Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
772NG Or 787-10 To Compete With A350-900?  
User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6463 times:

More and more it is looking like the A350-900 will be a competitor to the 777-200 series. Which would be better/cheaper for Boeing to do? Lengthen the 787 to a -10 designation or lighten the 777-200?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKdeg00 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6370 times:

Wouldn't it make more sense for Boeing to look at the gaps in the airbus line-up and tailor its product to fit those (and obviously vice versa for Airbus) than for each of them to target the same specific demographic and battle each other into unprofitibility?

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Boeing has already said they could apply 787 technology to the 777 with much success.

N


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6327 times:

Quoting NorCal (Thread starter):
More and more it is looking like the A350-900 will be a competitor to the 777-200 series. Which would be better/cheaper for Boeing to do? Lengthen the 787 to a -10 designation or lighten the 777-200?

A B787-10 would outperform the B777-200ER in every respect and be much less expensive, however, it could not match the performance of the B777-200LR. Lightening the B777-200LR, B777-300, B777-300ER, and B777F would make a lot of sense. Until we see more definite specifications for the A350, it's difficult to definitively answer your question.

Quoting Kdeg00 (Reply 1):
Wouldn't it make more sense for Boeing to look at the gaps in the airbus line-up and tailor its product to fit those (and obviously vice versa for Airbus) than for each of them to target the same specific demographic and battle each other into unprofitibility?

Yes, of course. However, the only large gap in either product line is between the A340-600 and the A380-800. Hence the B747Adv.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6061 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 2):
Boeing has already said they could apply 787 technology to the 777 with much success.

Then what are they waiting for?


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10804 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6049 times:

If Boeing can keep its promises with the 787 then in the end the 787 top-model will kill the 772. It makes more sense regarding Boeings future plan of having just 3 aircraft families. They need something bigger than the 777, so they need to build a joint 777/747 replacement sooner or later (depending on wether the 747 Adv. comes). And "later" means before 2020.

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6958 posts, RR: 63
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6040 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
Then what are they waiting for?

The 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 777-200LR, 777F have evolved into a six member family where sales of one will assist sales of another. (AF, for example, has bought the 777-200ER, 777-300ER, 777F and EK has bought the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300ER.) Replace the 772ER with a 787 and you lose a lot of that commonality.

(Of course, you are also building up 787 commonality across a putative family but it's still a bit early for that.)


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
Then what are they waiting for?

The engines, technology proving and time for some freed up engineers.

Imagine a 10-15% range increase on the 777-200LR.... Damn.

10,000-11,000 mile range. Damn Damn...That's a 22-24 hour flight.

[Edited 2005-05-20 16:54:24]

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8419 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 6012 times:

Stretching the 787 might make sense for the short term as it allows Boeing to focus on the 737 line as the next "E" program - lots of volume there.

Boeing is actually fortunate with their first composite effort being the 787 as it fits nicely between the 737 and 777, allowing technology developed to be efficiently moved up and down to both programs.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 5):
They need something bigger than the 777, so they need to build a joint 777/747 replacement sooner or later (depending on wether the 747 Adv. comes).

I take it you mean that only the timing depends on whether or not the B747Adv comes. Boeing will need to build a B777-300/B747 replacement regardless.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
The 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300, 777-300ER, 777-200LR, 777F have evolved into a six member family where sales of one will assist sales of another.

However, the base B777-200 is effectively dead. Has anyone ordered it since UA ordered 6 circa 1997? It's really a five member family in my opinion.

(BTW, UA placed that order with the hope that Boeing would build them six B777-200ERs that were derated on paper and could be upgraded later. Boeing built A-market B777-200s for them.)

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
Imagine a 10-15% range increase on the 777-200LR.... Damn.

A B777-200LR with 15% more range would connect every city pair on the planet.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5943 times:

2 years back everybody was convinced Airbus could do nothing on the 7e7 because they had their hands full on the A380.

Same folks are now suggesting (yet to be developed) 787 technology can easily & simultaneously be implemented on the 777 (and 744 / 737 successors for that matter).

Come on guys ..


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6958 posts, RR: 63
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5915 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
However, the base B777-200 is effectively dead. Has anyone ordered it since UA ordered 6 circa 1997? It's really a five member family in my opinion.

True enough but one thing leads to another. There would be no 747ADV now without the -400, -300, -200 and -100. And odd orders do pop up now and again. JAS ordered more PAX A300-600s not long ago and CO revived the moribund 767-200ER line.


User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
Then what are they waiting for?

You have to consider that the oldest 777 is only 10 years old. Even if Boeing were to introduce a replacement for EIS in 2010-2011, the oldest 777 will still only be 15 years old.

Quoting PM (Reply 6):
EK has bought the 777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300ER

Not to forget the 777-300 as well.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5875 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
Imagine a 10-15% range increase on the 777-200LR.... Damn.

