 is already long gone. The 777X is already 2 years in development, starting on Y3 now would mean an EIS in 2025 or so. Also, looking at the 787 and 747-8 development, Boeing won't do Y1 and Y3 together duo the complexity of both programs. So if they must choose, Y1 is far more important otherwise they might end up with an 737 Max competing with the A320 successor around 2030 and that's the last thing you want.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-06 13:58:58 and read 12214 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
Maybe it will not be objectively measured by an airline before entry into service and this far out it would be throwing darts in the dark. I have zero information to know if it is plausible that the 77X could have lower seat costs than the A380.

I think my real point is that airlines will evaluate the offerings specific to their own particular circumstances in the detailed technical briefs they undoubtedly have with the OEM. They will do that anyway irrespective of this comment from Randy T.

His comments are thus publicity and nothing more, even though they're undoubtedly true in certain circumstances

That said, it is absolutely plausible for a 777X to have lower seat costs than an A380. it's plausible to have a 777-300ER with lower seat costs than an A380.

Take EKs 489 seat long-haul A380 configuration. That aircraft will cost c. 38%-40% more to own and operate than a 777-300ER. Hence a 777-300ER with 355 seats or more will have better seat costs.
So EKs own 777's therefore already have better seats costs than their long-haul A380's.
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....   

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-06 14:11:56 and read 12257 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen

"My A380s are cash-cows" - Tim Clark.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-06 14:20:29 and read 12196 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
I think my real point is that airlines will evaluate the offerings specific to their own particular circumstances in the detailed technical briefs they undoubtedly have with the OEM. They will do that anyway irrespective of this comment from Randy T.

No disagreement here.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....

I imagine it may have something to do with those additional 36 extra premium seats it can fly into slot restricted airports and a DXB airport that is going to be bursting at its seams before DWC comes on line. Both aircraft will certainly find homes with the same carriers.

Do you think CX will be large buyers of A380, 748, or 777X? It does not look like the 351 will be quite enough for their needs.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-06 18:29:41 and read 12014 times.

Quoting Navion (Reply 27):
There's been significant discussion on Boeing's ability to make the wings on-site at PAE using the buildings on the south side of the field.

787 shows they are pretty clever at finding space at PAE when they need it, sigh...

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
There will likely be other legacy issues of a 1990's design that will make their presence felt as the 777X matures in time.

As opposed to the non-legacy issues found when trying to bring 787 to market? Let's see, how do we join the wings again? What fasteners? Etc.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 84):
They are being forced to significantly upgrade the 77W after only about 10.

777W had EIS in 2004 and this frame is probably EIS in 2019 so 15 sounds like a better number.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 94):
It's like renovating a house - at some point you realize that you would have been way better off just to rip the thing down and start again saving money and time.

Presuming the bank will lend you the money. In this analogy, the bank is Boeing's board, and I suspect they feel a lot better about renovation rather than starting from scratch.

It seems to me the sins of the 787 (Y2) are being cast upon both Y1 (oops 737-MAX) and Y3 (oops, 777-X)...

On the other hand, it seems vendors are lining up.

Aluminum-lithium alloys may be used for Boeing 777X says:

Quote:

Alcoa is pouring money into facilities to produce aluminum lithium alloys, expecting it to be incorporated in new aircraft including Boeing’s planned 777 and perhaps the 737 Max. Boeing hasn't said whether or not it will use aluminum-lithium alloys in either plane.

Alcoa is now building a $90 million aluminum-lithium ion production plant in Lafayette, Ind. When completed next year, the new factory will be able to produce 200,000 metric tons of the alloy a year.
...
Alcoa also is expanding another aluminum lithium facility, located in Upper Burrell, Penn.

So it seems they are laying their cards on the table.

As for what it might mean for these programs:

Quote:

Alcoa claims that using its aluminum-lithium alloys can lower an aircraft’s weight by 10 percent, and manufacturing and repair costs by 30 percent.

I imagine this is also a 'fair winds' type of statement, but still, an interesting one. The article mentions that Al-Li is already on the A350.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-06 19:40:50 and read 11945 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
Take EKs 489 seat long-haul A380 configuration. That aircraft will cost c. 38%-40% more to own and operate than a 777-300ER. Hence a 777-300ER with 355 seats or more will have better seat costs.So EKs own 777's therefore already have better seats costs than their long-haul A380's.But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....

If they feel an urgent need to improve CASM, the A380 has a lot of scope for doing just that. No one has felt the need to do so yet.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: frmrCapCadet
Posted 2013-05-06 20:30:12 and read 11854 times.

I think airframe builders always feel an urgent need to lower CASM. Every 1% makes the plane more competitive.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-06 22:08:24 and read 11785 times.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 106):
I think airframe builders always feel an urgent need to lower CASM. Every 1% makes the plane more competitive.

I'm talking about the owners. None have felt the need yet to do the equivalent of a 10 across 777 sardine can yet.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-07 00:46:58 and read 11688 times.

Correct, but that's only a matter of time. Last February, Leahy said that some customers were looking at 11 abreast on the A380.

So who wants the middle seat in 3-5-3  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-07 00:56:20 and read 11655 times.

Basic 9 abreast DC10 and early 777 was 2+5+2, so it' no unknown territory !  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: behramjee
Posted 2013-05-07 01:53:40 and read 11619 times.

Can someone please reveal the final flying range stats of the B777-800X and B777-900X?

I have only read of the B778X being 9500nm but nothing concrete on the B779X hence shall appreciate some insight...thank you

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-07 01:54:22 and read 11620 times.

Boeing hasn't released any specs yet.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-07 02:00:56 and read 11610 times.

Ferpe has some I think  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-07 04:42:30 and read 11484 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
I can't see Boeing launching the 777X if they believe they could get Y3 for twice as much.

If all other constraints were equal then they probably wouldn't launch the 777X - but they are not. The other factors that are crucial are the timeframe to EIS and Boeings capacity to allocate sufficient financial and engineering resources for the project. Both of these get a green light for immediate launch of the 777X but could never do so for Y3 - it also wouldn't be appropriate given there is still much to learn from the 787 program including in flight data.

I know a lot of us were keen on the idea of continuing incremental improvements to the 77W followed by a Y3 launch early in the next decade. While this makes a lot of sense in terms of steady engineering progression Boeing clearly felt the opportunity cost of doing so would be a massive loss of market share by the 77W to the 35J. There was also the issue of Tim Clark from EK banging very loudly on the door demanding a new aircraft - difficult to ignore given EK's buying power.

It is this combination of circumstances and events that have led to Boeing choosing the 777X strategy despite its financial and opportunity costs.

Boeing would have thoroughly scrutinised a whole suite of potential options ranging from doing nothing to incremental enhancements to the 77W right through to the 777X option.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.

All due respect Stitch but I couldn't disagree more strongly. The 777X program will be the most complex and ambitious derivative programs in civil aviation history. Boeing are literally replacing everything except the fuselage and even that will undergo a change in materials to a new Li alloy to reduce weight. Previous major derivatives at most have involved a new wing (using the same alloys and fabrication techniques) mated to the same fuselage as before (with or without a stretch) along with new engines - good examples are the 737NG and 744/748.

The 777X will have a massive new CRFP wing (different and separate fabrication techniques) and wing box - no previous derivative program by either Boeing or Airbus has gone from an alloy wing to a CRFP wing. The changes in fabrication and assembly techniques along with changes to the supply chain will incur significant non-recurring (one off) costs. It should be safe to assume the wing will be built in the US by Boeing and not by Mitsubishi in Japan so Boeing will bear those costs.

The 737Max program which is little more than a re-engine plus winglets and other minor enhancements is costed between $3 billion and $4 billion - and it has nothing near the scale of complexity of the 777X.

The most authoritative data in the public domain as to the true cost of the 777X program is actually provided by Airbus, who in 2004 launched the 350Mk1 - a program almost identical in concept to the 777X (CRFP wing, Li-Al & new engines). The estimated cost (in 2004 dollars) was $5.3 billion. As the 350 program went through an official launch which was approved by the board this cost would have been prepared by experienced estimators and engineers and thoroughly scrutinised before being presented to the board.

When inflated (at 3% per year) into today's dollars that figure becomes approx $7 billion - and that's before adding in any increase in real prices, scope creep, schedule delay and the other inevitable issues that occur on such a complex program. Boeing's cost structure may differ from that of Airbus but this figure has far more credibility than anything popped out of the air by us A.netters or aviation analysts.

I can't see any way that Boeing will get the 777X out the door for as little as $5 billion - I think it will be more like $10 billion. To put that into perspective the original 77W/77L derivative program has been estimated to cost around $1 billion.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.
This is what I don't agree with. Based on today's available technology, it may be true tha the 777-8X/9X is the best that they can hope to achieve on the 777. A decade ago, the 777-300ER and the 777-200LR were likewise the "pinnacle" of technological upgrades to the 777 limited by the allocated cost of the project. I would think that how much of an upgrade the 777 frame can take would depend largely on how much money Boeing is willing to throw at it. Maybe another decade from now, technological advances would allow a further derivative to be made?

The 777 was originally designed in the early 1990's - a time when fuel was around $35/barrel and aircraft such as the 744 were cutting edge and highly economical to operate. Aircraft were built heavier as there was little economic penalty for doing so. As such the 777 is a solid & heavy aircraft in today's world - this is the main penalty of the various legacy systems - particularly those that can't be replaced without adopting a new fuselage (ie Y3).

The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense. Boeing are already pushing the 777X very hard indeed - new engines, CRFP wing, wingbox, Li alloy fuselage and other systems. It is the opportunity cost of continuing to invest in that older design that will eventually make you call a halt as the same capital will be better deployed on a new design.

It is a very difficult call as to how amenable the 777X will be to a mid life upgrade when the time comes - which will inevitably be when Airbus decide to do the same to the 35J. In its favour the 777X will have a magnificent wing - one that will be crying out to carry a bigger and heavier derivative (450 seats) that unfortunately cannot be accommodated by the 777X fuselage as it will be too long.

This could be the ultimate opportunity cost of the 777X - establishing a new market for twins in the 400+ seat category but not having the capacity to further expand and exploit that market - despite having the necessary wing/engine combination to do so. Y3 could easily accommodate such a stretch.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.

Y3 will involve more cost, complexity and risk than the 777X but not that much more - and it would have a much longer life cycle.

At the same time I acknowledge that Y3 is not an option now so for Boeing's sake I hope Tim Clark orders the 777X by the bucket load.


Just my    - please feel free to disagree.


Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-07 05:41:51 and read 11417 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Just my    - please feel free to disagree.

I could disagree with you for the sake of argument.  . But I won't since you have written a very solid analysis in my opinion with which I can agree fully. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter.  

It must a very close call between going for the B777-X-program or to go for an all new wide-body in that section of the market again. Interesting enough will be to see how the CFRP-planes (B787-A350) will hold up against the latest in Al-Li technology. These materials will no doubt find their way to A380 improvements as well. As always, interesting times ahead.  .

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-07 06:20:20 and read 11401 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
All due respect Stitch but I couldn't disagree more strongly. The 777X program will be the most complex and ambitious derivative programs in civil aviation history. Boeing are literally replacing everything except the fuselage and even that will undergo a change in materials to a new Li alloy to reduce weight. Previous major derivatives at most have involved a new wing (using the same alloys and fabrication techniques) mated to the same fuselage as before (with or without a stretch) along with new engines - good examples are the 737NG and 744/748.

737NG involved a new wing, new wingbox, new landing gear, a new tail, new avionics, new engines, new materials, new flight controls. The fuse was the same size, but used different alloys, different bonding techniques and less fasteners.

http://www.b737.org.uk/737ng.htm gives the main differences as:

Quote:


Performance: Faster cruise M0.78, Higher ceiling 41,000ft, Lower take-off & approach speeds, Higher MTOW, lower fuel burn.
Engines: FADEC controlled CFM56-7, 2.5deg nozzle tilt, redesigned struts, improved nacelles with increased airflow and improved noise treatment, 7% more fuel efficient than CFM56-3.
Fuselage: Strengthened for increased tail loads and design weights, new wing-body strake.
Wings: New airfoil section, 25% increase in area, 107" semi-span increase, 17" chord increase, raked wing-tip, larger inspar wingbox with machined ribs.
Fuel Tanks: Main tanks smaller at 3900kg each but centre tank much larger giving total fuel capacity of 20,800kg. (compared to 16,200kg on classics).
Tail: 4ft 8in taller, 60 sq ft root insert, modified rudder, segmented rudder seals, digital yaw damper.
Flight Controls: Increased elevator PCU capability, aileron and tab span increase, new double slotted continuous span flaps, new leading edge Krueger flaps, additional slat, additional spoiler.
Nose Gear: Stroke increased 3.5" to relieve higher dynamic loads and wheelwell extended 3" forward.
Main Gear: Longer to reduce tailstrike risk, one piece titanium gear beam, 43.5" tyres, digital antiskid.
Flightdeck: 6 programmable LCD's, replacing EFIS CRT displays and most conventional instruments.
Systems: Most systems developed particularly: electrics, powerplant & navigation.

The NG's have 33% fewer parts than the Classics which reduces production time.

I suspect the 777-9X remake will be a lot like 737 Classic -> NG and thus be a very expensive program.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-07 07:06:39 and read 11324 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 115):

Thanks for that - more complex than I had given credit for.
No CRFP wing though.
Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ?

Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-07 08:11:03 and read 11224 times.

The other thing to remember is that in our Global world new airplane programs can be amortized over a lot more frames than previously assumed.

The Size of the 350-450 seat 777 market over the next 20-30 years is probably something like 2-3,000 frames.

Even if Y3 cost $20 Billion you are talking less than $10 million in development cost per frame, which is minor compared to total sales price.

It would a real shame to give up on the 115,000 Lb thrust class of engines and not build a 350-500 seat twin.

