Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777 Has Just One Problem: It Costs Too Much  
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9627 times:

Interesting Seattle Times article about how the 777 costs too much and how Boeing is working to cut costs on its 777 program so it can sell the plane at a lower price, especially because recently the 777 has lost market share to Airbus. Boeing hopes to shrink the time it takes to assemble each 777 from 26 days to just eight.

Some article extracts:

"This is the premier twin-aisle airplane in the world," Dan Becker, the man in charge of all the airplane programs in Everett, told a group of employees last summer at a private presentation.

Then he added: "It has only one problem. It costs too much."

"This morning we lost a big one," Becker told the employees. "We have been competing for that contract for a year, and the reason that we didn't get the 777 in there is because, even going lower than we've ever gone before, we couldn't compete on price."

"If we choose to not reduce the cost, we seal our fate at two or three a month," he said. "If we can figure out how to reduce the cost, we have the possibility of building seven a month again."

"The 777 is Boeing's one true killer app," said Richard Aboulafia, an industry analyst with the Teal Group. He describes the basic 777-200 as the "single best plane in its class."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002108087_777boeing03.html


Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9392 times:

The 777 is always going to sell for a premium (even relevant to its costs) over their counterpart A330/A340s.... mostly based on simple performance superiority in nearly all cases, varying in severity from model to model.

It is however, good to see Boeing trim fat around the edges... they can't afford to lug it around in this market.


User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9321 times:

The 777 will cost you less over the long term.....


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9249 times:

Making the 777 more affordable to the world's airlines is exactly what Boeing needs to do. It does seem that Airbus has an advantage in cost lately. And purchase price is playing a much bigger role (or seems to be) lately in aircraft acquisitions.
And not to knock the competition, but the 777 does seem to be the leader in performance levels.



319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

Does anyone see this as a sign that the 777 is starting to show its age? Most of the major demand for 300 seat B-market aircraft has been fulfilled, and I doubt there will be any mega orders for the 772ER anytime soon. The best Boeing can hope for are add-on orders... lowering prices can help these orders trickle in.

Also... taking a thorough look at the 777 production might open some opportunities to incorperate more efficent technology.


User currently offlineAA54Heavy From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9215 times:

"The 777 will cost you less over the long term....."

Not that I'm an expert by any stretch of the word, but according to the post regarding NWA (maybe there's like 2 of them now) and the 777 vs. A330, it mentioned that NWA determined that even the performance of the 777 wouldn't out weigh the initial costs, etc., so that's why they went with the A330.....I don't know, up for debate



Roger that, turning to our "other" left
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12390 posts, RR: 47
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9117 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777 will cost you less over the long term.....

Not true in all cases. See the in-depth NW analysis of the A333 vs 772ER in this thread - http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1845487/

Horses for courses. If you can't fill the extra seats in the 772, then it costs you big time.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9048 times:

The best patry finishes. The 777 is a great aircraft and maybe the best flying, no doubt, however it is more than 10 years old. What Boeing really needs is to speed up the 7e7-9. THIS is the new killer in the 300 seat class Boeing so urgently needs. Furthermore, together with the 7e7-8, it offers one aircraft family doing both the jobs of the 777 and the job of the 767. Theoretically, north amercian carriers need, due to their fleet structure, no other widerbody than the 7e7 AT ALL.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 962 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9012 times:

What Boeing really needs is to speed up the 7e7-9. THIS is the new killer in the 300 seat class Boeing so urgently needs.

The 7E7-9 would only seat 260 in a 777-like configuration, it's much too small to fulfill the bulk of 772ER functions.

Furthermore, together with the 7e7-8, it offers one aircraft family doing both the jobs of the 777 and the job of the 767.

Never! the 7E7 doesn't come remotly close to the MTOW/payload of the 772ER, 772LR, 773A, 773ER.... the 7E7 and 777 complement each other. The 7E7 can't displace the 777 anymore than the 737NG can displace the A330.