The 777-200LR only really needs a small range extension. It would be better served by having better fuel efficiency, which would be the other benefit.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 12):

You have to consider that the oldest 777 is only 10 years old. Even if Boeing were to introduce a replacement for EIS in 2010-2011, the oldest 777 will still only be 15 years old.

EIS for a B787-10 that would replace the B777-200ER would not be before 2012. EIS for a B777-300/B747 replacement would probably not be before 2014 if the B747Adv does not go forward and perhaps 2020 if the B747Adv does go forward. This would depend in large part on the availability of more powerful engines. Only a short-range (e.g. 4000-5000nm), smaller winged (ala B787-3) version could use the GE-90s. A long-range (e.g. 10000nm), larger winged version would need physically larger engines producing perhaps 135K lbs of thrust.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 13):
The 777-200LR only really needs a small range extension. It would be better served by having better fuel efficiency, which would be the other benefit.

I think the longest market that would be commercially viable for a reduced OEW B777-200LR would be AKL-LHR. Because that's only about 200km further eastbound than westbound, a 10% improvement in range would more than suffice. SYD-LHR might be more challenging than AKL-LHR.

There are three ways to improve the fuel efficiency:
1) make the engines more efficient,
2) reduce the aerodynamic drag, or
3) reduce the weight (reduces induced drag).
The greatest opportunity here lies with reducing the weight.


User currently offlineSingaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting N60659 (Reply 12):
You have to consider that the oldest 777 is only 10 years old. Even if Boeing were to introduce a replacement for EIS in 2010-2011, the oldest 777 will still only be 15 years old.


for singapore airlines a 10 year old a/c is actually quite old! i've mentioned this on a different thread, that in the near future sq will most likely start to look to replace our oldest 772ers.



Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
User currently offlineCslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5782 times:

I think the future 787-10 should be renamed 787-X (where X is the roman numeral for 10).


--cslusarc from YWG
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 13):
The 777-200LR only really needs a small range extension. It would be better served by having better fuel efficiency, which would be the other benefit.

Where do you think that range addition comes from?

It's called fuel efficiency.


User currently offlineZoom1018 From Taiwan, joined May 2005, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

I think Boeing would eventually apply 787's advanced technologies on 777s... and that would make the T7 lighter and even more efficient Big grin

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Same folks are now suggesting (yet to be developed) 787 technology can easily & simultaneously be implemented on the 777 (and 744 / 737 successors for that matter).

Come on guys ..

First, your nebulous alegations to these "same folks" aside, it makes perfect sense: Boeing has spent almost 6 years developing the skills set being applied to the 787. Once a learning curve has been established, it will take much less time for Boeing to apply these technologies to other products than it will for Airbus to develop them from square one.

Second, yet to be developed? Design freeze is weeks away and the first example will begin construction in less than 12 months. Perhaps we have different definitons of "developed" but there's nothing paper about the 787.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
Has anyone ordered it since UA ordered 6 circa 1997?

Yes... CX ordered one in 2003, and ANA ordered three in 2001

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 4):
Then what are they waiting for?

B-market demand isn't red hot right now. Nearly all of the DC-10, L1011, 742, and older generation long-haulers have been replaced. The next time we will see a boom of 300-seaters as big as we saw between 1997-2000 is when the 772ER is up for replacment, and the oldest 772ER is only 8 years old.

Timing is everything: if, hypothetically, the bulk of 772ER replacement doesn't come until 2020, the A350 is a rather old product to consider for long-term fleet planning. Boeing has options, so it behooves the to watch and see what happens.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
B-market demand isn't red hot right now. Nearly all of the DC-10, L1011, 742, and older generation long-haulers have been replaced. The next time we will see a boom of 300-seaters as big as we saw between 1997-2000 is when the 772ER is up for replacment, and the oldest 772ER is only 8 years old.

I agree that B-market demand isn't red hot right now, however, there is demand. Would you agree that a B787-10 (stretch of the B787-9 to B777-200 seating capacity) would be more profitable for Boeing than the B777-200ER and that development costs would be less than $1B?


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6958 posts, RR: 63
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
Has anyone ordered it since UA ordered 6 circa 1997?

Yes... CX ordered one in 2003, and ANA ordered three in 2001

No. A quick look at Boeing's website would have given you the answer. CX ordered one (actually, they took the original production aircraft after Boeing had finished with it) in May 2000. ANA ordered three in December 2001. That was the last order for 777-200s. And UA's order was for 6 in April 1998.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5461 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
Would you agree that a B787-10 (stretch of the B787-9 to B777-200 seating capacity) would be more profitable for Boeing than the B777-200ER and that development costs would be less than $1B?

I expect we will have to see the 787-8 and -9 in the air before we will know whether how much of an effort a -10 will require.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineTinPusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 982 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5429 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 14):
There are three ways to improve the fuel efficiency:
1) make the engines more efficient,
2) reduce the aerodynamic drag, or
3) reduce the weight (reduces induced drag).
The greatest opportunity here lies with reducing the weight.

1 and 2 are good points....however with number 3, reducing weight will reduce fuel burn more than anything else. Induced drag is a byproduct of lift, not weight.