A 80M long 12W Twin Y3 could conceivably one day hold 500'ish passengers.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-07 08:22:46 and read 11229 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Just my    - please feel free to disagree.

No reason.  

And yes, you are probably correct that we're looking at something closer to 10 billion dollars than 5.


As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-05-07 09:45:23 and read 11115 times.

quoting stitch
"And yes, you are probably correct that we're looking at something closer to 10 billion dollars than 5.


As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it."

If it does go ahead Airbus will consider themselves very lucky that they are not competing against a state of the art proper 10 abreast twin. A new twin that starts as a 350-400 pax aircraft that can be stretched and developed for 30 years. Instead of a very expense and extensive update of an updated 1990's design.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-05-07 09:51:45 and read 11103 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 117):
The Size of the 350-450 seat 777 market over the next 20-30 years is probably something like 2-3,000 frames.

Even if Y3 cost $20 Billion you are talking less than $10 million in development cost per frame, which is minor compared to total sales price.

It would a real shame to give up on the 115,000 Lb thrust class of engines and not build a 350-500 seat twin.

This raises an interesting question; although we are currently only talking about an -8(L)X and -9X, could there be scope one day for a -1000 model, which would push right up to the 80m mark? If we are talking - as some have suggested - about a $10b program, then one would expect Boeing to build some growth potential into it?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-07 09:57:06 and read 11122 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 94):
Aren't they already talking about 777X costs as 60-70% of a cleansheet, even before launch.

Do you have a source for that statement?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
They are doing a new wing anyways - new engines - and Widening the fuselage inside.

Yes. Along with a fuselage stretch, those are the most likely parameters of the 777X program. There are many other details which have been rumoured but not confirmed, such as larger windows and new fuselage skin, which may or may not be incorporated into the project. I suspect Boeing would be smart enough to weigh up the RoI on each of the proposals before actually applying them onto the aircraft, thus minimising scope creep.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
Graft the new wing and engines onto a 787 nose section/avionics and use it's basic systems architecture (an electri system should be more scaleable) with a widened ovalized composite fuselage.

All your really talking about from a tooling standpoint is how to build ovalized composite sections, which they are already doing with the 787 Vertical Oval.

That wouldn't be a 787 anymore, it would be a clean sheet design, which Boeing are apparently trying to avoid doing after spending much more than they had originally intended to on the 787 program. I may not know much about aircraft design, but my understanding is that the fuselage cross section is something that cannot be altered without a complete re-design. What you're proposing is not a 787 derivative but a clean sheet design.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
They are underweight on 789 why throw all that valuable engineering away

How are they underweight on the 787-9?

And what do you mean by "throw all that valuable engineering away"? Boeing have lauched the 787-8, are working on the 787-9 with the 787-10 to come, along with, possibly, a longer range version of the 787-8. It seems to me that they are maximising the airframe's potential by introducing several derivatives of it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Also, looking at the 787 and 747-8 development, Boeing won't do Y1 and Y3 together duo the complexity of both programs. So if they must choose, Y1 is far more important otherwise they might end up with an 737 Max competing with the A320 successor around 2030 and that's the last thing you want.

  

I would agree that the Y1 is more important. The 737 is the "bread and butter" model for Boeing. Without checking, I would guess that Boeing makes more money from 737 deliveries than from other programs simply due to the sheer volume of 737s it delivers.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Do you think CX will be large buyers of A380, 748, or 777X? It does not look like the 351 will be quite enough for their needs.

I might be somewhat biased, but I believe that if CX are going to buy an aircraft larger than the A350-1000 and 777-300ER, then the 777-9X will have the best chance because it is an incremental increase in size over the A350-1000 and 777-300ER, as well as being almost exactly the same size as a 747-400 which is on the way out of the fleet.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Aircraft were built heavier as there was little economic penalty for doing so. As such the 777 is a solid & heavy aircraft in today's world - this is the main penalty of the various legacy systems - particularly those that can't be replaced without adopting a new fuselage (ie Y3).

I agree that the current 777 is a heavy aircraft, but a lot of that weight comes from an over-engineered wing. I would imagine that the redesigned wing will also be a lot more efficient not only aerodynamically, but also structurally, than the current wing, so despite its increase in span, I do not believe that it will be much heavier than the current smaller 777-300ER/777-200LR wings, if at all.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense.

Agreed. But where that theoretical point is remains to be seen. The 777's base design isn't "old" when compared with other aircraft which are still being produced, such as the 737, 747, 767, A320 and A330, and in particular, the 737 and A320 are likely to remain in production well into the next decade. If those aircraft can be modified and "tweaked" to be competitive in the current market, I don't see why the 777 can't.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):

This could be the ultimate opportunity cost of the 777X - establishing a new market for twins in the 400+ seat category but not having the capacity to further expand and exploit that market - despite having the necessary wing/engine combination to do so.

That may be of no consequence as there are no other 400+ seat twins on the horizon.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Y3 will involve more cost, complexity and risk than the 777X but not that much more

I think that's highly speculative because the "Y3" is purely theoretical. No one (I would imagine not even Boeing) knows the scope of the "Y3" project, thus speculating on the cost of a speculative, undefined project is a futile exercise, and comparing how much more it will be vis a vis projected cost of the 777X is moot.

All we really know for sure is that in general, clean sheet designs are more expensive than an upgrade of an existing airframe, and that Boeing are building the 777X at an undefined fraction of the cost of an all new cleansheet to produce an aircraft that will be competitive with the A350. To me, that sounds like a wise investment.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-07 09:59:22 and read 11111 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 116):
Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ?

More than a small amount of googling came up with this very interesting article from 1999: A Race Against Time -- Can The New 737S Dig Boeing Out Of A $3 Billion Hole Before Investors Lose Their Patience? which says:

Quote:

But the airplanes still have to recoup more than $2 billion in upfront development and tooling costs and the more than $1 billion in unexpected losses - an estimated $3 billion deficit in all.

Ok, let's call it $3B in 1999 dollars.

Quote:

Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Seems to corroborate the above: around $2.1B to start, around $1B overruns.

It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

Another very funny statement to read:

Quote:

"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

In any case, an online inflation calculator tells me that $3B in 1999 is equal to $4B in 2012.

As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

On the other hand, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...max-development-cost-report-367504 from Jan 2012 gives us:

Quote:

Boeing's Crabtree declined to provide a cost estimate for the Max, but in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source

Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion.

Airbus previously said the cost to re-engine the A320 is $1.32 billion (€1 billion). This also represents only the airframe cost, Airbus tells Flightglobal, counting engine development separately.

So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-07 10:11:10 and read 11088 times.

I think the other thing that Boeing should keep in mind is that it seems like they have finally gotten a good handle on how to make lightweight Composite primary structure (as evidenced by progress on 789).

Why throw that away? I'm guessing a lot of the engineering lay-offs that are thinking of is the Composite Fuselage staff.

That seems really silly as on the big issues on 788 delays was getting up to speed on composite engineering.

If they don't do another composite barrel now (yes I know some of the special aluminum's hold promise for current generation - but they will fall by the wayside again shortly with advances in composites), they will lose that ability and have to relearn everything again when they get to there next cleansheet.

In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative. As a Portfolio Manager I see this as not making a lot of sense - I would be much happier if they built a cleansheet Y3.

"He who dares wins"

Aviation History is littered with the corpses of companies who choose the conservative route and failed - McD anyone? Instead of building something leading edge they continued to recycle there basic DC-9/10 frames.

Airbus is where it is as it's dared to push the envelope and continues to push Boeing.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: wingman
Posted 2013-05-07 10:24:43 and read 11067 times.

The flip side of that saying is "He Who Dares Gets Gets His Ass Kicked". That's what practically happened with the 787. Then again it's a two way street right, Airbus suffered heavily in these early years of the 380 and the A400 also served as a swift kick in the nuts. These two are pushing each other plenty and I think what we'll see over time is a more conservative approach as they each learn the brutal lessons of building new planes according to old commando mottos.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-07 10:40:09 and read 11055 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
I would agree that the Y1 is more important. The 737 is the "bread and butter" model for Boeing. Without checking, I would guess that Boeing makes more money from 737 deliveries than from other programs simply due to the sheer volume of 737s it delivers.

Hmm, the B777 is currently the most profitable aircraft for Boeing from what i've been told in a recent Q&A session with a Boeing VP as well this quote from reuters:

"Analysts say the 777 is Boeing's most profitable plane, thanks largely to the 777-300ER, a 365-seat version that began operations in 2004."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...02/us-boeing-idUSBRE94119Z20130502

Being the sole aircraft in its size category, the 777 commands less discounting than any other aircraft in Boeing.

In comparison, a 777-300ER brings in roughly 3.7 times as much money as a single 737-800 for Boeing.


Average market value of a new 737-800= $44.5 million

Average market value of a new 777-300er = $162.3 million

Combined with the high number of deliveries per year, it is marginally less important than the 737 and over time it just may become even more important considering how quickly it is catching up.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-07 10:48:16 and read 11038 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 116):
Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ?

More than a small amount of googling came up with this very interesting article from 1999: A Race Against Time -- Can The New 737S Dig Boeing Out Of A $3 Billion Hole Before Investors Lose Their Patience? which says:

Quote:

But the airplanes still have to recoup more than $2 billion in upfront development and tooling costs and the more than $1 billion in unexpected losses - an estimated $3 billion deficit in all.

Ok, let's call it $3B in 1999 dollars.

Quote:

Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Seems to corroborate the above: around $2.1B to start, around $1B overruns.

It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

Another very funny statement to read:

Quote:

"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

In any case, an online inflation calculator tells me that $3B in 1999 is equal to $4B in 2012.

As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

On the other hand, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...max-development-cost-report-367504 from Jan 2012 gives us:

Quote:

Boeing's Crabtree declined to provide a cost estimate for the Max, but in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source

Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion.

Airbus previously said the cost to re-engine the A320 is $1.32 billion (€1 billion). This also represents only the airframe cost, Airbus tells Flightglobal, counting engine development separately.

So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved (that I listed above) with 'only' $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-07 11:02:13 and read 11097 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
How are they underweight on the 787-9?

Boeing have stated that their current models show the 787-9 is below the weight they predicted. So looks like Boeing has pulled out about 7 tons of weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

[Edited 2013-05-07 11:27:54]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-07 11:08:04 and read 11059 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

The 77X capital expenditure should be considerably larger than that due to the need to build the largest CFRP ovens ever constructed in order to bring manufacturing back on site. Those investments should not fall entirely on the 77X program as they would undoubtedly be used for future programs as well Obviously this is not something the 737NG had to deal with.

However, I contend it will be closer to five B than $10 B otherwise they will need to go clean sheet. If 85% of an aircraft's efficiency comes from the engines and the wing and those are going to be upgraded, while the fuselage should get an upgrade, I have to imagine that this should lead to a very competitive design. Clean sheet could bring them two 8knm efficient machines, a LR/F, and would be better positioned for the future however it would give the 351 and 388 a very very big boost for 3-4 more years.

Try the cheap fix, if you can lock up a bunch of orders (225 plus) then launch, if not, then take a deep breath and bring out a fresh piece of paper and proceed to write the number 3 preceded by the letter Y.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: brons2
Posted 2013-05-07 17:20:25 and read 10856 times.

Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-07 17:35:02 and read 10858 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
Boeing have stated that their current models show the 787-9 is below the weight they predicted. So looks like Boeing has pulled out about 7 tons of weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

So where do you think this puts the 788 as a benchmark when the 789 lighter parts are incorporated.. Better than the 117,7t shown in the ACAP sheets? The 789 should be a little less than 7t heavier

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-07 17:39:30 and read 10852 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

Besides the 747 every other wide body freighter was launched approximately 13-15 years after the EIS of the passenger version. I would imagine that B would not immediately launch the freighter until the 777-8X production trailed off a little. As it would only be getting into full swing 10 years from now, there will be plenty of time to make that decision. I suspect the lift and fuel burn of such a freighter would be well worth the effort when they do make that decision.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-07 18:12:13 and read 10817 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.

I don't doubt there is any risk about securing a few hundred sales of the 9X. The gamble at the moment is that the economy rebounds. Both Boeing and Airbus need that to happen for their large passenger jet sales to get beyond the 'lets break even' stage, and a lot of those what appear to be speculative hundreds of orders for the smaller planes to all be taken up. Then they won't just be breaking even, they will be raking in the cash. Given that every other global economic recession has ended eventually, so will this one.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-07 20:43:31 and read 10714 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that Boeing were taking the wrong path but one that is certainly unusual and unprecedented - and that their choice was heavily influenced by a combination of market conditions along with Boeings current circumstances. From all the options Boeing would have considered there was no single elegant solution that satisfied all short term and long term needs without some sort of opportunity costs. I see the 777X as doing an excellent job in the short to medium term (I expect the 777-9X will receive a flood of orders in the next few years) - its the medium to long term I have concerns about.That Boeing are prepared to invest such a large amount of capital and resources into the 777X project indicates that Boeing see defending the large wide body market as one of their highest priorities.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
I agree that the current 777 is a heavy aircraft, but a lot of that weight comes from an over-engineered wing. I would imagine that the redesigned wing will also be a lot more efficient not only aerodynamically, but also structurally, than the current wing, so despite its increase in span, I do not believe that it will be much heavier than the current smaller 777-300ER/777-200LR wings, if at all.

I agree - the new 777X wing will be state of the art - it is a key part of the business case. I have no doubt that the 777-9X will be an excellent competitive aircraft.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense.
Agreed. But where that theoretical point is remains to be seen. The 777's base design isn't "old" when compared with other aircraft which are still being produced, such as the 737, 747, 767, A320 and A330, and in particular, the 737 and A320 are likely to remain in production well into the next decade.