It is plausable that a few airlines might simplify to just the 7E7, but the bulk of 777 carriers wouldn't even considering replacing the 772ER with 7E7-9....

Theoretically, north amercian carriers need, due to their fleet structure, no other widerbody than the 7e7 AT ALL.

The 777 is a profit machine for CO and AA... placing an aircraft with fewer premium seats or less payload would be a grave mistake just to save some bucks on maintenance.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8986 times:

A350:

For the second time...you are on crack. The 7E7-9 does not come anywhere near the capacity of the 777, particularly the -300ER, nor the range of the -200LR. The 777 is also not "old technology." The airframe is just as current as anything Airbus is currently selling, and the engine technology (particularly the GE90-11xBs) is thoroughly modern.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8965 times:

it mentioned that NWA determined that even the performance of the 777 wouldn't out weigh the initial costs, etc

You're leaving out some important information here, relative to that analysis, though...


First off-- NW said that the PW-powered 772A was out of the question because it couldn't op Transpacs and offer limited payload on some of their longer AMS runs. Then, the performance of the PW-powered 772ER was paltry on Transpacs, but overkill on TransATL. Add to that the fact that maintenance on non-PW powered birds would skyrocket the longterm costs, and a combo order of 772A and 772ER wasn't price competitive.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8890 times:

The problems for the 777-200 family seem to lie at the midrange end of the market. The 777-200ER is strong in the longer range market where it competes with the A343, but it is weak in middle range market where the 772A and ER compete with the A333. Either Boeing finds a way to cut the operating costs to justify a higher price, or it should cut find ways of cutting the purchase cost of the aircraft.

Boeing could improve operating costs are by getting more efficient engines on the 772A and by cutting the weight. Maybe it is time for Boeing to consider modifying the 772 airframe by incorporating more composites. If Boeing could get the weight down maybe the highest thrust variants of 7e7 engines would be suitable for a new short range 772. Or alternatively, Boeing should target the A333 market with a stretch of 7E7-9. Would the 7e7-8 and 9 wing be suitable for a further stretch? Boeing would of course cannibalize 772 sales if the range came too close, or if the price was much better. But Boeing should be worried about what the A333/A343 and A350-900 means to the 772 series.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8879 times:

The B777 is as modern as any airliner other than the B7E7, with the arguable exception of yoke vs. joystick.

User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8799 times:

The 777 is always going to sell for a premium...

Boeing doesn't have any other choice -- for the moment at least...

"We have been competing for that contract for a year, and the reason that we didn't get the 777 in there is because, even going lower than we've ever gone before, we couldn't compete on price."




Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineAither From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 858 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8756 times:

This guy they mention in the article, Richard Aboulafia, i don't know who he is except he's an "independant expert". But i've read many articles mentioning Aboulafia and he's always bashing Airbus or saying how great is Boeing. I wonder who he really is...


Never trust the obvious
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26370 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8735 times:

>Not true in all cases. See the in-depth NW analysis of the A333 vs 772ER in this thread - <

The A333 and 772ER are there to fill completely different missions. The 772ER can fly almost twice as far while carrying more passengers and cargo.

>The B777 is as modern as any airliner other than the B7E7, with the arguable exception of yoke vs. joystick.<

The yoke v. sidestick is not a question of modernity, or else the C152 would be a very modern airliner. This is a question of choice, some people like one and some the other



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6120 posts, RR: 34
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8657 times:

Richard Aboulafia, i don't know who he is except he's an "independant expert". I wonder who he really is...

You can go to http://www.tealgroup.com to find out. BTW, he also writes all the the "Outlooks" for the AW&ST Annual Aerospace Source Book.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8629 times:

Aboulafia is in lots of stuff. He's been in the WSJ, too. I personally think he's full of it much of the time, but he's definitely widespread.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8614 times:


The 7E7-9 would only seat 260 in a 777-like configuration, it's much too small to fulfill the bulk of 772ER functions.

Of course, it's not the same size, but I think these 40 seats are normally not that issue. It's 15%.


