Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any Thoughts About The New 7E7?  
User currently offlineConcordeLoss From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 388 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 10192 times:

Do you have any thoughts about the new Boeing 7E7?
Is it really something new or just another version of the B777?


[Edited 2003-11-02 16:49:14]


"You're not as stupid as you look, or sound, or our best test indicates" Burns to Homer
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBucky707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1028 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 10036 times:

I don't think the 7E7 will be another version of the 777 any more than the 777 was another version of the 767. However, the 7E7 will be the next step in technology from the 777, just like the 777 was the next step in technology from the 767.

User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9942 times:

ConcordeLoss,

I suggest you to do a search on the proposed 7E7, here in this forum. This and other related questions about the proposed 7E7 have been squeezed out into eternity, you'll surely find all answers to your questions regarding this prposed airliner.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3761 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9855 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Manni,
ConcordeLoss is a new member, he just joined airliners.net. He doesn't know yet about all the topics that have been posted for weeks about the new Boeing 7E7. You don't have be too harsh with him in the beginning. New members have to feel they are welcome among us. If a new member signs up, and he or she starts posting something like: "What will the DC-9 replacement be at Northwest?", I won't get mad at him or her for the same reason, he or she cannot know that this discussion has been going on constantly in the forum.

What is it that I think about the 7E7? It will be the 767 replacement, that's a certain fact. I think that it is the twinjet airliner of the future, it is the airplane that will save Boeing's future in the commercial airplane department and help Boeing keep its largest market share in the airline industry, versus Airbus. If Boeing shelves the 7E7, then it has no future anymore in the airliner business, if that happens in two or three decades from now Boeing will close down the Everett and Long Beach plants, and Airbus will become very strong by getting the largest market share in the airline business. The 7E7 is, assuming it will become reality in five years from now and updated variants come out later, expected to exist until early XXIInd century!!!

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineSCRAMJET From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9713 times:

Another Sonic Cruiser flop--a ploy to get airlines to commit to it and then turn around and discontinue the program but offer versions of the 737 family at reduced rates.

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9711 times:

yeah, heed reply #4... it makes tons of sense!  Laugh out loud

User currently offlineConcordeLoss From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9687 times:

SCRAMJET,
I don't think I agree with you on that one.
They have to compete with Airbus. So unless they come up with something else, thats gonna have to work.



"You're not as stupid as you look, or sound, or our best test indicates" Burns to Homer
User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9669 times:

I think it will be a 767-300/400 sized aircraft with body architecture like that of a 777, with a 2-4-2 layout. Probably have a wedge tail cone, massive engines for it size, a la 777, and either blended or most likely, raked wingtips.

Here's the test model:


Doesn't look much like the original concept does it?


UAL747


User currently offlineConcordeLoss From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9658 times:

Man,
they really look completely different.

Thanks for the pictures UAL747.



"You're not as stupid as you look, or sound, or our best test indicates" Burns to Homer
User currently offlineFlyLAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 154 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9649 times:

I agree with ConcordeLoss.

"Another Sonic Cruiser flop--a ploy to get airlines to commit to it and then turn around and discontinue the program but offer versions of the 737 family at reduced rates" is garbage.

We all know what kinda situation Boeing is in as well as the Boeing company itself. They wouldnt risk their reputation by putting out an unrealistic concept idea and not make it work.


User currently offlineUal747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9635 times:

Personally, I like the 777 style better than the proposed new 7E7 style.

UAL747


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5386 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9615 times:

From the sounds of it, SCRAMJET's knowledge of the Sonic Cruiser program is lacking. AFAIK, no airlines had committed to the Sonic Cruiser, demonstrating to Boeing that it was not a sound idea from a business perspective. We can all wish and dream and hope for another near-sonic/supersonic commercial passenger aircraft, but until they make sense from a bottom-line perspective for an aircraft manufacturer, they won't come to fruition. After looking at where airlines stood, Boeing realized that the Sonic Cruiser simply wasn't marketable in a post 9/11 environment and moved on to the more efficient 7E7 design. If it's a ploy to shelve a plan that might put your company into bankruptcy, then I see tons of those ploys everywhere...like this ploy of airlines to move to RJ service out of intermediate-sized airports. Dammit, I paid for a ticket, and I expect 747 service from CAE to CLT, regardless of the money that United would hemorrhage to do so!