Yes - it is difficult to pick that point particularly when you are considering a mid life upgrade which won't occur until after 2030. The 777X is the first push - the mid life upgrade after 2030 is the second push and that is where I have my concerns about diminishing returns.
Of the aircraft you quote, the 767 and 747 are in their twilight years and the narrow bodies seem to be in a world of their own. The 330 is a good comparison as it is only a few years older than the 777 and despite discussion of a 330Neo concept Airbus have been reluctant to invest heavily in the platform. Airbus of course have the new 350 so it does have significant differences to the 77W situation.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
That may be of no consequence as there are no other 400+ seat twins on the horizon.

It would be a crying shame if the 777-9X establishes a lucrative market in the 400+ seats category and can't upscale to further exploit that market - even if Airbus don't have an offering. If Boeing could launch a 450 seat derivative then they could be back in a 77W situation where they own the market - no competitor. I see this as a major long term opportunity cost of the 777X strategy - there could be others that are not readily apparent at this point in time.


Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
All we really know for sure is that in general, clean sheet designs are more expensive than an upgrade of an existing airframe, and that Boeing are building the 777X at an undefined fraction of the cost of an all new cleansheet to produce an aircraft that will be competitive with the A350. To me, that sounds like a wise investment.

I'm not suggesting its unwise but rather looking closely at all the issues to understand why Boeing chose this option over the others that were available. Again - there was no simple or obvious strategy that fitted neatly with Boeings current circumstances and market conditions.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
Quote:
Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Thats an interesting insight into what actually happens - thanks for sharing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

It certainly is - the 737Ng looks absolutely tame compared to what happened with the 787 - although to be fair the 787 had far deeper issues than just costing and budgeting.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

Fascinating !!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

Thats a good observation - one that I have read elsewhere. My guess is that this is driven by the intense demand for fuel efficiency from new aircraft. The cost of fuel was around $35/barrel for decades and then rocketed up to more than $100 in a few short years - this has magnified the focus on efficiency.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

I think I would still defer to the Airbus costing of the 350Mk1.
There's also this issue mentioned by tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
The 77X capital expenditure should be considerably larger than that due to the need to build the largest CFRP ovens ever constructed in order to bring manufacturing back on site.

 checkmark 


I'm also curious if there are any similar setup costs associated with using Al-Li alloys for the fuselage - not much information out there at the moment. Bombadier are using Li alloys for the C Series - that might give some sort of guide.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-07 21:11:00]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-05-07 23:29:33 and read 10564 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

There is no reason for Boeing to launch a new freighter when they already have all the freighter market anyway with the 7478F and the 777F, so they will not move until Airbus starts to talk about the 350F which will not happen until after midlife of the A350 program.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-08 04:46:30 and read 10391 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 134):
There is no reason for Boeing to launch a new freighter when they already have all the freighter market anyway with the 7478F and the 777F, so they will not move until Airbus starts to talk about the 350F which will not happen until after midlife of the A350 program.

Except that the 777F as it exists now is based on the old wing and engines. I suspect Boeing will not want to produce (the wings, anyway) these while building the new, CFRP wings side by side. Also, if they go to new material for the fuselage this will be a problem as well. But the 748F will still have appeal, as it is the only freighter available with the nose door, and still has a significant payload advantage over the 777F.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-08 04:47:14 and read 10384 times.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

The whole question of dedicated air freighters is an open one in my view. If there is any growth in the air freight market I suggest the operators of passenger aircraft with belly capacity in the 12 to 20t range depending on sector distance are going to be the big beneficiaries. There is a large growth in the numbers of such aircraft. Every 77W that replaces a 744 adds something like 50% additional freight capability. For example the 789 has a volume limited potential of almost 20t.
The incremental costs are largely fuel . Using a 789 as an example ( because it is modeled by PIANO-X which allows for accurate calculations) for a 6000nm sector the incremental fuel burn for 10t of cargo ( assuming a max. passenger load) is 3.720t of fuel which at the current IATA average price of $900 m/t gives an incremental cost of .335c/kg. Typical rates for this distance would be about $5/kg or more.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-08 05:16:52 and read 10356 times.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 110):
Can someone please reveal the final flying range stats of the B777-800X and B777-900X?

I have only read of the B778X being 9500nm but nothing concrete on the B779X hence shall appreciate some insight...thank you
Quoting behramjee (Reply 110):
Boeing hasn't released any specs yet.
Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 112):
Ferpe has some I think

Let's be clear on what I have and don't have. What I don't have is B or GE inside (in fact I don't need it and if I had it I could not use it). What I do have is airframe and engine modeling tools and the understanding how to use these tools to get facts which are embedded in what the OEMs do tell us.

An OEM tells you a lot when he says XXX pax to YYYnm with a ZZZ MTOW. Lets have a short look at how much info they reveal when they give us facts about 777-8(L)X and 9X:

1. As I have the 777-200, 200ER, 200LR, 300, 300ER modeled with their GE90 engines (also T800 and PW4000 for the earlier birds) I have a pretty good idea on Boeings baseline from which they do changes. This includes dimensions, drag, lift, weights, engine characteristics and fuel consumption at different flight situations. This is accurate to the point that I can see when one parameter does not fit the puzzle, e.g. when a Journo or analyst has got something out of context or got it wrong.

2. I have modeled the new 71m wing and engines for the 777X for a long time, in fact this was the trigger for me to build my model. I therefore have a good understanding what it can do for the 777X and can't do. I have also gradually come to analyze what fuselage extensions cost in terms of tonnes per meter, this includes what a cabin costs in weight if you want to increase the seat count like the -8(L)X from 301 to 353.

3. The above means that when someone says the -9X is a 8000nm spec range frame with the given data (4 frame extension of 77W, 100+klbf GE9X engines, 71m wing etc, 344t MTOW) I immediately sees this is not correct, there are parameters in there that does not fit. Given the informations most likely the -9X range is not correct, it is probably more like 8500nm and B have the final MTOW as a rubber parameter to reach this even with weight creep. This is for "spec" range (ie with show room cabin and nominal OEW, regulatory reserves) which is 10% longer then real usefull range for an airline.

4. For the -8(L)X the picture is fuzzier, we have the seat count, 353 spec seating in a cabin which should be 4.8m longer then the -200ER or LR. This is 9 frames in a 21' frame spacing, seems plausible (my earlier 7 frames was wrong  Wow! ). Gets the fuselage to 67.7m and the frame to 68.5m. With all the changes my calculations shows a spec OEW of around 158t. To get the 353 pax+bags to 9500nm you then only need a MTOW of 330t.


The whole 4 mean Boeing have a lot of freedom to tailor the -8LX. Part of that IMO will be that it will be a middle thing between the original -8Xs (which was to close to a 35J) and a true -8LX in the style of the -200LR. The latter did not sell to well as it was strongly optimized for ULH and sacrificed more normal use efficiency to reach this goal. I think therefore Boeing has been working a lot to understand what trades to make for what will be called the (final) -8X, they will use as much from the -9X unchanged as possible, and will try to gain weight and thus efficiency where it makes sense. In the end it will not have an MTOW very close to the -9X (the -200LR is close to -300ER) as it would fly 10000nm spec missions in that case and no-one has business for 20 hour planes. I therefore guess we will see the MTOW end up around 330t, it makes for a efficient ULH frame that also makes sense on shorter routes.

[Edited 2013-05-08 05:24:19]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-08 05:36:56 and read 10300 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
Bombadier are using Li alloys for the C Series - that might give some sort of guide.

Indeed it should.

In earlier discussions some of our more knowledgeable members pointed out that BBD chose this combo wisely. CRFP is made thicker than needed for the fuse due to ramp rash issues and is a costlier material than Al-Li, so this combo it has its advantages. CFRP has more advantage on fuses larger than the C-Series and saves labor, but it is still said that the 787 fuse is thicker than needed to meet structural requirements due to ramp rash issues. On wings the parts are thicker because the forces aren't distributed as uniformly as they are on the fuse so they need to be stronger.

As you note, the A350 Mk1 was to be Al-Li fuse with CFRP wings, but the need to be wider than the 787 drove the decision to make an all new fuse, which Airbus chose to make out of CFRP panels, which of course is also quite justifiable.

As noted above, the material choice hasn't been made for either 777X or 737 MAX.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-08 06:02:26 and read 10258 times.

Now an Al-LI 737 could be neat - how much weight would that save on the frame and what would it do to range? Would it near 757 range?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-08 08:14:17 and read 10131 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 123):
In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative. As a Portfolio Manager I see this as not making a lot of sense

Boeing are building the 777X as a cost effective way to compete with the A350. If they can build a competitive aircraft derived from an existing airframe at a fraction of the cost of a clean sheet design, then it makes perfect sense for them to upgrade the existing frame. It may end up being the project with a better return on investment, as they won't need to sink as much money into the development of an all new frame and won't need to sell as many to break even on the project. This makes perfect commercial sense.

Furthemore, the 777 is still a relatively young airframe with the potential for further development to extend its production life. Why waste that opportunity to get some more leverage off the money already spent on engineering the original 777?

Quoting wingman (Reply 124):
The flip side of that saying is "He Who Dares Gets Gets His Ass Kicked". That's what practically happened with the 787.

  

Clean sheet designs are inherently risky. Personally, I believe clean sheet designs only make sense when that manufacturer is attempting to enter into a new market (such as what Bombardier are doing with the C-Series), or there is no commercially viable way to deliver a competitive derivative of an existing airframe.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 125):
In comparison, a 777-300ER brings in roughly 3.7 times as much money as a single 737-800 for Boeing.

I was referring to the annual profit derived from the total deliveries of the 737 vis a vis that of the 777, rather than the profit margins of each individual frame.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
Boeing have stated that their current models show the 787-9 is below the weight they predicted. So looks like Boeing has pulled out about 7 tons of weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

Thanks for that. This sounds like good news for the 787.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F

Boeing haven't announced it, but I don't see why there wouldn't be a 777-8F in the future.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
The 777X is the first push - the mid life upgrade after 2030 is the second push and that is where I have my concerns about diminishing returns.

Perhaps you might be right about this. I do believe that the 777X will be the final 777 derivative which will take the 777 production into the 2030s, until the "Y3" makes its debut sometime during that decade. Boeing could coincide the "Y3" with the A350's mid-life upgrade, in case a further derivative of the 777X becomes commercially unviable at that time.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
It would be a crying shame if the 777-9X establishes a lucrative market in the 400+ seats category and can't upscale to further exploit that market - even if Airbus don't have an offering.

That would depend on whether a market for a segment above the 777-9X but below the A380 exists. If there is, then perhaps Boeing could study the viability of a further stretch to the 777 airframe, if that is possible. But if there isn't sufficient demand for Boeing to look into a further stretch of the 777-9X, they may just have to tell those airlines wanting something bigger than the 777-9X to buy the 747-8i.

[Edited 2013-05-08 08:55:20]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-05-08 08:35:31 and read 10088 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 140):
Boeing are building the 777X as a cost effective way to compete with the A350. If they can build a competitive aircraft derived from an existing airframe at a fraction of the cost of a clean sheet design, then it makes perfect sense for them to upgrade the existing frame. It may end up being the project with a better return on investment, as they won't need to sink as much money into the development of an all new frame and won't need to sell as many to break even on the project. This makes perfect commercial sense.

So why is people like yourself stated black and blue that the original A350, which was a similar upgrade of the A330 to compete with a new wing and engines with the 787 could never work. I also seem to recall a lot of criticism of Airbus when it announced its A320neo strategy, and how Boeing would decimate it with an all singing and dancing 737 clean sheet replacement. Only later for Boeing to again to take another engineering solution for the A330F nose gear extension, and generate the 737max.

I personally think the original A350 would have worked well, just wondering if someone would like to rehash all the "disadvantages" the original A350 had, and how these do not apply to the 777X.

Or is someone finally going to have the guts to come out and say what we all knew at the time, a lot of what was being said of the original A350 was misinformation. Personally I think this 777X is a natural product evolution, rather than a revolution.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-08 08:48:41 and read 10065 times.

There is a difference IMO. The 777X will use newer technology than what's today available on the A350; the newer technology will compensate for the heavier airframe. The original A350 and the 787 on the other hand would have entered the market in about the same timeframe.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-08 08:49:09 and read 10065 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
So why is people like yourself stated black and blue that the original A350

Don't ask me, I wasn't on a.net back then.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
I personally think the original A350 would have worked well,

So do I. Its only downfall is its cabin cross section which cannot accommodate 9 across like the 787 can. It would have been a more than capable A330/A340 replacement/787 competitor. In fact, I wish Airbus had built the original A350 instead of the A350XWB because the original A350 as it was proposed wouldn't even threaten the 777-300ER's dominance in the long range large widebody market ...

Nevertheless, regardless of what people here said about the original A350 all those years back, Airbus decided not to go ahead with it. I doubt very much that any "bashing" that the original A350 might have copped here would have anything to do with Airbus' decision.

[Edited 2013-05-08 08:51:07]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-08 09:11:12 and read 10025 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):

I personally think the original A350 would have worked well, just wondering if someone would like to rehash all the "disadvantages" the original A350 had, and how these do not apply to the 777X.

As one of the ones who was critical of the A330 upgrade, and felt that Airbus should make an all-new plane, I will admit that perhaps I was wrong. This was before the 787 program went so badly into the weeds, and I really believed in (and still do, actually) the advantages of CFRP construction, particularly in the areas of longevity and maintenance. I was also disappointed that Boeing went the MAX route instead of an all-new airframe, but I can see why they did it, and they were probably right, as most of their customers would be willing to wait for the MAX but would not be willing to wait for an all-new plane, especially after the 787 fiasco. The situation with the 777 is similar; the A3510 is poised to trample the 77W if Boeing does nothing, and they obviously cannot afford that. And again, customers are probably unwilling to wait 10 years for a clean sheet design, coupled with the very real possibilities of significant delays.