Never! the 7E7 doesn't come remotly close to the MTOW/payload of the 772ER, 772LR, 773A, 773ER.... the 7E7 and 777 complement each other.

Well, I had the 772ER in mind, not the NGs.

MTOW!=payload since the 7e7 is lighter. The 7e7 has 500nm more range than the 77ER, so it will carry approx. as much freight.


It is plausable that a few airlines might simplify to just the 7E7, but the bulk of 777 carriers wouldn't even considering replacing the 772ER with 7E7-9....
...
The 777 is a profit machine for CO and AA... placing an aircraft with fewer premium seats or less payload would be a grave mistake just to save some bucks on maintenance.


The 7e7-9 will become the new profit machine with 15% less seats, compareable payload and unbeatable effeciency.

They will not suddenly give the 777s away, but I can imagine DL selling their 8 if they get a good offer and I can imagine AA changing the shifted orders to 7e7s

BTW: interesting situation for me here to advertise the 7e7, but I think Boeing has well looked at the needs of carriers, especially the american ones.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8522 times:

Does anyone see this as a sign that the 777 is starting to show its age?

The 777 is a great aircraft and maybe the best flying, no doubt, however it is more than 10 years old.


Am I the only one sick and tired of this age bullshit? My God people get over it. Check your sources and see what the age of other "modern" airliners are.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8483 times:

Am I the only one sick and tired of this age bullshit? My God people get over it. Check your sources and see what the age of other "modern" airliners are.


Isn't there a Chicago-based company which claims that technology has advanced in such a revolutionary way in the last decade that only a clean sheet design can get the full advantages of it  Confused

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8445 times:

A350:

The point that has been explained to you (and that you seem to be missing) is that the 7E7 and 777 serve different markets. The top end of one airliner's market butts up against the bottom end of the other.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8429 times:

Of course, it's not the same size, but I think these 40 seats are normally not that issue. It's 15%.

That is indeed a very interesting point, 15% more economy PAX does not make up for 20% overall better efficiency...

MTOW!=payload since the 7e7 is lighter. The 7e7 has 500nm more range than the 77ER, so it will carry approx. as much freight.

Not the same volume, but I guess it could carry heavier cargo.

Isn't there a Chicago-based company which claims that technology has advanced in such a revolutionary way in the last decade that only a clean sheet design can get the full advantages of it

Not the point. No matter how much makeover you give the 767, it will not match the efficiency of the A330...it can come pretty close, but it's still not the same. Same thing happens with the "old" A330 and the new 7e7.

PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8417 times:

The point that has been explained to you (and that you seem to be missing) is that the 7E7 and 777 serve different markets. The top end of one airliner's market butts up against the bottom end of the other.


I'm not speaking about the size. I simply state that it is not logical to say on one hand that technology has advanced so fast that only an entire new design can get the all the benfits bout of it and on the other hand that a 15 year old design is still state of the art and nothing has improved since then.

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8391 times:

That's the other point. This is not your father's (or at least, older brother's) 777.