Sure, the 7E7 is not the bold new step in aviation that the Sonic Cruiser might have been, but in uncertain economic times it's a safe step and lord knows the aviation industry needs more of those until we all get back on our feet again.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineAr385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6190 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

American 767

I have to agree with your comment. We are a frienly community and have no right to educate new members harshly. Please look at my post on this page (I believe) about Mexican airlines, and you'll see my opinion of the 7E7

AR385



MGGS
User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

American767,

Chill out  Insane ! Where in my post am I being harsh to Concordeloss? I'm advising him to do a search regarding the airliner. As yourself pointed out, he's a new member he might not be aware of the fact that several topics concerning the proposed 7E7 exist. Trough my advice he is been made aware of that.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineSCRAMJET From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9272 times:

From FlyLAX:

"I agree with ConcordeLoss.

"Another Sonic Cruiser flop--a ploy to get airlines to commit to it and then turn around and discontinue the program but offer versions of the 737 family at reduced rates" is garbage.

We all know what kinda situation Boeing is in as well as the Boeing company itself. They wouldnt risk their reputation by putting out an unrealistic concept idea and not make it work."

Wasn't the Sonic Cruiser an unrealistic concept idea that did not work?

As for GarnetPalmetto's comment, please see the following article:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/21315_boeing031.shtml

It doesn't mention any airlines other than Delta being interested in it, or placing orders for it, but it states that a dozen or so airlines were interested in it and in its development.

As for the 7E7, it doesn't look like there are any orders for it yet , either: http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm



User currently offlineA340600 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 4105 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9226 times:

Few words on the subject:
UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY..........................UGLY (soz had to do one more coudn't resist Big grin)
Sam Smile



Despite the name I am a Boeing man through and through!
User currently offlineMd11lover From Switzerland, joined Oct 2003, 444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9181 times:



ConcordeLoss, welcome to A.net. About the 7E7, I really dont like the look of the aircraft, it looks too ....well, i dont know, it looks like a kid draw it in class, and im not sure how profitable it could be, as many mentioned above, there are doubts about sonic cruisers.

Md11Lover


User currently offlineGarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5386 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9161 times:

No offense here, SCRAMJET, but of course Delta was interested in the Sonic Cruiser. The minute something comes out with a Boeing nameplate, Delta's interested in it. Consider the deal they made a few years ago to buy only Boeing aircraft..thus when a new Boeing aircraft comes out, of course Delta is going to be interested. Again, look at the date - the article was written before 9/11, when the Sonic Cruiser concept, while cutting age, might have been a good bet for an airline. Take this quote, for instance

"But Boeing must deliver on its promise of a fast plane that also will have good passenger-seat-mile costs, Reid said." After 9/11, most of the majors aren't facing good passenger-seat-mile costs still.

Check out this article, also from the Post-Intelligencer, regarding the rise of the 7E7

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/75714_boeing22.shtml

I think while Boeing would have loved to build the Cruiser, market trends killed it.



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9164 times:

Why entice us with this futuristic flying "goober" and then decide on making what appears to be a 777-100?!?!?! Does it make sense? First the sonic cruiser, the half concorde-half subsonic jetliner, and that was dropped for the 7E7 "dreamliner" which again, looks like a flying "goober" and now it's gonna be a 777-100? If memory serves, the airlines shot down the initial 777-100 proposal. That's just my opinion though.


Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3657 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (10 years 10 months 6 days ago) and read 9063 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing publicly announced the Sonic Cruiser, partially to deflect some attention away from the A380, but still kept the 7E7 under wraps. Every airline basically expressed interest in the Sonic Cruiser and AA wanted all production slot for the first 3 years of production. However, when it came down to meeting airlines privately to discuss the aircraft post Sept 11, they also presented the 7E7 and the airlines decided that a reduction in costs was more important than higher speeds at comparable costs to today's aircraft.

The picture of the test model doesn't necessarily mean that it is the final shape. It is just one of many Boeing has made and will make to find all the right shapes, angles, etc. to ensure that the 7E7 meets and/or exceeds the performance specs. I believe the only concrete specs are the cross-section and length.

The final shape may look like a shortened 777, but it will be a different aircraft and will not suffer from being overweight like the 777-100 because it is a clean sheet design.


User currently offlineConcordeLoss From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8979 times:

What about the inside?
Are they going to have wider economy seats?



"You're not as stupid as you look, or sound, or our best test indicates" Burns to Homer
User currently offlineSkiordie From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8928 times:

I got a bone.

I was scanning the MSN website when I came along this article http://famulus.msnbc.com/famuluscom/reuters11-03-153413.asp?sym=BA#body for the 767 tanker deal that the military would like. While more than agree on their point I have one question.

Why would the air force want some (new and busted) 767 tankers when I am sure that Boeing would love to have a launch customer for the 7E7 (new hotness) that would buy 60+ airframe's?

I love all airplanes, but I think they should put refuling boom on that dreamliner. After all they did a pretty good job on getting the 707 started.