As to the question raised by some posters about whether or not boldness in aircraft design pays off, my conclusion is what pays off is building the right airplane. Be as bold or as cautious as you like, but have for sale the aircraft that the airlines want. It must be reliable and cost less to operate than its direct competitors, and it will sell. If your competitor launches a plane that beats yours, you MUST match or exceed it or lose that market segment. There is no alternative. There have been bold planes that failed (the Concorde) and cautious ones that succeeded (the 737NG). You just can't make blanket statements about it; you simply have to get the plane right.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tistpaa727
Posted 2013-05-08 09:36:30 and read 9963 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
So why is people like yourself stated black and blue that the original A350, which was a similar upgrade of the A330 to compete with a new wing and engines with the 787 could never work.

I keep thinking back to those threads as well. Funny how things turn out. People were caught up in the excitement (and hype) of CFRP - not just here on Anet but the media and even the airlines, leasing companies. If I recall wasn't it Udvar-Hazy that came out and publicly bashed the updated 330 / 350MK1. He wanted something sexy and new and this just added fuel to the flames. Unfortunately all of through all of the hype and excitement people lost sight of the bigger picture and the fact that what is the right path to take is not always the glamorous one.

In hindsight Airbus probably should have stuck with the original plan given the 787 issues. But then that leaves Boeing as the sole provider in the 77W segment. Could the 330 have been stretched to get into the 359 / 77W ballpark? I don't recall reading about that.

Anyway, we could argue all day (and night) about who is right / wrong. That's no fun - what is fun is talking about all of the amazing aircraft coming down the line for the next 8 years - I just hope I can catch a flight on all of them.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-05-08 10:35:58 and read 9926 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 142):
The 777X will use newer technology than what's today available on the A350; the newer technology will compensate for the heavier airframe. The original A350 and the 787 on the other hand would have entered the market in about the same timeframe.

What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Its only downfall is its cabin cross section which cannot accommodate 9 across like the 787 can. It would have been a more than capable A330/A340 replacement/787 competitor. In fact, I wish Airbus had built the original A350 instead of the A350XWB because the original A350 as it was proposed wouldn't even threaten the 777-300ER's dominance in the long range large widebody market

You can go 9 across, and some airlines do, it has not stopped A330 sales, nor did it stop a lot of original A350 sales. I think Airbus always needed the A340 replacement, not much could be done with the -600.

The problem is the hype that comes with these announcements like the 777X, we have a lot of people on here take them at face value. The 787 is not being anywhere near the sort of capability people were claiming when it was launched. We need to remember that the numbers that are being projected are based upon marketing layouts with no cargo being carried. IN reality airlines will provide passengers with more room than these marketing layouts on long haul routes, IFE, food etc which all detracts away from what is left over.

The 777X will be an improvement over the 777, and it will gain a lot of sales. There is a lot of room for both the A350 and 777X in the marketplace, and I still think there is room for a A330neo.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Nevertheless, regardless of what people here said about the original A350 all those years back, Airbus decided not to go ahead with it. I doubt very much that any "bashing" that the original A350 might have copped here would have anything to do with Airbus' decision.

I believe a lot of the "Game Changing" information originated from Boeing from its sales teams to customers. I saw some of the presentations, they were slick, reminded my of those late night TV commercials where they try and sell you knives and exercise equipment. Lots of projections, lots of hype, and some of the items (like change engine manufacturer in 24 hours) just got dropped. A lot of things that were being described as being novel on the 787 were actually already out there in service.

The 777X I see as being a logical evolution of a successful air frame, and it is a small step, they can put more effort into getting the wing/engines right and not have to worry about the fuselage as much. I would not be surprised if between now and the 777X EIS we see the fuselage upgrade make it into service ahead of the wing/engine package.

I sincerely hope that Boeing has learned from the 787, and will build the 777X using the same supply chain as they do for the 777.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 144):
The situation with the 777 is similar; the A3510 is poised to trample the 77W if Boeing does nothing, and they obviously cannot afford that. And again, customers are probably unwilling to wait 10 years for a clean sheet design, coupled with the very real possibilities of significant delays.

I think that is a fallacy, like the people who claimed the A330 sales would have dried up when the 787 came out. I think the 777 would still have sold, not the -200 model. The 787-10 will take that slot.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-08 10:40:38 and read 9899 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Don't ask me, I wasn't on a.net back then.

Me neither.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
I personally think the original A350 would have worked well,
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
So do I.

With the knowledge of today, the delays of new programs etc, I believe Airbus would think the same way.

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ?

Newer generation engines and newer generation CFRP wings. The original A350 and the 787 would have had the same generation technology on this level.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: zeke
Posted 2013-05-08 10:52:31 and read 9894 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 147):
Newer generation engines and newer generation CFRP wings. The original A350 and the 787 would have had the same generation technology on this level.

Not exactly, the A350 engine was an improved, and higher thrust version of the 787 engine (like the 777 to 777X). The original A350 wing would have been the second full large wing they made (A400M, A380 HTP, A380 CWB, Barracuda UAV, EF2000), like the 787 to 777X.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: planesmart
Posted 2013-05-08 11:42:39 and read 9780 times.

Boeing's challenge will be persuading financiers that a major change to an existing model, is a good proposition.

747 iteration has not created confidence. Successful technically, but not commercially.

Boeing have already started a charm offensive to persuade financiers that high tech (lessons learnt from 787), is now low risk, and commercially the way to go.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-08 11:47:14 and read 9790 times.

Quoting planesmart (Reply 149):
Boeing's challenge will be persuading financiers that a major change to an existing model, is a good proposition.

I'd be surprised if the 777X is financed by anything other than Boeing's cashflow - i.e. I'm not sure why they would need to persuade "financiers".

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-08 11:53:29 and read 9743 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Not exactly, the A350 engine was an improved, and higher thrust version of the 787 engine (like the 777 to 777X). The original A350 wing would have been the second full large wing they made (A400M, A380 HTP, A380 CWB, Barracuda UAV, EF2000), like the 787 to 777X.

Fair enough.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: planesmart
Posted 2013-05-08 13:15:54 and read 9717 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 150):

If Boeing used cashflow to fund product development until project breakeven, how would they fund materials, labour and other expenses related to current production? How would they fund increased production?

Every Boeing (and Airbus) project has risk and non-risk sharing suppliers and financiers? And in most cases, the suppliers in turn will have risk and non-risk sharing sub-contractors and financiers. And the sub-contractors need finance too.

Who comes on board, and their related risk assessment and margins, then flow down to other partners and sub-contractors, which has an impact on project costs, breakeven and unit costs, so a lot of courtship is undertaken.

Even when in production, different construction milestones trigger different funding drawdowns and tranches, including thru the process of test and acceptance flights.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-08 16:38:17 and read 9583 times.

An interesting picture comparing B777 sizes.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-08 16:55:12 and read 9544 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
I think that is a fallacy, like the people who claimed the A330 sales would have dried up when the 787 came out. I think the 777 would still have sold, not the -200 model. The 787-10 will take that slot.

The A330 is still selling because it can be had in a reasonable time frame; but once 787 production catches up with the backlog this will change. Similarly, once the A3510 becomes available in a reasonable amount of time very few airlines will order the 77W. It will be just like the A345/A346 once the 77W and 77L became available.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JHwk
Posted 2013-05-08 18:02:36 and read 9443 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 123):
In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative.

I thought the same of the 737Max decision... at first. Then you get into the whole logistics complexity and ultimately what the clean-sheet design can do for you that an upgrade can't.

By 2030, I hope to see a blended wing/body airliner flying. From everything I understand, there is simply no way for it to happen before 2025, but the necessary innovations are still many years out before it can be designed. I think I would rather see Boeing do BWB right for a 600-seat aircraft as opposed to making a 500 seat tube and wings.

Who knows; 10 years from now the sonic cruiser might be back on the table...

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-08 19:50:13 and read 9336 times.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 155):
I thought the same of the 737Max decision... at first. Then you get into the whole logistics complexity and ultimately what the clean-sheet design can do for you that an upgrade can't.

With A.net being such a repository of opinion, (which is not a bad thing), it's easy to forget that the 777x, MAX, the XWB, NEO, CSeries and other decisions were driven by the market and their competitors, not by whims.

Boeing isn't going to sink billions into the 777x just for laughs...they think they have a product which will sell...and so far it's looking like they're right.

Customers who decided they wanted more than the original 350 could provide, pushed Airbus into the XWB. That's what killed what would have been a very good 330 upgrade.

Airbus took a leap of faith with the NEO...but not without doing plenty of research and having dozens of very likely sales campaigns going on for a couple of years already. It was also a shot across the bow of the 737 and CSeries. Boeing shopped their NSA around for a very long time without getting a single sale but when it came down to buying planes, customers lined up to buy the MAX.

BBD saw a market they considered under-represented and created the CSeries. Time will tell if they judged the market correctly.

Some choices turn out not so good, (748i being a good example), but if nobody took chances, we'd never have progress.

Ultimately, it's the customers who decide what is a success and what isn't.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-08 21:13:38 and read 9294 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 140):
That would depend on whether a market for a segment above the 777-9X but below the A380 exists. If there is, then perhaps Boeing could study the viability of a further stretch to the 777 airframe, if that is possible.

Unfortunately that might be a bridge too far - they only have 3.5 meters to play with and even if that was feasible it wouldn't add much capacity. This is the downside of developing a derivative (at significant cost) that is so close to the maximum limits in length. The upside is that the 777-9X will be sitting right at its maximum structural efficiency for its given fuselage cross section which will enable excellent performance - particularly with the new wing/engine combination. This is the strategy - efficiency and performance right now at all cost.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 140):
But if there isn't sufficient demand for Boeing to look into a further stretch of the 777-9X, they may just have to tell those airlines wanting something bigger than the 777-9X to buy the 747-8i.

Stop and think about that for a moment, early in the next decade Boeing's leading customers are so impressed by the worlds largest, most efficient and best ever performing long haul twin (777-9X) that they tell Boeing "we love this plane - can you do something a little larger" ?   

And Boeing's reply is "go buy the 748i" or maybe "wait another 15 years for Y3".

Not the way to treat your customers.   

This is all a bit tongue in cheek but I'm just illustrating my point - and it shows what Boeing could be setting themselves up for in the future. It is room for growth that is allowing Boeing to offer the 787-10 - an aircraft that was never envisaged as part of the original business plan and one that is going to sell like hot cakes and well and truly transform the 787 balance sheet into profit territory. The 777X will never have an equivalent to the 787-10 to help amortise those significant R&D costs.


Quoting SEPilot (Reply 144):
As to the question raised by some posters about whether or not boldness in aircraft design pays off, my conclusion is what pays off is building the right airplane. Be as bold or as cautious as you like, but have for sale the aircraft that the airlines want.

Having the right aircraft available within the right timeframe will keep your customers happy and generate sales. Doing so within the context of the right business strategy which keeps that right aircraft available over an appropriate period of time by balancing R&D vs efficiency, market conditions & sales will generate a ROI that keeps your shareholders happy.
There will always be lots of different ways you can go about building the right aircraft - choosing the best business strategy to do so is the hard part. There will always be compromises and trade-offs.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 156):
Ultimately, it's the customers who decide what is a success and what isn't.

The customers will decide what sells but it is the business strategy that decides whether the OEM benefits financially.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-08 21:25:05]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-09 00:09:07 and read 9162 times.

My current take is do the 9X and the 8L/F 777, then go for a beefed up UC for the 787 that the 787-10 could use to replace the 777-8 non L model with. A triple boogie on the 787-10 would be possible IMO. Insert more area in its wing maybe? The 787-10 is not a perfect 772ER replacement as of today, wing and MTOW is a bit off?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-09 01:54:35 and read 9064 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 156):
Airbus took a leap of faith with the NEO...but not without doing plenty of research and having dozens of very likely sales campaigns going on for a couple of years already. It was also a shot across the bow of the 737 and CSeries. Boeing shopped their NSA around for a very long time without getting a single sale but when it came down to buying planes, customers lined up to buy the MAX.

  

Customers wants fuel efficient airplanes right now, not in the next decade. The huge A320neo and 737 Max backlog is the proof of this demand.

I recall Leahy saying that Airbus did the studies on a CFRP fuselage for the A320 but one would gain only 3% fuel burn reduction.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-09 04:27:48 and read 8971 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 158):
My current take is do the 9X and the 8L/F 777, then go for a beefed up UC for the 787 that the 787-10 could use to replace the 777-8 non L model with. A triple boogie on the 787-10 would be possible IMO. Insert more area in its wing maybe? The 787-10 is not a perfect 772ER replacement as of today, wing and MTOW is a bit off?

It is not necessary to replace a given plane with an exact replacement; this has seldom happened in aviation. Generally, when manufacturers try to do it it results in a flop (764, anyone?). Just because the 7810 is not an exact 77E replacement does not mean it will not be successful. Airlines buy the best plane available to suit their needs, but that rarely means that the plane they buy is a perfect fit. The 757 was designed as a 727 replacement, but it was far more capable and made a niche for itself that was completely different from where the 727 was. The 767 was supposed to be a 707 replacement, but again, found its own market. The 777 was a replacement for nothing, but has been spectacularly successful. It is evolving into a 747 replacement because it can do the job that the 747 used to do better. Likewise the 7810 will do the job that a lot of 777's used to do better than the 777 did; but it matters not that it does not have exactly the same capabilities.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Mayohoo
Posted 2013-05-09 04:58:25 and read 8940 times.

It is likely in 10-15 years the major advances in efficiency will continue to be the engines. What would preclude the 777-9x from doing a neo? And in 20-25 years it is likely the Y3 BWB or whatever concept will be what replaces the 777-9x. I think that it is possible that the science of aerodynamics is not going to be making huge quantum improvements now. They will likely be more incremental and tube and wings may be approaching their optimum...at least until new materials come out.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-09 05:08:20 and read 8945 times.

Leeham News has an article about what needs to be done to keep the 777X assembly in the Washington State.

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...-plan-heres-what-needs-to-be-done/

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-09 06:23:19 and read 8859 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
Stop and think about that for a moment, early in the next decade Boeing's leading customers are so impressed by the worlds largest, most efficient and best ever performing long haul twin (777-9X) that they tell Boeing "we love this plane - can you do something a little larger" ?