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 Tu154m : The only way it will ever get as cheap as Airbus is if it were to get subsidised. Since Boeing is a private company, ain't gonna happen...............
26 PPVRA : Tu154m, Please don't go there... PPVRA
27 Mdsh00 : Isn't there a Chicago-based company which claims that technology has advanced in such a revolutionary way in the last decade that only a clean sheet d
28 Greaser : I'm not speaking about the size. I simply state that it is not logical to say on one hand that technology has advanced so fast that only an entire new
29 ConcordeBoy : Boeing could improve operating costs are by getting more efficient engines on the 772A Newer 772As already carry [derations of] the most modern engine
30 FSPilot747 : I feel old. I remember when the 777 rolled out like it was yesterday. It's still a brand new plane to me.
31 Thrust : The 777 may not be new, but it ain't going away anytime soon either. Technically, it is still new, only 10 years in service, one of the newest aircraf
32 DfwRevolution : Technically, it is still new, only 10 years in service, one of the newest aircraft types. Is the 773LR still going to be launched? Or does it all depe
33 N1120a : >That is indeed a very interesting point, 15% more economy PAX does not make up for 20% overall better efficiency...Ten years of commercial service me
34 Atmx2000 : The 7E7 is not 20% more efficient than the 777, it is 20% more efficient than the 767 (a bit more than that on the A330). The 7E9 would likely have s
35 777ER : "This morning we lost a big one," Becker told the employees. "We have been competing for that contract for a year, and the reason that we didn't get t
36 ConcordeBoy : For example, AA only seats 240 ...as little as 223 as some Premium seats require more floor area but they bring in much more revenue ...as the segmen
37 Scbriml : "This morning we lost a big one," Becker told the employees. "We have been competing for that contract for a year, and the reason that we didn't get t
38 Baw716 : Hi everyone, Is it me, or are the statistics and statements being made on this thread coming from any sources that are REAL? We know the 777 costs mor
39 ConcordeBoy : If we compare operating weights (which I haven't checked, so this is conjecture only), I would guess that the 777 has a base empty weight higher than
40 Scotron11 : I know a $20M price difference works favor of Airbus, but what about the recent slide in the dollar? According to recent reports, the dollar is curren
41 ConcordeBoy : Or does Airbus price their products in dollars Bingo
42 Scotron11 : Thanks for that. Which means, any sale that Airbus is currently making is costing them money, yes? If that is the case, I can see why Boeing is pissed
43 Post contains images Glideslope : The conversion to Euros is assisted by the EU taxpayer. But then again the US is letting the dollar drop to secretly try and write off some of our de
44 StickShaker : it is not logical to say on one hand that technology has advanced so fast that only an entire new design can get the all the benfits bout of it and o
45 Phollingsworth : A few of observations: 1. From everything I have seen it currently costs Boeing more per airframe, fully amortized, to produce and aircraft than it do
46 Boeing nut : Mdsh00, welcome to my respected users list. Nice reply.
47 Mdsh00 : Thanks Boeing Nut! I'm not an Airbus hater but a hypocritical statement needs to get called on.
48 Boeing nut : I'm not an Airbus hater but a hypocritical statement needs to get called on. Ditto for me.
49 RoseFlyer : Going back to the original topic of reducing production time from 24 to 8 days. That is a huge jump. Boeing production hasn't evolved that much since
50 Areopagus : That Seattle Times article cited by Planemaker in the thread starter contains this note on Boeing's revamping of its 777 production line: Internal doc
51 Greaser : Aeropagus, but let's not forget the orders and pending orders (SQ 18 777-300ER). That makes it to around 665 777 planes ordered/LOIed. So given develo
52 Trex8 : AWST in its write up of Airbus subsidies just in the last few months pointed out that had Airbus had to pay commercial interest rates (actually no les
53 DfwRevolution : If we suppose that Boeing amortizes that $14 billion over 500 aircraft (777 #500 just rolled out), that's a heavy burden of $28 million per plane, whi
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...
Not Just One Merger! posted Sat Nov 18 2006 20:54:16 by BillReid
Countries With Just One Commercial Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 17:06:09 by BBJII
AA 777 With An Engine Problem posted Wed Jul 26 2006 16:21:36 by TPAnx
AA Adds 777 MIA-LAX And Takes It Away! posted Mon Jul 10 2006 01:36:41 by N62NA
747 Advent: Did Pax Say It Held Too Many Pax? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 21:22:30 by Art
I Just Dont Get It... posted Thu May 11 2006 03:44:03 by BoeingBus
Timetable Printing Costs - How Much? posted Thu Apr 20 2006 21:53:45 by Jetpixx
United Summer European Schedules - Too Much Fun? posted Sat Mar 25 2006 03:43:02 by TWA902fly
Too Much NO2 At English Airports Or Dodgy Science? posted Mon Mar 13 2006 11:34:20 by Oly720man
Too Much Y Capasity With DL 764's? posted Sat Feb 25 2006 22:13:17 by RamerinianAir