AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3751 times:
I'd like to think they'll launch it by the BEGINNING of 2004; obviously they're already talking with the airlines about it. Unless the current recession is a severe delaying factor, I don't see why they couldn't get the necessary commitments to launch by the end of THIS year, given the promised reduction in operating costs. Then again, things ARE so bad, it might stymie any potential customer from making a commitment by then. I'd think, however, that Boeing won't want to delay too long since it's desperately needed to replace the 767 and partially, the 757.
BlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1873 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3678 times:
article in the AP today about Boeing not even being sure where they will build it.
WA comes to mind, but they suggested other sites, possibly overseas.
Ploy to get tax breaks? You tell me, news sounded like a seriously progressed issue.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3624 times:
Boeing has been seriously concerned about the infrastructure (roads/traffic) and corporate climate of the Puget Sound area for quite awhile. While the HQ move was billed as being done to more centrally locate HQ to the rest of the world, its a well known secret that the perceived lack of support for business in Washington state and the Puget Sound region helped the decision along.
I think the announcement that the final assembly could occur anywhere, including outside the United States, is both a ploy and a warning. The same article stated that Boeing would 'soon' be sitting down w/ area leaders to discuss what the area must offer to remain in consideration. So local politicos are put on notice that they best come to the table prepared to offer incentives, and at the same time everyone is made aware that Boeing is going to go where it makes business sense to go, not necessarily where they already have faciliities.
McDonald Douglas did something similar when the put the final assembly for the MD-95 out to bid. Initally the award went to an outfit at Love Field. The union folks in LGB saw that they were serious, and came up with an offer that made it more economical to keep assembly in the existing facility.
As an area resident, I want to see the 7E7 sitting on the BFI flight line, but at this point, I'd say it's a 50/50 shot whether it actually will or not.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1648 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3612 times:
I think the 7E7 should be built in Long Beach (LGB)! Boeing already has everything it needs in Long Beach.
I think it's been said Boeing hates doing business with the state of Washington and think Seattle is not good for business anymore.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3600 times:
I saw a pic of the 7E7 in the latest issue of Air Enthusiast Magazine, I think. Anyway, the rendering looked exactly like a cross between a 757 and a 767, with raked wingtips. It was a small photo and I couldn't tell much of the details besides what I've already stated.
Anybody have access to a rendering of it besides mine?
DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Phxinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3495 times:
Wait... what is the 7E7 and when did this idea first come up?
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3465 times:
Sorry, ConcordeBoy... not joking. Never heard of the 7E7 or any developmental plane that is "...an exact cross between a 757 and a 767 with raked wingtips..." Can anyone bring me up to date on it?
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
then I beg your pardon.
In a nutshell... the 7E7 is supposed to be Boeing's next aircraft... a dead-ringer for the 764ER, but with longer range, a wider cross-section, and better cargo capability. The buzz from the bees is that it may come in two distinct sizes, and offer some form of commonality with both the 777 and 767 families.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3408 times:
I don't know if it was posted at my request, but thanks anyway Concordeboy. I take a piece of my statement back from above. . .instead I'll rephrase my thoughts. . .it looks just like a 764 combined with a 777 and shrunken down a bit. Looks as if this a/c is going to be hard to spot from afar. Too many twin-engines these days!
"Hey, look over there, it's a 767, no wait, it's a 757. . .uh, actually I think it's a 7E7. . .or maybe a 777. . .aahhh shoot!
DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1808 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3347 times:
Wow, thanks for the info. So would they keep the title "7E7" or possibly change it to the 787? And what does the "E" stand for?
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1455 posts, RR: 16 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
The current downturn in aviation is temporary and when war in Iraq and the SARS situation are resolved . . . travel and aviation will return to its robust self in some regions.
Boeing has announced many of their plans, some more whimsical than others . . . not many have finally seen the light of day. The B7E7 looks like a really sensible one (finally) and I sure hope that Boeing's top management does not wait and wait and wait for fool-proof guarantee of demand before deciding to launch it . . . because it will end up being bridesmaid to Airbus Industrie whose family of airliners is really looking good and is enroute to becoming a clan rather than a family.