And Boeing's reply is "go buy the 748i" or maybe "wait another 15 years for Y3".

Not the way to treat your customers.

This is all a bit tongue in cheek but I'm just illustrating my point - and it shows what Boeing could be setting themselves up for in the future. It is room for growth that is allowing Boeing to offer the 787-10 - an aircraft that was never envisaged as part of the original business plan and one that is going to sell like hot cakes and well and truly transform the 787 balance sheet into profit territory. The 777X will never have an equivalent to the 787-10 to help amortise those significant R&D costs.

The issue here is that they need a fuselage wider than 10, when you have a hard and fast restriction of 80M. In my opinion it seems really silly to be throwing this much money at something that is only marginally wider than there super modern 787 Cross section. They need to move on to a non-circular 11 or 12w Horizontal Oval, that has capacity to grow.

It is a very circular argument and has been rehashed many times but what are they really gaining by dumping more money into the 777 Barrel?

Put the new 777x wing/gear on the 787 fuselage or make a new Super Wide barrel.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tistpaa727
Posted 2013-05-09 08:09:00 and read 8763 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 156):
With A.net being such a repository of opinion, (which is not a bad thing), it's easy to forget that the 777x, MAX, the XWB, NEO, CSeries and other decisions were driven by the market and their competitors, not by whims.

Boeing isn't going to sink billions into the 777x just for laughs...they think they have a product which will sell...and so far it's looking like they're right.

  

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 156):
Some choices turn out not so good, (748i being a good example), but if nobody took chances, we'd never have progress.

Maybe fore Boeing but for planespotters its a great success!   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-09 09:08:09 and read 8676 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 164):
They need to move on to a non-circular 11 or 12w Horizontal Oval, that has capacity to grow.

This is not as simple as it sounds. A pressurized vessel wants to be round, and keeping it from going there requires structure, and hence weight. There is very good reason why single deck airliners have basically round cross sections, and when they do vary from it it is at the line of the deck. And using the deck in tension is far more efficient than using it in compression, which an oval fuselage would require. A double deck airliner (A380, 747) can use the upper deck to modify the shape, but it has its limits. Looking at the A380 cross section, it is basically round above the upper deck and below the lower deck; the sides in between are rounded but not a natural shape; I suspect quite a bit of extra structure is required there. The front end of the 747 is similar.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-09 10:00:51 and read 8607 times.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 166):
This is not as simple as it sounds. A pressurized vessel wants to be round, and keeping it from going there requires structure, and hence weight. There is very good reason why single deck airliners have basically round cross sections, and when they do vary from it it is at the line of the deck. And using the deck in tension is far more efficient than using it in compression, which an oval fuselage would require. A double deck airliner (A380, 747) can use the upper deck to modify the shape, but it has its limits. Looking at the A380 cross section, it is basically round above the upper deck and below the lower deck; the sides in between are rounded but not a natural shape; I suspect quite a bit of extra structure is required there. The front end of the 747 is similar.

I get the part about it trying return to a circle and strucuturally it's a lot easier to hold something in tension - On a 12W Horizontal Oval - it might take some doing but if your cabin was 3x6x3 (or 2x4x2 in business) the middle 6 could be two sets of 3W sperated by a 1-3" Carbon Divider - with Openings to see through, or to walk through in Galley spaces/entries.

There should be enough space in the belly to run it down there as well for most of the length as I believe most cargo containers aren't full width anyways

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JHwk
Posted 2013-05-09 10:35:19 and read 8554 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 167):

I'm no aeronautical engineer, but my understanding is you cannot cross more than 2 seats for egress, so your widest twin-aisle is going to be 3-5-3. Once you go to 12, you need a third aisle, and three aisles could cover you for up to 16 abreast.

To stretch the fuselage in a horizontal ellipse, the deck is operating in compression, which introduces buckling stresses and requires extra stiffness. Some of this can be mitigated with a support in the cargo area, or you could have tension members in the cabin on either side of the center aisle periodically. Either way, it limits the airframe flexibility.

Ultimately, you are trying to minimize exterior surface area, maximize floor area, and minimize weight. Your ellipse would need to be less than 18' high to have a net benefit, and I don't think you would get a sufficiently useable shape at that level. But, when you turn it to a vertical oval, your reinforcement is useable as additional floor area.

This post goes into some of the semantics: www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/301565/#menu30

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-09 10:56:51 and read 8509 times.

A BWB large enough could fit two circular cabins in parallel in the same body and wing, a pressurized part of the whole structure for people and the rest could be unpressurized maybe?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-09 12:59:57 and read 8428 times.

Once you decide to get away from the circular or double bubble cross section, then a lot of the advantages of the tube with wings, (mainly simplicity), go away.

You might as well start heading towards a lifting body/BWB configuration, and take aerodynamic advantage of the wide shape, since it will cost you added weight, maybe a hybrid BWB, with a wide fuse, (as mentioned, perhaps containing a pair of circular pressure vessels), sitting partially atop the massive wing, to allow for windows and exits.

It's hard to beat the circular cross section as a pressure vessel...the trick is to not waste the attic space. It's already being used as crew accommodation. If they can clear some galley space from the main deck and maybe even move a lav or two, it can end up being an efficient shape from more than a pressure point of view.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-09 13:09:26 and read 8439 times.

I thought we were still looking at a 2019 EIS?

Tim Clark interview today:

Tim Clark: Certainly, negotiations with Boeing on the 777X jets will start in the next couple of months, depending on a number of things such as the delivery timeline etc. They won’t be delivered until late 2020 or 2021.

http://gulfnews.com/business/aviatio...-with-boeing-in-2-months-1.1180428

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-09 13:14:29 and read 8404 times.

I mentioned this in the Qatar thread too, perhaps someone else will be the launch customer?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-10 06:48:20 and read 8064 times.

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ?

Along with the new wing, possibly Al-Li fuselage skin ...

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
The problem is the hype that comes with these announcements like the 777X, we have a lot of people on here take them at face value. The 787 is not being anywhere near the sort of capability people were claiming when it was launched.

What you call "hype" I call "projections". While Boeing hasn't realeased any firm figures for the 777X, a number of respected aviation journals have given some indications and projections of what the 777X is going to be like. I have little doubt that some airlines would have received initial proposals from Boeing with draft specifications of the 777X. That's not hype, that's projection.

Granted, the 787 has missed its targets, but so has many other aircraft design projects in recent history. But so what? Every project is different, and has different challenges. Unless there's firm evidence contrary to published projections about the 777X, I'll remain optimistic that those projections will be its actual specifications.

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
Lots of projections, lots of hype, and some of the items (like change engine manufacturer in 24 hours) just got dropped. A lot of things that were being described as being novel on the 787 were actually already out there in service.

That's called "marketing".

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
Unfortunately that might be a bridge too far

Unfortunately, I have to agree, but

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
they only have 3.5 meters to play with and even if that was feasible it wouldn't add much capacity.

If they could add those 3.5m to stretch to a "777-10X", as unlikely as it may be, those 3.5 metres could increase the 777-9X's capacity by up to 30 seats, making it a 430 seater.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
Stop and think about that for a moment, early in the next decade Boeing's leading customers are so impressed by the worlds largest, most efficient and best ever performing long haul twin (777-9X) that they tell Boeing "we love this plane - can you do something a little larger" ?

And Boeing's reply is "go buy the 748i" or maybe "wait another 15 years for Y3".

Not the way to treat your customers.

That's business. They can't please everyone. If aircraft manufacturers pandered to the needs of every single airline out there by creating a bespoke model each, they'd go broke. Sometimes, airlines will just have to make do with what's available, until there is sufficient demand for Boeing to seriously consider developing a "777-10X".

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
This is all a bit tongue in cheek but I'm just illustrating my point - and it shows what Boeing could be setting themselves up for in the future.

I understand your point, but I do not see this as crucial because there are no other offerings on the horizon.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):
The 777X will never have an equivalent to the 787-10 to help amortise those significant R&D costs.

I would think that the 777-9X will do that by itself. If not, there's always the possibility of a 777-8F.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):
The issue here is that they need a fuselage wider than 10, when you have a hard and fast restriction of 80M.

Why do they need a wider fuselage than a 10-across one?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):
super modern 787 Cross section

In what way is the 787 cross section "modern"? I'm not disputing that the 787 fuselage is modern, but what makes a cross section "modern"?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):
They need to move on to a non-circular 11 or 12w Horizontal Oval, that has capacity to grow.

The only realisitc chance of there being an 11-across economy class is on the A380. 12 is not possible without a third aisle, as regulations stipulate that no one can be more than two seats away from the aisle in any direction.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):
It is a very circular argument and has been rehashed many times but what are they really gaining by dumping more money into the 777 Barrel?

Umm ... an aircraft that can compete effectively with the A350-1000 and replace the 747-400, and possibly put the 747-8i to bed?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):
Put the new 777x wing/gear on the 787 fuselage or make a new Super Wide barrel.

The 777X's wing and gear will significantly increase the empty weight of a 787, and you will need to stretch the 787 fuselage further in order to get the same capacity advantage that the 777X has over the A350-1000 because the 787 cannot fit 10 seats across in economy or 7 seats across in business.

It is a ridiculous suggestion as the 787 wasn't even designed for this purpose in the first place. I don't believe we will see a 787 larger than the -10 for the foreseeable future.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 168):
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but my understanding is you cannot cross more than 2 seats for egress, so your widest twin-aisle is going to be 3-5-3. Once you go to 12, you need a third aisle, and three aisles could cover you for up to 16 abreast.

That is my understanding as well

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 170):
It's hard to beat the circular cross section as a pressure vessel...the trick is to not waste the attic space. It's already being used as crew accommodation. If they can clear some galley space from the main deck and maybe even move a lav or two, it can end up being an efficient shape from more than a pressure point of view.

That is what I've read about the circular cross section as well - that it is an efficient design with its only downfall being a lot of empty space above the main deck. As you point out, it's already being used as a crew rest, but I'm not sure if there is enough space up there for a person to stand up in if galleys and lavatories are going to be moved up there as well. There also has to be a provision for entry and egress, so I'm not sure how much space putting the galley and lavatory up there would save, if at all.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 171):
I thought we were still looking at a 2019 EIS?

Perhaps EK are expecting Boeing to miss its targeted EIS?

There has been a concession last year by McNerney saying that the 777X will EIS end of this decade or early next decade, which allows for the possibility that they may not meet their initial projected EIS.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-10 07:19:32 and read 7987 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 173):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 170):
It's hard to beat the circular cross section as a pressure vessel...the trick is to not waste the attic space. It's already being used as crew accommodation. If they can clear some galley space from the main deck and maybe even move a lav or two, it can end up being an efficient shape from more than a pressure point of view.

That is what I've read about the circular cross section as well - that it is an efficient design with its only downfall being a lot of empty space above the main deck. As you point out, it's already being used as a crew rest, but I'm not sure if there is enough space up there for a person to stand up in if galleys and lavatories are going to be moved up there as well. There also has to be a provision for entry and egress, so I'm not sure how much space putting the galley and lavatory up there would save, if at all.

Crew rest I can understand, but when you go for galleys and lavatories up there, than you start to need to get a floor up there, and than you can go all the way to a A380 type fuselage.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2013-05-10 08:22:59 and read 7908 times.

Quoting JHwk (Reply 168):
I'm no aeronautical engineer, but my understanding is you cannot cross more than 2 seats for egress, so your widest twin-aisle is going to be 3-5-3. Once you go to 12, you need a third aisle, and three aisles could cover you for up to 16 abreast.

I give up. Why would you have to cross more than 2 seats in 6 across? It would be better than a window seat, since if the short route was blocked, you'd at least have the option of going the long route.

[Edited 2013-05-10 08:25:15]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-10 08:30:04 and read 7889 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 175):
I give up. Why would you have to cross more than 2 seats in 6 across? It would be better than a window seat, since if the short route was blocked, you'd at least have the option of going the long route.

Exactly - if it's two seats away from either aisle in the middle section of seats - then what about the first and second seats in a 5W center section - they are 4 and 3 seats away from the opposite aisle.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-10 08:32:03 and read 7890 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 175):
Why would you have to cross more than 2 seats in 6 across?

The rule is the middle seat shouldn't have to cross more than 2 across on either side. With a 6 abreast, the 2 middle seats will have 2 seats on one side and 3 on the other....which violates the rule and hence why the max is 3:5:3 in a twin aisle.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-10 08:37:43 and read 7967 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 176):
Exactly - if it's two seats away from either aisle in the middle section of seats - then what about the first and second seats in a 5W center section - they are 4 and 3 seats away from the opposite aisle.

1) Neither the first or second seat is in the middle

2) In the case of an emergency, the first seat has no one blocking access to the aisle. The second seat has just one person btw them and the aisle.

3) With a 6 abreast, the third and 4th seat would have a substantially more difficult time getting access to the aisle if the side with 3 people btw them and the aisle is the only way out in an emergency.

4) The rules were made primarily for the sake of safety reasons.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-05-10 11:39:53 and read 7836 times.

Flight Global has an article about transferring 787 cockpit systems to the 777x:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-for-777x-consultant-says-385672/

In the article, I found this bit particularly interesting:

"Boeing is now in discussions with potential customers, which include British Airways, Emirates, Qatar Airways and Air Lease Corp, to refine aspects of the 777X's design and performance before formally launching the aircraft and booking orders."

The article states BA and not IAG, so I would assume that means BA is pretty involved with the 777x program. Have I been out of the loop, or is this new news? I've always thought the BA fleet had room for both the A351 and 777x.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-10 11:50:45 and read 7799 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 178):
The article states BA and not IAG, so I would assume that means BA is pretty involved with the 777x program. Have I been out of the loop, or is this new news? I've always thought the BA fleet had room for both the A351 and 777x.