I feel better now.





[Edited 2003-11-04 07:41:33]

[Edited 2003-11-04 07:42:22]

User currently offlineBobrayner From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2003, 2227 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8880 times:

Why would the air force want some (new and busted) 767 tankers when I am sure that Boeing would love to have a launch customer for the 7E7 (new hotness) that would buy 60+ airframe's?

Setting aside the USAF's perspective, I'm sure Boeing know that they will have no shortage of launch cutomers for the 7E7; whereas the 767 will become less popular.

Instead of 1 idle production line and 1 with a huge backlog, this way they'd keep 2 busy production lines.

However, there's a more thorough discussion in the Military forum:
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/15899/



Cunning linguist
User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 8764 times:

It looks like a great aircraft. I personally cannot wait until it takes-off. However, I am more concerned about who the launch customer will be. I am predicting Delta because there 762's are getting old and they need a suitable replacement. AA and UAL already have lots of newer 763's and 777's. Perhaps an international carrier?


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 8712 times:

Well my not so keen aviationist friends did say it looked quite "streamlined and sexy" - what do you think of that one!!

I think it will be a huge success, and there is a huge market even just for the short range model, a much more efficient 767 successor and even one that can take the standard cargo containers that do not otherwise fit side by side on the 767.

A lot of airliners currently use 767's on short range hops (up to 5-6 hour hops), QF,NZ,AA,BA,OZ just to name a few - and these will all need replacement in the coming years, I know QF will need a short range widebody when it wants to eventually dispose of it's 763ers (it is already disposing is 762ers already) - the A330 is not suitable for this market, whilst NZ is currently looking at fleet replacement already.