"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 758 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5387 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
The next time we will see a boom of 300-seaters as big as we saw between 1997-2000 is when the 772ER is up for replacment, and the oldest 772ER is only 8 years old.
Timing is everything: if, hypothetically, the bulk of 772ER replacement doesn't come until 2020

In 2010 these (772ER) aircraft will be 13 years old. No doubt many of the airframes will have another 10 to 15 years left in them but the replacement age of aircraft is also influenced by the type of financing involved and tax and depreciation issues. Many airlines lease their aircraft and will roll over their aircraft after around 15 years rather than the 25 or more years that the aircraft will last. I mention the tax thing as countries such as Singapore have very generous depreciation allowances for capital items such as aircraft. This is why Singapore Airlines replaces its aircraft at such an early age - and they will replace their 772ER's long before 2020. Interesting how the tax legislation of a small country such as Singapore can be so beneficial to companies like Airbus and Boeing.
There is also the issue of market growth to consider. Neither manufacturer is expecting the market to remain static for the next 10-20 years - both are forecasting significant growth.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
Would you agree that a B787-10 (stretch of the B787-9 to B777-200 seating capacity) would be more profitable for Boeing than the B777-200ER and that development costs would be less than $1B?

If the 787-10 can use the existing 787 wing then it may be plausible at that cost. If it requires a new wing then the R&D costs will increase significantly.
It also depends on whether Boeing wants to duplicate the entire mission profile of the 772ER with all its cargo hauling capabilities at maximum range or if they simply want to match the capabilities of the A359.

The likelihood of any 787-10 launch will depend on the A359 sales success in the next 3-4 years. Wouldn't expect any decision sooner than that.


Cheers,
StickShaker


25 Zvezda : All the reports I'm hearing are that the B787-8/9 wing can be used for a B787-10 (B777-200ER capacity) stretch, but that the B787-3 wing can support
26 Atmx2000 : They will always have the O&D market to/from Singapore, but I wonder if they will keep their strong connecting traffic business and position as the S
27 Singaporegirl : i concur with stickshaker. i wouldn't be sursprised at all if we're going to start looking for a replacement of our 772ers in 2 years time. by 2007 o
28 Zvezda : Industry sources. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I would never burn a source. I do think my sources are credible, but I wouldn't bet a finger on
29 Post contains images Lehpron : This gap was known before A3XX was launched, did 787's technology inspire 747Adv? I would have thought that even the SC program could have set off a
30 Zvezda : That the B747Adv can make use of the B787's engines is the key to the B747Adv's efficiency improvements with minimal development cost. The stretch al
31 N60659 : Yes, but the first EIS of the 777 was in 1995, which makes it 10 years of airline service. -N60659
32 Gigneil : Time, mostly. They need to finish developing the 787 before they can have technology to apply to the 772. Widebodyphotog provided details a few month
33 Post contains links N60659 : For those of us that are "search challenged" here is the thread Neil refers to: RE: The Official 777-200LR Rollout Thread! (by Widebodyphotog Feb 17
34 Kaitak : Looking at this from a purely strategic viewpoint (i.e Boeing's), I'm not sure what it's doing. The 350 hasn't been a stellar seller so far, with only
35 Beauing : Isn't all this talk about a 787-10 a bit premature since Boeing has said nothing about such a critter?
36 N60659 : I see Boeing's potential strategy being two-pronged: (1) Develop a lighter OEW version of the 777-200ER either keeping the MTOW the same or increasin
37 Gigneil : I agree with that fully. N
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...
Airbus A300-800 Or How To Compete With The 783? posted Wed Feb 22 2006 09:20:55 by PADSpot
Boeing - SQ Must Buy Boeing To Compete With QF? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 21:06:14 by Halibut
A Way For Airbus To Compete With 773ER posted Wed Nov 23 2005 01:56:30 by BG777300ER
NW To Compete With Frontier On IND-CUN posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:47:53 by Indy
Aviacsa Gets Ready To Compete With New LCC's posted Sun Sep 11 2005 22:56:32 by Rojo
AC's Challenge W/ 3xx/76x To Compete With Others posted Mon Jun 20 2005 01:52:35 by Turbojet
Lufthansa To Compete With LCCs posted Thu May 12 2005 15:28:12 by Bicoastal
A350-800 To Cost $154M, A350-900 To Cost $170M-WSJ posted Wed Dec 15 2004 19:19:07 by N328KF
How Is Airbus Going To Compete With The 7E7? posted Sat Jun 12 2004 02:25:55 by BoeingBus
Was The A320 Built To Compete With The 757 posted Thu May 13 2004 02:06:14 by 747400sp
A Way For Airbus To Compete With 773ER posted Wed Nov 23 2005 01:56:30 by BG777300ER
NW To Compete With Frontier On IND-CUN posted Mon Nov 21 2005 04:47:53 by Indy
Aviacsa Gets Ready To Compete With New LCC's posted Sun Sep 11 2005 22:56:32 by Rojo