I would love to see the Boeing 7E7 finally taking off . . . and this time round, my gut feeling is . . . it would! Would be interesting to bet on which airlines' liveries would adorn this airliner.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3258 times:
Wow, thanks for the info. So would they keep the title "7E7" or possibly change it to the 787? And what does the "E" stand for?
while I'd say it's pretty safe to say this plane will be the 787... Boeing refuses to affirm that claim. They state that they may announce the 800 series or even a whole new line... but I doubt it. Such a thing would have been much more appropriate with the Sonic Cruiser.
BTW, the "E" is said to stand for "efficient" (as this plane was referred to as the "Boeing S.E." for "super efficient" when first proposed).... though some claim the "E" stands for eight.
Red Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3241 times:
QANTAS747-438,
Wow, thanks for the info. So would they keep the title "7E7" or possibly change it to the 787? And what does the "E" stand for?
The "E" in 7E7 stands for efficiency. There was an article and a picture in the magazine, Airliners, saying that 7E7 can be 15-20% more fuel efficient than conventional aircrafts.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3239 times:
Interesting about the "E". . .I remember another Boeing airliner a few years back being termed the "7J7." Anybody know what that was?
DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Kramri From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 74 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3188 times:
Here you go DIA
The ill-fated 7J7 of the mid-1980s.
Boeing's proposed 150-passenger jetliner was to have used all kinds of advanced technology and electronics, just like the sonic cruiser, including the widespread use of high-strength composites. The 7J7 would have been powered by revolutionary rear-mounted propeller-type jet fan engines.
But the 7J7 was scrapped in 1987. By then a significant number of employees were already working on the program.
Boeing and its airline customers could not agree on the design.
"We are attempting to understand exactly what the market is and what its timing is and trying to adjust to it. ... And it's a moving target," Phil Condit, then executive vice president of Boeing's commercial airplanes group, told a reporter in 1987 when he acknowledged the 7J7 might never be built.
It wasn't.
Airlines complained later that Boeing had been out of touch with its market.
"Quite frankly, with the 7J7, Boeing didn't do it right," a United Airlines official was quoted as saying.
Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, RR: 21 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3108 times:
'We will begin that process of soliciting customers in 2004, with the hope that we will have that accomplished before the end of 2004,' Michael Bair said. 'All that depends on the marketplace and what airlines are willing and capable of doing.'
The 7E7 will be launched between mid to late 2004 and the 7E7 will have a 20% lower seat cost than other aircraft.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3019 times:
Let's hope Boeign manages to get this plane off the ground, but there's a lot of work to be done before that happens.
Singapore_Air, Boeing has said the 7E7 will (according to their slides) use 20% less fuel per seat, not that the costs overall would be this much less.
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9710 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2926 times:
Sad that another boring generic Twinjet will see the light of day, as much as the airlines might wait for this and as much as troubled Boeing needs a winner soon.
Sad that Boeing couldn´t make the Sonic cruiser an economical aircraft.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 30 Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
Thanks for the 7J7 info Kramri. For some reason I was picturing a completely different a/c. Now that I've had time to think about it, I was picturing a joint venture between MD and Fokker back in the early 1980s, I think it was called the MDF-100. It had an engine under each wing and a "T-tail". . .oh well . . .that is a different story completely. No, it never did get past the "renderings" phase.
Cheers,
DIA
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2089 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2688 times:
Keep in mind that Boeing has used letters for the middle digit in the past that
had represented no word in particular.
These are a photos of the original plan for the 757 and the 767. I scanned them from a publication, A History of Passenger Aircraft, published in the late '70s.
In 1977, Boeing comtemplated making this trijet to satisify the demand of American Airlines for such a plane. Eventually a year later, Boeing decided on the twin-engined 767. Below is a model designated 7X7.
Below is a photo of how the 757 looked to Boeing in 1977 when it was still designated 7N7. Here is a model in Eastern colors.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
25 Hmmmm...: Sometimes airliners.net will uphold a photo link for a few minutes, and then later it shows only a red X. So here are the photos in clickable links. 7
26 MASB747: I'd think, however, that Boeing won't want to delay too long since it's desperately needed to replace the 767 and partially, the 757. Does this mean
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13711 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6659 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2430 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1455 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9710 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