25 Post contains links AvObserver : No point in opening up yet another 7E7 thread for this article, a very good one: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aviationdaily_story.jsp
26 Post contains images ConcordeLoss : Well my not so keen aviationist friends did say it looked quite "streamlined and sexy" I have to agree with that
27 Bongo : Completely agree with AMERICAN 767, everytime I start a new topic, someone tell me that it´s an old topic, "for the millionth time..." the answer. Ma
28 ConcordeLoss : I noticed that some people refer to the 7E7 as 787. Is that a formal thing or is it because its the sequence?
29 Garnetpalmetto : It's mainly because of the sequence. 7E7 is a developmental designator for it and it's widely believed that due to the Boeing sequencing system (707,
30 Expressjetphx : I think that Boeing should just drop the 7E7 and go more tradtionally. It looks way too futuristic for out time.
31 Post contains images Superfly : Reminds me of a shark.
32 AvObserver : "I think that Boeing should just drop the 7E7 and go more traditionally. It looks way too futuristic for our time." Many, though not I, echo this argu
33 Superfly : I am still in favor of dusting off the old Boeing 2707 project. If the Communist and Socialist did it, why can't we?
34 LMP737 : As someone who works in maintenance I wonder about a composite fuselage. Damaged aluminum is easy to repair, composites are something entirely differe
35 Post contains images AvObserver : Superfly, if it was 40 years ago instead of now, that just might work!
36 Post contains images N243NW : Reminds me of a shark. Reminds me of a shark with an ugly anteater nose. I have to admit, though, that the wind tunnel model looks 500% better than th
37 Unattendedbag : The wind tunnel model looks like a 777 with odd winglets.
38 Futureualpilot : I like it, I think itll be ana wsome planbe if they retain at least SOME of the original design.
39 ConcordeLoss : if they retain at least SOME of the original design To me, it looks like the 777 with a little alteration to the tail and wings.
40 Korg747 : Wind tunnel model actully reminds me of the 777-200LR.
41 Futureualpilot : Maybe they are going to suprise everybody and when its rolled out it will look like the "shark" design. I know, Im probably dreaming, but I dont mind!
42 Joni : "In the post-9/11 world".. not everything that happens in the world happens because "9/11" happened in 2001. The Sonic Cruiser was a PR excersize fro
43 Post contains images Superfly : Is Boeing running out of ideas? It's sounds as though the 767 and 777 can do what this 7E7 is intended to do. Damn those nay sayer who would never dus
44 Post contains images B2707SST : Joni- I did some informational interviewing at Boeing's Everett offices about 18 months ago, and I can tell you the Sonic Cruiser was not a PR gimmick
45 ConcordeLoss : So we take it that there is no plans for introducing a supersonic to the market for another 20 years?
46 AvObserver : "In the post-9/11 world".. not everything that happens in the world happens because "9/11" happened in 2001. The Sonic Cruiser was a PR excersize from
47 Post contains links B2707SST : Not to my knowledge. The Japanese are working on some basic technology development, but their experiments so far have not been successful (I think one
48 Moolies : Viva le Boeing. May the 7E7 be a great success.
49 Alessandro : I think the 7E7 is the first step towards the Bobus company, Boeing is contracting a composite company in Toulose of all places. Is this a sign? As fo
50 AvObserver : GREAT POSTS, B2707SST! You really shed a lot of light here about this storied and nearly forgotten SST! And Superfly, I was a huge booster of the 2707
51 ConcordeLoss : Now that we know we wont see an SST any time soon. Is there any way that the idea of the sonic plane will be brought back any time in the near future?
52 ConcordeLoss : Any news about the Russian SST?
53 Sydscott : Does anyone know if Boeing has received offers for launching the 7E7??? There have been reports of Singapore Airlines looking for a mid sized aircraft
54 Post contains images Superfly : Thanks for the insight fellas. As for the 7E7 project, I am just happy Boeing is keeping people employed.
55 Post contains images Ammunition : I think it looks similar to other planes, just a slightly new design. Put it in a disgusting livery, lets not argue here... and say.... southwest (as
56 Aloha717200 : There is a 2707 hulk sitting in the Florida somewhere. I kid you not. I saw it in....wait....lemme get the info: From the book BOEING by Guy Norris an
57 Post contains images Lehpron : I think the 787 is just a really advanced 757 designed to take over both the 757/767 type airline markets in the near future. "However, B2707SST is co
58 Businessflyer : Interesting article in today's Financial Times based on an interview with Phil Condit. Key points of the article: Boeing's Board of Directors is likel
59 SCRAMJET : Interesting that not one single airline has committed to the 7E7: http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-11-14/business/315838.shtml
60 ConcordeLoss : However, they seem interested. Don't you think?
61 Dynkrisolo : Airlines can commit only when Boeing is ready to offer the airplane. That won't happen until the end of this year or some time next year.
62 Post contains links and images ConcordeBoy : The Japanese are working on some basic technology development, but their experiments so far have not been successful (I think one of their scale engin
63 ConcordeBoy : Airlines can commit only when Boeing is ready to offer the airplane. Not necessarily true... in fact, it's usually the complete opposite. The only two
64 Dynkrisolo : Not necessarily true... in fact, it's usually the complete opposite. ConcordeBoy, you are wrong. Boeing can't start any contractual negotiations befo
65 ConcordeBoy : I'm sorry Dynkrisolo... but I must respectfully inform you that you're wrong. You need only look to Boeing's website for the information: 772A Board A
66 B2707SST : Lehpron - You and I have had this debate about SSTs before and I doubt we're going to change each others' minds by arguing the subject further. I don'
67 Dynkrisolo : Concordeboy: You got it wrong. The date you quoted was the launch date not the ATO date. No contracts can be negotiated before ATO. ATO does not guara
68 Post contains images RayChuang : My guess right now is that Boeing is already working closely with these airlines: Japan Airlines (JL) All-Nippon Airways (NH) Korean Air (KE) Lufthans
69 Tekelberry : My guess right now is that Boeing is already working closely with these airlines: Japan Airlines (JL) All-Nippon Airways (NH) Korean Air (KE) Lufthans
70 Navega : Just saw the pictures of the alleged interiors and all I have to say is. ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY...BEEEAAAUUUTTTTIIIIFFFFUULLLLLLLLLLLLLLL...
71 RayChuang : Tekelberry, However, LH is still interested in the 7E7SR if Boeing does offer a sidestick controller for the cockpit. I think Boeing might just do tha
72 Dw747400 : Would the certification and development costs of making the sidestick an option be prohibitive? It seems like you have airlines that feel very strongl
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Any News About The New French LCC? posted Wed Oct 15 2003 21:19:55 by Kl911
Any Comments On The New DL Route? JFK-BOM posted Fri Dec 8 2006 09:16:17 by B773ER
What's New About The New Alitalia Livery?! posted Mon Oct 30 2006 18:59:21 by Gh123
Any Reviews Of The New F Class On DL 757's? posted Sun Oct 1 2006 08:30:58 by Avi8tir
About The New AF 773ER CIO? posted Tue Aug 1 2006 19:12:58 by YULWinterSkies
News Story - Boeing Announces It Will Build The New 7E7 (!) posted Sun Jul 9 2006 04:05:21 by Grantcv
Any Updates On The New Air NZ Colours? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 09:53:43 by KiwiTEAL
Any News On The New Bangkok Airport? posted Mon Jul 3 2006 03:16:08 by Aerokiwi
Any News About The Tupolev TU-444? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 10:12:18 by Antiuser
Any News About The Design-progress On The 787? posted Sun Feb 26 2006 10:00:23 by Beaucaire