Since IAG placed an order for A350-1000's for BA, the initial desire that Willie Walsh had for the 777-9x has fizzled, so believes a small crowd out there. I believe that IAG will find a way to integrate them both into their fleet as they'll fly different mission to serve different purposes.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: PW100
Posted 2013-05-10 11:52:48 and read 7793 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 176):
The rule is the middle seat shouldn't have to cross more than 2 across on either side. With a 6 abreast, the 2 middle seats will have 2 seats on one side and 3 on the other....which violates the rule and hence why the max is 3:5:3 in a twin aisle

Which rule would that be, and why does it not apply to window seats?

So why would it be OK for a window seat to have only access to ONE aisle crossing two seats in a 3-5-3, while the two middle seats in a 3-6-3 have exactly the same egress opportunities as the window seats if you look only at the closes aisle, and ignoring the other one. In fact, the two middle seats have (slightly) better egress opportunity, since they still have the option to the other aisle, albeit that they have to cross three seats.

Just asking . . . .

PW100

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-10 11:58:50 and read 7770 times.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 178):
The article states BA and not IAG, so I would assume that means BA is pretty involved with the 777x program. Have I been out of the loop, or is this new news? I've always thought the BA fleet had room for both the A351 and 777x.

I assume many customers to be involved, even the ones that are not immediately in the need of ordering them.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-10 12:02:48 and read 7773 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 172):

I mentioned this in the Qatar thread too, perhaps someone else will be the launch customer?

I thought that it indicated a date slippage because I had a hard time believing that EK was going to wait a year and have their competitors flying the aircraft before they did.

Jon Ostrower posted this quote today:
The Temporary Surge Line or TSL is prospectively slated for retirement in 2016 to make way for 777X as to not disrupt current 777 production. This plan mirrors a temporary third line in Renton for 737 Max.
https://www.facebook.com/jonostrower/posts/10101961425903614

Its hard to believe they would retire the surge line in 2016 and not have an aircraft enter service until late 2020. How many months does it take to rededicate a production line to new the equipment? I assume they would try to produce the 77W and 77L/F through mid 2020 if they could get the orders especially as any hypothetical 777-8F could not probably happen before 2023 anyway.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-10 12:07:26 and read 7773 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 182):
I thought that it indicated a date slippage because I had a hard time believing that EK was going to wait a year and have their competitors flying the aircraft before they did.

Well, it could mean 2 things 1) a date slippage or 2) someone else will launch it.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 182):
Its hard to believe they would retire the surge line in 2016 and not have an aircraft enter service until late 2020. How many months does it take to rededicate a production line to new the equipment? I assume they would try to produce the 77W and 77L/F through mid 2020 if they could get the orders especially as any hypothetical 777-8F could not probably happen before 2023 anyway.

The surge line would retire around 2016 anyway, 777X or not. Don't forget, the primary goal of the temporary line is to assist a smooth ramp-up of the 787-9.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: 7BOEING7
Posted 2013-05-10 12:20:33 and read 7744 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 180):

Which rule would that be, and why does it not apply to window seats?

  



This is all I could find in the FARs about seats abreast. It's written for single aisle but if somebody can find better information I'd like to see it -- please note FAR Section when replying.

§ 25.817 Maximum number of seats abreast.

On airplanes having only one passenger aisle, no more than three seats abreast may be placed on each side of the aisle in any one row.

[Amdt. 25-15, 32 FR 13265, Sept. 20, 1967]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-10 12:36:55 and read 7711 times.

As I believe Economy IFE boxes drive sets of three seats, 3+6+3 would be beneficial from that aspect.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-10 13:19:14 and read 7656 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 182):
I thought that it indicated a date slippage because I had a hard time believing that EK was going to wait a year and have their competitors flying the aircraft before they did.

It may be the airlines slipping a year's "float" into the delivery schedule based on recent experiences....

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-10 13:43:44 and read 7603 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 173):
Crew rest I can understand, but when you go for galleys and lavatories up there, than you start to need to get a floor up there, and than you can go all the way to a A380 type fuselage.

Ideally, the attic would be used more for that which takes up space, but not necessarily is very heavy. The ceiling is already significantly reinforced since it has to support, not just the ceiling itself, but the very heavy luggage bins, (when full).

Lavs and galleys are just suggestions of some things that take up space on the passenger deck which might be moved.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-10 14:02:49 and read 7598 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 186):
It may be the airlines slipping a year's "float" into the delivery schedule based on recent experiences....

That sure would be a sad development. If I were an airline, I sure would plan on receiving aircraft later than an OEM projected but publicly I think I would keep the pressure on the OEM to deliver on schedule. It is a little too early to be assuming they are going to fumble. Track record has not been good though.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 187):
Lavs and galleys are just suggestions of some things that take up space on the passenger deck which might be moved.

What about ditching the middle overhead bins in low density (1-2-1) business class and have a skyloft concept with lavatories and galleys. Not sure how you would deal with re-routing the plumbing and if I was in business and I heard a toilet flush above my head I think I would freak out. Definitely some problems to work out.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-10 14:13:25 and read 7575 times.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 180):
Which rule would that be, and why does it not apply to window seats?

Oh I didn't mean it applied to just the middle row, I was just referring to the middle row in that particular statement.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 180):
So why would it be OK for a window seat to have only access to ONE aisle crossing two seats in a 3-5-3, while the two middle seats in a 3-6-3 have exactly the same egress opportunities as the window seats if you look only at the closes aisle, and ignoring the other one. In fact, the two middle seats have (slightly) better egress opportunity, since they still have the option to the other aisle, albeit that they have to cross three seats

This is how it was explained to me when I asked a similar question a while ago.

During emergency situations, passenger disorientation is expected. Those seating @ window seats already know fully well that there is one path to the aisle, seeing as what is next to him/her is a wall and walls can't panick or pass out and block access to an aisle. Having just 2 seats btw them and the aisle is the norm according to the FAA and EASA.

A 6 abreast middle row numbering A-F, seats C&D will be the middle seats.

Using an example, C can exit either to the aisle by passing over A&B or via D, E and F.

In an emergency the pax in C and D know there is more than 1 way to get into their seat. B and E know they only have to go over A and F to get to the aisle. If for any reason the seats in A&B are blocked, the only option is to go via D,E,F. Pax disorientation can also make them make illogical decisions seeing as they have 2 choices and choose to use D,E,F to get to the aisle instead of the shorter route.

Those are the reasons as they were explained to me.

Examples of where 6 abreast could have been used but haven't (as it is well known that pax prefer the 2 abreast window rows on the a330/a340) include every 10 abreast airliner today....e.g 2 : 6 : 2

Before someone points out the IFE box issue, 3 : 4 : 3 and 2 : 6 : 2 still require 4 boxes.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-10 14:41:16 and read 7543 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
What about ditching the middle overhead bins in low density (1-2-1) business class and have a skyloft concept with lavatories and galleys. Not sure how you would deal with re-routing the plumbing and if I was in business and I heard a toilet flush above my head I think I would freak out. Definitely some problems to work out.

I think there are quite a few options for the attic space and I think Boeing will be looking extra hard to fill that space. They've already offered the skyloft concept, and it wasn't received very well...but nothing's stopping them from trying it again. If they really wanted to move lavs upstairs, it wouldn't be much of an issue to add some sound insulation to keep the sound down...and considering the lines I've had on some flights, a few extra lavs anywhere on the plane would have been very welcome.

Basically, the downside of the circular cross section is wasted space, especially in the attic. The more that can be placed in the loft, the more floor space opens up for seats and the better the economics.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-10 15:47:38 and read 7468 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 187):
Lavs and galleys are just suggestions of some things that take up space on the passenger deck which might be moved.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
What about ditching the middle overhead bins in low density (1-2-1) business class and have a skyloft concept with lavatories and galleys. Not sure how you would deal with re-routing the plumbing and if I was in business and I heard a toilet flush above my head I think I would freak out. Definitely some problems to work out.

tortugamon

A few persons in the crew rest area are not a lot of weight.
Lav, with the plumbing and weight of fresh and wast water, and galley, with all the heavy storage, needs IMO quite a bit of heavy construction.
I can not think of anything light to stuff up there.
The bins IMO are rather light compared and hanging of the arch and do not need a floor.

I think to push for lot bigger than a B777-9X and staying in the 80m box, the form of the fuselage of an A380 is the right way.
In a high oval the floors take the strain of the deformation of the circle.
In a broad oval you would need a vertical structure to take the strain.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-10 18:45:11 and read 7345 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):
They've already offered the skyloft concept

I realize but I believe that was only for the 747-8i which has a customer list of five customers. I can see EK, AF, KLM, and a handful of other customers being very interested if it could be done well and raise revenue.

Its obviously on Boeing's mind. In the 777 section on Boeing's website they have the following quote: the overhead area, or crown, will have open space virtually throughout the entire length of the airplane. The flight crew and attendant rest areas use a portion of that space, allowing for future overhead space utilization or other innovations.

A series of elevators and galley cart storage techniques seems like a reasonable improvement. Boeing has a couple patents around galley elevators and galley storage in the crown that could be useful:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6412603
http://www.google.com/patents/US7494091

By my calculations there should be more than 75 carts on a long haul 777-9x taking up approximately 26.2 sq meters of space. I am not sure how much of this would be floor space but definitely a significant majority. If 100% could be relocated to the crown and that space perfectly allocated to seats (it wouldn't but I could not think of a reasonable assumption) then it would mean approximately 31 seats or 10% of a 262.9 Sq Meter A350-900.

Hopefully it would come out more efficient than this contraption on a 777 on Austrian (shown in the 15 seconds or so).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maFbMivQ6u8

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 191):
IMO quite a bit of heavy construction.

That is certainly the tradeoff. The weight penalty could definitely eat up a chunk of the additional revenue if it is not well executed.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-05-11 02:13:24 and read 7100 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 190):
I think there are quite a few options for the attic space and I think Boeing will be looking extra hard to fill that space. They've already offered the skyloft concept, and it wasn't received very well...but nothing's stopping them from trying it again. If they really wanted to move lavs upstairs, it wouldn't be much of an issue to add some sound insulation to keep the sound down...and considering the lines I've had on some flights, a few extra lavs anywhere on the plane would have been very welcome.

Do you know how high ceiling is possible to attain up there?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: angmoh
Posted 2013-05-11 03:02:40 and read 7061 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 188):
What about ditching the middle overhead bins in low density (1-2-1) business class and have a skyloft concept with lavatories and galleys.

In 1-2-1 the middle overhead bins are already gone on some airlines like SQ. If you don't need them, then ditch them because of weight.

There is also not enough space for lavatories (you don't want passengers to crawl to the toilet) and for galleys you would violate many occupational health and safety laws because you ask crew to push and carry items in a confined space.

Even the toilets the A340 which you needed the stairs to go down were pretty much a failure.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-11 03:06:06 and read 7053 times.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 194):
Even the toilets the A340 which you needed the stairs to go down were pretty much a failure.

That depends on how you look at the solution of putting the toilets there. I found it to be a very creative and attractive solution. There are disadvantages, but also advantages to the choice of putting the toilets downstairs imho.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-11 04:42:19 and read 6969 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 192):
A series of elevators and galley cart storage techniques seems like a reasonable improvement. Boeing has a couple patents around galley elevators and galley storage in the crown that could be useful:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6412603
http://www.google.com/patents/US7494091

You can patent the idea that you can put a galley cart into an empty space?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-11 05:09:20 and read 6943 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 196):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 192):
A series of elevators and galley cart storage techniques seems like a reasonable improvement. Boeing has a couple patents around galley elevators and galley storage in the crown that could be useful:
http://www.google.com/patents/US6412603
http://www.google.com/patents/US7494091

You can patent the idea that you can put a galley cart into an empty space?

If you look at those patents it is using the area above the galley for storage. It neither puts the galley up there nor does it encroach far into the passenger area.
Using the above and the upstairs crew rest areas, still leave most of the space in the crown unused.

You can patent everything between heaven and earth, the question is always will the patent hold.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-11 05:25:35 and read 6939 times.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 195):
Quoting angmoh (Reply 194):
Even the toilets the A340 which you needed the stairs to go down were pretty much a failure.

That depends on how you look at the solution of putting the toilets there. I found it to be a very creative and attractive solution. There are disadvantages, but also advantages to the choice of putting the toilets downstairs imho.

Everything moving to the belly encroaches on cargo space and nobody seems to accept that.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-11 07:56:29 and read 6816 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 193):
Do you know how high ceiling is possible to attain up there?
Quoting angmoh (Reply 194):
There is also not enough space for lavatories (you don't want passengers to crawl to the toilet) and for galleys you would violate many occupational health and safety laws because you ask crew to push and carry items in a confined space.

Heck, I'm just looking at creative uses of attic space. Heck, maybe store the christmas lights and golf clubs up there. Maybe there isn't enough room for a WC, but there's more room up there than in the hold of a 737. The best use may very well be to do nothing with it.

Ideas don't cost a thing.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-11 09:34:17 and read 6716 times.

Assuming that Boeing isn't going to change the gear(meaning keep it the same as 77W), I'm guessing that Boeing will eventually offer a HGW 777X with same max take-off weights as 77W - what happens to the range/payload diagram if this happens.

Is 105,000 Lbs of thrust and the big wing enough to have same runway performance as 77W at same max gross weight?

Does it give EK there west coast full payload range, on the 779? What about the 778?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-11 11:03:34 and read 6657 times.

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 193):
Do you know how high ceiling is possible to attain up there?

Here is a video tour. It looks to be about 5 foot tall. Probably not enough space to have a full galley as the FA would have to be bowing their heads continuously. Could definitely see cart storage and a series of elevators though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7MOxqG7Vnw

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 197):
Using the above and the upstairs crew rest areas, still leave most of the space in the crown unused.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 199):
Ideas don't cost a thing.

