ETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 8 Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 26222 times:
So, what's the real difference between the 787 and the 777? Don't they really fall into the same category? Can it be said that a fleet based on one type could be complemented by the other without overlap?
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4074 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26189 times:
The 787 is designed for thinner, longer range routes than the 777. It was mainly designed as an A300/767/A330 replacement, with seating covering the higher 767 end to the low 777 end. There is doubt over whether the largest 787s will hurt 777 sales, but IMO, they won't. The 777 offers longer range and higher density options, in the 777-200LR and 777-300ER. I think the two will compliment each other rather than hurt each other. Just my two cents...
ETStar From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26095 times:
ConcordeBoy, Mr SmartPants, I was looking for difference in brakes!
Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? Does this somewhat spell the begining of the end for the 777? What would differentiate these two when looking at the big picture (no nuts and bolts pls).
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9199 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 26038 times:
I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. A market sales though have been relatively low ever since the ER came around. The 787 long range version will seat far fewer people than the 772. The 787 short range version will have relatively similar capacity compared to a 772, but will not have the range. It will compete with the short range 777 versions, but these sales are already limited, so I don't think Boeing is comprosing 777 program.
Remember that quotes from manufacturers are usually a large over estimate of the seats in an airplane compared to the actual configuration. Correct me if I am wrong, but Boeing calculations for capacity call for a 60 inch pitch first class and a 40 inch pitch business class. Those are far less then what most airlines actually put in a plane. I would take the 250 seat figure with a grain of salt, because correct me if am wrong, but no airline has announced how many seats they will actually put in the 787.
It is true that the 787 and 777 compete, but they should complement each other. Many people thought that the 777 would canibalize 767 sales because Boeing didn't have room for another widebody twin. But in reality the 777 has proved to be a success, and the 767 sales didn't die off immediately. 767 sales have dimished recently because it is an old design that isn't competetive and the new Airbus offerings are better and Boeing has committed to the 787 which is a 767 replacement.
I think both will succeed, but the 777 is a ten year old design so the base versions are getting outdated. Future growth will be with the newer 772ER, LR and 773ER, but the plane will need a more comprehensive update in the coming years; most likely to occur after a 737 replacement is done.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9199 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 25851 times:
N1120A, is the 789 really going have the same capacity and more range then the 772ER? That doesn't really make sense to me. I thought the 787 wing was smaller and the plane would either have a comparable capacity to the 777, or have a small capacity and a simlar range. I didn't think it could do both. The specifications from Boeing say:
Model____# of Pax__Range(nm)
787-300____296_____3500_(Note that Boeing quotes a 2 class configuration)
(Source: Boeing Company website)
This puts the only 787 that has comparable capacity to a 777 as the 787-300. It has 1700nm less range though, which makes it have US transcon range, but not transatlantic. Also the figures for the 787-300 are for a 2 class plane, so it is not as large as a 777.
The 787 is definitely a smaller plane. The 787-300 and 787-800 are definitely going to be different from the newer 772 models. The 787-900 though does get rather close to 777 capabilities.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
ViveLeYHZ From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 194 posts, RR: 9 Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 25770 times:
All this talk about the 787 competing with 777 makes me wonder, was the 777 considered a competition to the long range version of the 767 ? Here is how A.net describes the 777, first few lines read:
The 777 was originally conceived as a stretched 767, but Boeing instead adopted an all new design
Or was has the 757 constituted a threat to the short-range 767 ? The 757-300 and the 767-200 have almost the same range and capacity (according to A.net descriptions) although the 767 is a widebody, the 757 isn't (and I don't know why).
I would think that the 787 is not competing with the 777, but rather complementing it, and the 787 would also provide a modern replacement for the 767.
With the introduction of the 787 and the 777-200LR, along with the 737-NG, Boeing can match the requirements of even the most demanding airlines.
Timetables From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 25735 times:
Yes, there are many differences; they both take care of two different markets.
All you need to know about the 777 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777technical.html
All you need to know about the 787 is here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_sr.html, http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts.html, and http://www.boeing.com/commercial/7e7/facts_stretch.html.
777ER From New Zealand, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 11672 posts, RR: 16 Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 25703 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Seriously though, wouldn't the 787 affect 777 sales especially with airlines that only had the 777 as a choice to provide long haul service? No, because as I said in reply 3, 787 seats under 250 passengers for point to point services and the 777 seats 250-350? passengers for hub to hub services
I think that the only 777 model that the 787 will compete directly against is the A market version. Hardly if any airlines are ordering the B777A, so the B787 is really no threat as the B772A model is basically extinct
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 25528 times:
Boeing could build (but has not announced any plans to do so) a further stretch of the B787-9 that would have the floor area and seating capacity of the B777-200. Using an overly conservative assumption of no improvement over currently planned models, such a stretch would have slightly better range than the B777-200ER.