I agree. Maybe some lounge chairs and a walk up bar for business class? A business center for calls, skyping, small conferences, and a printer/fax? Some yoga mats and tv monitors with yoga videos geared toward the limited space, rowing machines and a couple of showers? Have the IFE systems handle reservations if necessary. Just put something that may allow someone to get out of their 17.4" seat at some point on their 15 hour flight and could make the airline some extra $ or differentiate themselves.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 196):
You can patent the idea that you can put a galley cart into an empty space?

Evidently. Competitors can always put something similar into an aircraft if they make different design choices.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 194):
Even the toilets the A340 which you needed the stairs to go down were pretty much a failure.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 198):
Everything moving to the belly encroaches on cargo space and nobody seems to accept that.

Apparently LH accepted it. Can you explain why it was a failure? Even if it was a spectacular idea I am not sure it would have saved the A340's poor fuel burn relative to the 777.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-11 11:22:11 and read 6651 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 201):
It looks to be about 5 foot tall. Probably not enough space to have a full galley as the FA would have to be bowing their heads continuously.

Do I see job openings for sub-five-footers aspiring FAs?  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-11 11:26:14 and read 6650 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 201):
Apparently LH accepted it. Can you explain why it was a failure?

Takes space away from belly cargo.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-11 11:30:23 and read 6661 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 201):
Here is a video tour.

I like the sign on the door that specifically states, 'One per bunk'. That crew rest area actually does take up a lot of room in the crown.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-11 17:04:50 and read 6475 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 203):
Takes space away from belly cargo.

Of course it does. And yet LH is flying a lot of cargo and passengers around when successfully operating the A346. So it does not hurt them, so there is no failure in putting the lavatories downstairs. It is a choice made by the airline itself and knowing LH they had very good reasons to choose this configuration.   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-11 17:07:20 and read 6477 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 199):
Heck, I'm just looking at creative uses of attic space. Heck, maybe store the christmas lights and golf clubs up there. Maybe there isn't enough room for a WC, but there's more room up there than in the hold of a 737. The best use may very well be to do nothing with it.

Ideas don't cost a thing

Would you need two patents for that? One for Christmas lights, one for golf clubs, or would one patent do for both?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-12 01:39:01 and read 6272 times.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 202):
Do I see job openings for sub-five-footers aspiring FAs?  

I do. Dinner and a (Wizzard of Oz) show.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 203):
Takes space away from belly cargo.

Right, but that was not a surprise when LH ordered it. I am wondering why it was a failure for those that ordered it. LH ordered a quarter of all A346s ordered. That sounds like a lot more successful than skylofts have been on the 748.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 205):
It is a choice made by the airline itself and knowing LH they had very good reasons to choose this configuration.

Yep.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 204):
I like the sign on the door that specifically states, 'One per bunk'. That crew rest area actually does take up a lot of room in the crown.

If I was the type to be open to having a good time in a bunk with a cute FA (and I am), I am pretty sure I am also the guy that does not pay attention to such signs .

4 bunks on each side at six feet long plus 4-6' on either side gives you 35 feet or 12 rows of coach. The patent for it says 13   (http://www.google.com/patents/EP0901964A2?cl=en)
Still a ton of rows of unoccupied space in between that and the pilot rest area above first class. I would think we are talking about at least 100' of addition space that is unoccupied. Above business, the available area could be lower without center luggage bins. Maybe even flat which would be great for carts. Airbus has a patent for passenger sleeping positions in the crown as well (http://www.google.com/patents/US7823831). I am not sure how much $ people in coach would spend for a bed in the crown of the plane. Maybe this could be a perk of economy plus which should be pretty common by the end of the decade? This sounds a bit more extreme but maybe put pods like in this Boeing patent above economy plus or even business and ask passengers to go into the crown to sleep and reduce seat pitch on their cabin floor seat (http://www.google.com/patents/EP1010617A2?cl=en).

There would probably have to be training videos for anyone using the space as I think even the FAs need to know about their emergency exit:

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-12 04:46:08 and read 6172 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 200):
Does it give EK there west coast full payload range, on the 779? What about the 778?

Almost definitely on the 777-8LX.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: StickShaker
Posted 2013-05-12 07:45:23 and read 6022 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 172):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):The 777X will never have an equivalent to the 787-10 to help amortise those significant R&D costs.
I would think that the 777-9X will do that by itself. If not, there's always the possibility of a 777-8F.

Its a case of the 777-9X must do that all by itself - not impossible but a far bigger ask than is usually made of a derivative.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 172):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 157):Stop and think about that for a moment, early in the next decade Boeing's leading customers are so impressed by the worlds largest, most efficient and best ever performing long haul twin (777-9X) that they tell Boeing "we love this plane - can you do something a little larger" ?

And Boeing's reply is "go buy the 748i" or maybe "wait another 15 years for Y3".

Not the way to treat your customers.

That's business. They can't please everyone. If aircraft manufacturers pandered to the needs of every single airline out there by creating a bespoke model each, they'd go broke. Sometimes, airlines will just have to make do with what's available, until there is sufficient demand for Boeing to seriously consider developing a "777-10X".

There are a lot of shades of grey between having no potential for growth and pandering to the needs of every single airline out there. The mere fact that the 777X program is about to be launched is because one single airline had a very specific need for a high performance long range twin and that same one single airline is likely to order a sufficient number of frames to help make a very costly program financially viable. If EK were not there the 777X would be a very different animal because Boeing would be unable to justify such high R&D costs.

I doubt that we would see a 777-10X, the benefits in increased capacity are very modest and are unlikely to outweigh the costs of overcoming the technical issues (rotation angle) of an 80 meter frame. Boeing could no doubt be very creative with their cantilevered main gear (as they have done with the 77W) or other engineering solutions but they will come at a cost.



Quoting CXB77L (Reply 172):
Quoting morrisond (Reply 163):The issue here is that they need a fuselage wider than 10, when you have a hard and fast restriction of 80M.
Why do they need a wider fuselage than a 10-across one?

They need a wider fuselage than that of the current 777 - to overcome the issues we have just been discussing. The wider fuselage of course will be the Y3 program.


Boeing have made their call, however, and the 777X will proceed despite any flaws that could have been remedied by Y3. Launching Y3 immediately was never on the cards so Boeings options were focused upon the level of intensity as to how heavily the 77W would be upgraded and how soon Y3 might follow. Boeing appear to have chosen the maximum upgrade path and are obviously confident that the significant costs will be outweighed by maintaining as much as possible of the market established by the 77W.

This somehat unusual approach is no doubt a reflection of the transition that will occur from Boeing being the sole competitor in the large widebody market (350 seats) to a market fiercely contested by a clean sheet design (35J). The only parallels to this scenario are those that occurred when the original A300 and A320 were launched - Boeing would be keen not to sacrifice the same level of market share that occurred in those cases.


Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 178):
Flight Global has an article about transferring 787 cockpit systems to the 777x:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...5672/
.....Boeing will seek to transfer major elements of the 787's cockpit systems to the new 777X, perhaps preserving the common cockpit rating achieved between the 787 and the legacy 777 series, according to an industry analyst .....

..... But the 777X avionics strategy follows Boeing's strategy to harvest new technologies gained from the painful introduction of the 787 ......


I can see Boeing harvesting all sorts of technology from the 787 program - its there to be used. It is almost certain there will be a common cockpit rating between the 787 and 777X.



Regards,
StickShaker

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-12 19:22:05 and read 5763 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
If EK were not there the 777X would be a very different animal because Boeing would be unable to justify such high R&D costs.

That's what I've been wondering about. How much are they going to spend on development, how do they weigh up the risks. The options range is huge for the 777 enhancements. If someone is willing to put up the guaranteed orders for the most expensive option, then that's what we will be seeing. To an extent, Airbus and Boeing both owe EK, they have singlehandedly kept aviation moving forward and not stagnating.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-05-12 22:05:34 and read 5648 times.

I have a question.

777-200, 777-300 and 777-200ER were the original 777 planes.

Were the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777F considered 2nd Generation 777 planes?

Would the 777-8X, 777-8LRX and 777-9X be considered 3rd Generation 777 planes?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-13 05:53:13 and read 5433 times.

Quoting ODwyerPW (Reply 211):
I have a question.

777-200, 777-300 and 777-200ER were the original 777 planes.

Were the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777F considered 2nd Generation 777 planes?

Would the 777-8X, 777-8LRX and 777-9X be considered 3rd Generation 777 planes?

Works for me.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-14 10:12:49 and read 5098 times.

JAL and ANA are reportedly in talks with Airbus for A351. That would be a major hit to the 77X program.

Some quotes from the Bloomberg article:
Airbus SAS is in discussions with Japan’s two biggest carriers about an order for its A350-1000, a long-range plane aimed at eroding Boeing Co. (BA)’s dominance in wide-body aircraft, three people familiar with the talks said.

Negotiations with ANA Holdings Inc. (9202) and Japan Airlines Co. (9201) are advanced, and JAL may place an order by September to replace some of its older Boeing 777s, said two of the people, who asked not to be identified because talks are continuing. JAL, which has never bought Airbus aircraft, may purchase as many as 20 of the biggest A350 variant, one of the people said.

“An A350 order by JAL would be a disaster for Boeing,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based aerospace forecaster. “The Boeing-Japanese relationship is the longest and most important global relationship in aerospace history. If they really do choose an Airbus plane that would be a vote of no-confidence in Boeing.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...rom-largest-japanese-airlines.html

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-14 10:23:38 and read 5062 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 213):
“An A350 order by JAL would be a disaster for Boeing,” said Richard Aboulafia,

A plane crash is a disaster. What a big words from that guy, that's how things work in this world and I'm sure Boeing will survive it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-05-14 12:49:27 and read 4924 times.

I'd heard about JAL, but not ANA ... that would certainly make things very different; an ANA sale would be very significant for Airbus, because it has never yet ordered widebodies; they nearly ordered A340s in the 1990s, but then went for the 777.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-14 12:56:38 and read 4921 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 213):
JAL and ANA are reportedly in talks with Airbus for A351. That would be a major hit to the 77X program.

Honestly, buying the 777X would be a major hit to JAL and ANA. The 777-9 is too large for them and with their low-density long-haul configurations, the 777-8 might be too small (as it is shorter than the 777-300ER and there is no way they will go 10-abreast in Economy - this also could make the 787-10 undesirable in that replacement role, as well) and they certainly need neither the range nor the payload of the 777-8L.

The A350-1000 is hands-down the best choice for NH and JL as a 777-300ER replacement and while such an order will be seen as a "win" for Airbus and a "loss" for Boeing, it should really be seen as the only logical decision for both carriers to pursue.

[Edited 2013-05-14 13:11:25]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-14 12:59:18 and read 4922 times.

How did Aboulafia ever get to be considered an expert on anything? Competition for airliner customers has been very real for decades.

Of course Boeing wants to keep every customer...so does Airbus. They compete and sometimes one wins, and sometimes the other. Things are getting even more tight in the single aisle arena.

Airbus winning USAir wasn't a disaster...Boeing has made billions every year since...and neither would a Japanese customer going to Airbus for some orders. The other guy winning is what has advanced the available products.

Airbus wanted to beat the 732, so they created the 320. Boeing wanted to at least match the 320, so they developed, (in very short order), the classic, then the NG. BBD goes ahead with the CSeries, prompting Airbus to do the NEO, which prompts Boeing to do the MAX.

There's plenty of room in the marketplace for more than one maker, so no Richard, a 350 order by a Japanese airline would not be a disaster for Boeing....disappointing yes, but not nearly a disaster.

Enough with the hyperbole, please...we expect more logic and less hysteria from 'experts'.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-14 13:08:11 and read 4883 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 216):
it should really be seen as the only logical decision for both carriers to pursue.

  

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: planesmart
Posted 2013-05-14 13:34:00 and read 4819 times.

The finance industry, responsible in one way or another, for funding new model design, production, delivery, in service and then ongoing operation, as well as most used aircraft, wants ideally, two strong, full range manufacturers, and at least the same number of full range engine manufacturers (as do Boeing and Airbus).

No one aircraft or engine purchase to-date, or forseeably, has the ability to undermine either Boeing or Airbus.

We will see a more conservative approach dictated by shareholders, financiers and airlines to product development, following 787 delays, and under-performing 747 and A380 sales.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Revelation
Posted 2013-05-14 19:23:38 and read 4621 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 213):
JAL and ANA are reportedly in talks with Airbus for A351. That would be a major hit to the 77X program.

Various forms of this story has been discussed on a.net. Some hint that we may hear of this at Paris.

The A350 is a great product, and Boeing doesn't have anything right now on offer to compete with it, IMHO to a large degree because of the four years and billions of dollars extra getting the 787 (kind-of) out the door.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-15 07:17:24 and read 4402 times.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
Its a case of the 777-9X must do that all by itself

I would expect the 777-9X to sell enough to make a profit on the entire 777X program.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
The mere fact that the 777X program is about to be launched is because one single airline had a very specific need for a high performance long range twin and that same one single airline is likely to order a sufficient number of frames to help make a very costly program financially viable.

Yes, EK is a very important customer for Boeing and for the 777X program, but there have been more than one airline expressing an interest in the 777X. It's probably true that none of them will buy as many 777Xs as EK have said they will, but I would suspect that the program would still be launched had EK never existed, because Boeing needs a competitor to the A350 which is taking over the market that the 777-300ER currently dominates. While the 777X has yet to log a firm order, there has been rumours of widespread interest from many different airlines, most recently QR, BR and BA have expressed an interest in taking them.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
If EK were not there the 777X would be a very different animal because Boeing would be unable to justify such high R&D costs.

You have described the 777X's development costs as "high" (or words to that effect) several times. If you are referring to the development cost of the 777X in comparison to the development cost of any previous derivative, I will stipulate to that. But it is highly likely that whatever the 777X's development costs are, that a clean sheet design would be significantly more expensive than the 777X. I do not dispute that a clean sheet "Y3" is possibly going to out-perform the 777X, but not only is it going to be more costly to develop, it'll take longer to EIS, which may in turn lead to lost sales to Airbus in circumstances where customers are unable or unwilling to wait.

If Boeing had proceeded with building the "Y3" now instead of the 777X, then unless the "Y3" is a generation ahead of the A350, it will not "own" the market the same way the 777-300ER currently does. That "Y3" will share the market with the A350 - perhaps it will own a bigger slice of it than the 777X might, but it will nevertheless be a duopoly as opposed to a monopoly that the 777-300ER practically enjoys at present. That affects the total number of potential sales, and in turn, revenue and profit.

To me, it does not make sense to pour all that money into the development of a clean sheet "Y3" unless it results in total market domination from which Boeing can recover its substantial development cost. Whether Boeing does the "Y3" or the 777X, the end result is likely to be a duopoly with neither totally dominating the other, and as such, I believe that the cheaper 777X option is the right one for the time being. I believe Boeing should target the "Y3" for the A350 replacement market in about 20 years' time.

I do not agree that a clean sheet design necessarily means a better return on investment in this instance.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
I doubt that we would see a 777-10X, the benefits in increased capacity are very modest and are unlikely to outweigh the costs of overcoming the technical issues (rotation angle) of an 80 meter frame.

On that point, I agree.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
They need a wider fuselage than that of the current 777 - to overcome the issues we have just been discussing.

I'm not sure that this is even an issue. Yes, there is a gap in Boeing's offerings above the 777-9X but below the A380 (assuming airliners aren't willing to commit to a 747-8i) but I also believe that it will not matter (in the sense that it will not affect Boeing's bottom line) as there are no other aircraft (other than Boeing's own 747-8i) in that segment.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 209):
Boeing appear to have chosen the maximum upgrade path and are obviously confident that the significant costs will be outweighed by maintaining as much as possible of the market established by the 77W.

I'm also confident of that.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 213):
JAL and ANA are reportedly in talks with Airbus for A351. That would be a major hit to the 77X program.

I do not agree. Even if they were both to order the A350-1000, it does not mean that they won't also order the 777X in future.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 216):
The 777-9 is too large for them and with their low-density long-haul configurations

... but evidently not too large for its domestic operations. Both airlines have 520+ seats in their domestic 777-300 configuration. The 777-9X could be a 550 seater aircraft for their domestic routes.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 216):
The A350-1000 is hands-down the best choice for NH and JL as a 777-300ER replacement

... but not necessarily the best choice as a 777-300 replacement. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had ordered the A350-1000 and configured it with a 3-4-3 economy seating configuration for use on domestic routes, despite the relatively narrower cabin than the 777 and the 777X.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: angmoh
Posted 2013-05-15 07:27:11 and read 4361 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 221):
You have described the 777X's development costs as "high" (or words to that effect) several times. If you are referring to the development cost of the 777X in comparison to the development cost of any previous derivative, I will stipulate to that. But it is highly likely that whatever the 777X's development costs are, that a clean sheet design would be significantly more expensive than the 777X. I do not dispute that a clean sheet "Y3" is possibly going to out-perform the 777X, but not only is it going to be more costly to develop, it'll take longer to EIS, which may in turn lead to lost sales to Airbus in circumstances where customers are unable or unwilling to wait.

This is the key question: how much do you invest and what do you get back. And personally I think that the A330 is the gold benchmark here. No major changes, no new wind, but still a plane which is completely different in terms of (financial) performance from the one 10 years ago.
Personally I think the 777X is doing too much. My question is what will these changes deliver over a 777-300ER NEO? I might have gone for new engines only with some smaller incremental improvements, but I don't have the data to back that up.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-15 07:35:14 and read 4350 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 221):
I do not agree that a clean sheet design necessarily means a better return on investment in this instance.

I agree. It is unclear how much better a clean sheet Y3 would be than the 777X; and the experience with the 787 shows that it may not be as much as many hope; I doubt that it would even reach 5% improvement in operating costs. Engineering is the art of the possible, and it must be disciplined by what can be sold at a profit. Few airlines are going to wait an extra 5 years or more for that 5% (more likely 2-3%), and those that buy the A3510 are going to stick with it for at least 20 years. Boeing has managed to keep a dominant plane in the widebody segment for 40 years; first the 747, and now the 77W. This has been done by both good planes and good timing; they have seized the moment each time their product has been threatened; first by developing the 744, then introducing the 777, and finally by improving the 777 when the A340NG was threatening it. They do not have the time now to do a clean sheet; and they must at least match the A3510's economics. I do believe that they can do it.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-15 07:37:54 and read 4354 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 221):
Yes, EK is a very important customer for Boeing and for the 777X program, but there have been more than one airline expressing an interest in the 777X. It's probably true that none of them will buy as many 777Xs as EK have said they will, but I would suspect that the program would still be launched had EK never existed, because Boeing needs a competitor to the A350 which is taking over the market that the 777-300ER currently dominates. While the 777X has yet to log a firm order, there has been rumours of widespread interest from many different airlines, most recently QR, BR and BA have expressed an interest in taking them.

I agree, the 777X program would still be launched had EK never existed.

Just do the math, if Boeing wants to hold the production rate of 8.3 frames per month and the 777X will stick around for the next 20 years than we should see around 2000 new sales. The number of 275 units for EK looks relatively small now.

And even if you cut production to 7 frames per month again or one reduces the 777X lifetime to 15 years, the sales forecast is simply big enough to launch the program anyway.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-15 07:52:48 and read 4317 times.

With all the rumoured defections to the A350 program - it seems like the Airlines aren't finding the 777X all that it's purported to be. Just as good may not be good enough

If the Japaneese aren't going to buy it and the Europeans are taking a pass as well - your left with the Middle East and North America.

It may go the way of the original A350 program.

Boeing may be better off to attack the A350 from below with a 787 Derivative (781 with bigger wing, new gear) or may have to resort to a cleansheet 11W Y3, or 777X with new fuselage basically.

I'm sure EK would prefer a larger Y3 over 777X even if they had to wait, a few extra years.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-15 08:03:56 and read 4290 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 225):
With all the rumoured defections to the A350 program - it seems like the Airlines aren't finding the 777X all that it's purported to be. Just as good may not be good enough

If the Japaneese aren't going to buy it and the Europeans are taking a pass as well - your left with the Middle East and North America.


If EK and QR are to be believed, those two alone are good for 350 frames. Add in the other carriers in those two markets, and you could see 400-500 deliveries. That's probably worth the effort of putting it into production.



Quoting morrisond (Reply 225):
I'm sure EK would prefer a larger Y3 over 777X even if they had to wait, a few extra years.

Considering how long TC has been barking at Boeing to give him a larger 777 to order, I'd say he isn't willing to wait.

[Edited 2013-05-15 08:05:42]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-15 08:06:53 and read 4296 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 225):
With all the rumoured defections to the A350 program - it seems like the Airlines aren't finding the 777X all that it's purported to be. Just as good may not be good enough

This is certainly an interesting conclusion to get to for an aircraft that hasn't been launched or offered for sale yet......   

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-15 08:13:28 and read 4279 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 227):
offered for sale yet

Technically it's up for sale since its ATO last month but point taken  

[Edited 2013-05-15 08:14:29]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-15 09:39:42 and read 4176 times.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 222):
Personally I think the 777X is doing too much. My question is what will these changes deliver over a 777-300ER NEO? I might have gone for new engines only with some smaller incremental improvements, but I don't have the data to back that up

Was that not the debate inside Boeing that had Lars Andersen go back into retirement temporarily and a change in the top management of BCA?

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-15 10:11:58 and read 4133 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 226):
If EK and QR are to be believed, those two alone are good for 350 frames. Add in the other carriers in those two markets, and you could see 400-500 deliveries. That's probably worth the effort of putting it into production.

Possibly - but Paris will be very interesting - if the A351 picks up a lot of orders vs. the 777X at the show Boeing may have to rethink.

Stitch - 350-500 frames would be nice but they have to sell enough to support production at 100 frames per year. Where do the other 500-1500 (the difference between 10 and 20 years of production) come from if the rumours are right and Boeing is about to see a lot of potential customers take the A351 instead?

A me too product isn't good enough to support that level of production.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-15 10:17:50 and read 4125 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 230):
Stitch - 350-500 frames would be nice but they have to sell enough to support production at 100 frames per year.

Why would Boeing need to maintain the current 777 production rate?

Rolling it back to 50-60 a year would provide a 7 to 10 year backlog, which should be sufficient to allow for Y3 to be developed and EIS.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: ODwyerPW
Posted 2013-05-15 10:24:13 and read 4096 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 217):
Enough with the hyperbole, please...we expect more logic and less hysteria from 'experts'.

Well put Joe!

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-15 11:37:27 and read 4020 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 231):
Why would Boeing need to maintain the current 777 production rate?

Rolling it back to 50-60 a year would provide a 7 to 10 year backlog, which should be sufficient to allow for Y3 to be developed and EIS.

Exactly and as you have pointed out a 777Max with Updated Engines and existing wing would probably get them there as well without resorting to the cost of 777X project.

A 5-10% more efficient 777MAX is probably the plane EK would still order as it would give them the lift and range they want vs the A351 not having enough for there missions - leave MTOW and thrust the same - but try to remove some easy weight and update the engines.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-15 11:38:33 and read 4015 times.

Quoting angmoh (Reply 222):
Personally I think the 777X is doing too much. My question is what will these changes deliver over a 777-300ER NEO? I might have gone for new engines only with some smaller incremental improvements, but I don't have the data to back that up.

Not doing enough is a lot worse than doing too much. They have to come up with a competitive product, and the competition is the A3510. There must be a convincing reason for airlines to order the 777X over the A3510; and they must do enough to provide that reason. Payload and range are not enough; the economics must be there.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-15 12:05:32 and read 3965 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 216):
Honestly, buying the 777X would be a major hit to JAL and ANA. The 777-9 is too large for them and with their low-density long-haul configurations, the 777-8 might be too small (as it is shorter than the 777-300ER and there is no way they will go 10-abreast in Economy - this also could make the 787-10 undesirable in that replacement role, as well) and they certainly need neither the range nor the payload of the 777-8L.

The A350-1000 is hands-down the best choice for NH and JL as a 777-300ER replacement and while such an order will be seen as a "win" for Airbus and a "loss" for Boeing, it should really be seen as the only logical decision for both carriers to pursue.

I think this is a very good post    .

Up until now B has owned the 350+ passenger market and A has been dominating the 250-300, it has been a pretty straight and clear divsion, the 330 and 77W has been bestsellers as a result.

Now things change, B takes up the 250-300 with the 788 and 789, A the 300-350 and 10-15 hours with 359 and 3510 and then B will dominate over 350 with the 779 until we reach the A380 size.

In the 300-350 market there will be competition with B being strong on the low (7810) and high hours range (778) and A taking the middle 10-15 hours with 359 and 3510.

So we want see the 100% head to head of the SA market and not the "you take this and I take that" of todays DA market. We will see many airlines choosing to have both A and B dual aisle long haulers given their fleets are large enough to afford going for best frame for the job, for smaller airlines it will be to choose what suits them best, B or As range.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-15 12:20:01 and read 3933 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 233):
Exactly and as you have pointed out a 777Max with Updated Engines and existing wing would probably get them there as well without resorting to the cost of 777X project.

I have long argued that a 10-abreast 777NG with new engines was probably the better way to go for Boeing, however I think what might be driving the 777X is that while many carriers are happy to go 10-abreast in the 777, a number of "Tier One" carriers (SQ, CX, BA) are not.

A 9-abreast 777-300ERX is still going to be at a disadvantage to a 9-abreast A350-1000 because of the higher DOW and higher engine thrust. And while BA can go 2+4+2 in Club World on the 777 vs. 2+3+2 on the A350, SQ and CX will be 1+2+1 in Business Class on either so the 777NG/777X offers them no revenue advantage over the A350.

So Boeing is probably only able to seriously court 777 operators who currently fly the 777 in 10-abreast Economy and 7-abreast / 8-abreast Business Class. And the 777X is the gift to offer those carriers because it allows them to maintain that seating density, but allows for more rows to be added.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-15 12:41:40 and read 3893 times.

Sales for the 350-1000 shouldn't surprise anyone. It will be different enough from the Boeing offerings to attract customers who specifically want its unique capabilities.

If you look at all the 787, 777X and 350 models, they cover a huge size, payload and range spread that means lucky customers can find exactly the aircraft they need for exactly the task at hand.

I really think that commonality means a lot less than it used to...especially with the order sizes we've been seeing, and brand loyalty means a lot less than product efficiency within a network.

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-15 13:18:20 and read 3824 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 236):
So Boeing is probably only able to seriously court 777 operators who currently fly the 777 in 10-abreast Economy and 7-abreast / 8-abreast Business Class

Great point. In this thread (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5755226/) I calculated how operators equipped their 77Ws. 60% of orders are 10 abreast and 55% have a 2-3-2 business class. ANA and JAL do operate 2-3-2 J class but not do 10 abreast in Y.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 237):
I really think that commonality means a lot less than it used to...especially with the order sizes we've been seeing, and brand loyalty means a lot less than product efficiency within a network.

It definitely appears that way.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-05-15 13:20:55]

Topic: RE: Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?
Username: FlyingGoat
Posted 2013-05-15 16:06:13 and read 3717 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 225):
With all the rumoured defections to the A350 program - it seems like the Airlines aren't finding the 777X all that it's purported to be. Just as good may not be good enough

If the Japaneese aren't going to buy it and the Europeans are taking a pass as well - your left with the Middle East and North America.

Japan's geographic location makes the A351 almost the perfect aircraft for JAL and ANA's needs. They don't need much more range than the 351 has to offer, and if they do, the 787s will cover it nicely.

Japan isn't the only country in Asia. There are plenty of southeast Asia carriers that could use the payload and range that the 777x offers. Some of these carriers are likely to operate the A351 alongside the 777x as well.


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/