Given Boeing's history of improvements, it is possible that Boeing is hoping to delay the introduction of such a model until it can have the range of the B777-200LR. This would involve increases in MTOW, thrust, and fuel capacity.
The recent increase in the size of the wing for the B787-8/9 to within one foot in length that of the B777-200ER supports the idea that Boeing may be preparing for a further stretch in the future. I expect that eventually the B777-200ER (and perhaps even the B777-200LR) will be replaced by a future version of the B787.
When Boeing increased the wing size for the B787-8/9, did they also increase the range estimates?
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25188 times:
remember people, airplanes always tend to get bigger and give more capacity with time. the 777 will probably eventually expand to come closer to filling the role that will be vacated by the 747, especially if the 787 has some seat configurations that come close to the size of a 777.
no way is boeing going to drop the 777 in the near future. look for that bird to be coming off the line for another 15 years.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 25125 times:
Tockeyhockey, it's conceivable that, if Boeing doesn't go ahead with the B747Adv, that they might stretch the B777-300ER another six meters. However, I think an all-new B787-technology twin larger in cross section than the B777 with passenger capacities ranging from 350 to 500 is more likely.
I would be surprised if the B777 were still in production in 2020.
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 24988 times:
i think that the 777's shelf life will depend greatly on what airbus puts up against it. the 777 is dominating its segment right now, and the a350 is not going to kill it, so what's airbus's next plane? is it a 777 beater? even if it is, when will it fly? 2012? 2015?
i think people tend to underestimate the life-span of a good plane. remember, the 747 basically had no competition for thirty years, so it was produced for 30 years, and will probably fly for another 10 or so.
Wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 2034 posts, RR: 5 Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24557 times:
The problem with estimating lifespans nowadays is that the market is more competitive than it's ever been. We have two manaufactueres battling tooth and nail for 50% share and each has a fairly complete line up with minor gaps on each side. I think it is very likely that the 787 will mean the end of the 772A and ER (that is, if the A is even really around anymore). The reason is a clear cut combination of range and cost improvement in the 787. Why piss about with a plane that gets you marginally more capacity, less range and that has a list price $50-60M higher than the 787? That spells an "early death". But no one should fret because on the Airbus side you also have planes such as the 342 and 343 dying slow and miserable deaths already. This is the new reality. You won't see many planes rolling off the lines for periods of 30 years or more. The 777 will carry on for some time in the 772LR and the 773ER. The first as a freighter and the second as the step up from the 788 and 789. One major problem remains however and that is getting the cost of the 777 down to more realistic levels. Beoing's primary goals in order of importance: get the 787 in the air, reduce the cost of the 777 program by 10-15%, and then decide where to park the next $6B project...in a revamped 747 or a brand new line of narrowbodies. I agree with those who say going cheap on the 747 is a waste of money. Might as well blow your wad on new wings and own that sweet spot between 350 and 550 seats for another 20 years...and also give the 380 a run for its money in the freighter market. This is the project that I bet makes Leahy and Foregard soil their panties so it's the one I like best. Anyway, this should makes all of us nutters happy right?
Tockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24356 times:
I agree that estimates are getting tougher as the market gets tougher, however, part of the reason the 747 flew for as long as it did was because europe put its eggs in the supersonic basket and the 747 flew uncontested for so many years. i would argue that while the market is certainly a more competitive one, the segment in which the 777 flies is currently uncontested and will remain that way for a while.
what i'm saying is that there isn't any competition for the 777 on the horizon in the foreseeable future. i could even go out on a wing and argue that the 777 will be more important to boeing over the next 10-15 years than the 787 because it fills a niche that airbus is not going to compte in until the next decade. it can become the uncontested cashcow that the 747 was for so many years.
my bet is that the 777 will be around in various forms for at least 10-15 more years. it's a great plane in a currently unchallenged market segment.
Bmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2167 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 24243 times:
One obvious difference should be that the 787 will consume much less fuel than the 777 and 767. Fuel is one of the biggest challenges facing the airline industry and one of the main reasons Boeing is going ahead with the 787.
The design and fuselage composition are another big difference between the two aircraft.
[Edited 2005-02-08 18:04:23]
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.