AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8944 times:
Forgive me if this has been posted before, but since Emirates is now expected to announce its decision to purchase the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner at Farnsborough, how would this potentially affect sales of the 777-200, the 777-200ER, or the 777-200LR?
I understand that some have said that Boeing was somewhat reluctant in the past to build the 787-10 because it might take away from its 777 sales. However, apparently Boeing has determined that there is a sufficient business model for the 787-10. Further, the 787-10 probably would not enter into service for four or five years, I would imagine, and the 777-200 design would be of significant age by that time.
Relevant considerations would include, among other things, the following: Passenger and cargo capacities, respectively; maximum and typical ranges; price per unit; general economics; market potential; production schedule; and expandability and other technological issues.
NYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5846 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8916 times:
It would only effect sales of the 777-20ER. The 200LR is a much different animal and the -10 wouldn't effect the sales of that plane. The 200LR is a niche market plane anyway and probably wouldn't sell more than 200 I believe excluding freighters.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1964 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8640 times:
The 787-10 as it is now is a simple stretch of 787-9, suffering from payload and range penalty as a result. Depending on the final configuration, it will have a range of about 7000 - 7500nm and seating capacity between 310 and 360. With a higher thrust bleedless engines and a redesigned landing gear it would be possible for Boeing to do a -10ER eventually with a range close to 8500nm. Rolls Royce has been very vocal about them being willing and able to work on a Trent-1000 with an adequate thrust to take care of additional lift capacity. As far as economy goes, according to Boeing, 787-10 will have lowest CASM of all widebody aircraft.
Quoting NYC777 (Reply 1): The 200LR is a niche market plane anyway and probably wouldn't sell more than 200 I believe excluding freighters.
I'd be surprised if 777-200LR will sell more than 50 - 75 frames. Y3ER will kill it.
Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4932 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 8396 times:
I know the 787-9 has had IGW done to it and now has a bigger range, but of the 787 models which one will become the LR version (if B decides to do this)?
I would have thought a 787-9 with even lighter components and extra fuel tank fitted could be the first aircraft to fly AKL/SYD-LHR direct year round with a decent payload, Thus replacing and/or improving on the capabilities of the 772LR to a certain extent (yes it is a smaller aircraft).
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8348 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 4): I would have thought a 787-9 with even lighter components and extra fuel tank fitted could be the first aircraft to fly AKL/SYD-LHR direct year round with a decent payload,
A B787-9ER with AKL/SYD-LHR range would require increased MTOW including an additional 2 wheel center bogey, higher thrust engines, and three belly tanks.
Back to the OP, while the B787-9/10 will not be able to perform all B777-200LR missions, they will be able to perform some of those missions at much lower cost so, yes, they will cut somewhat into the B777-200LR market.
F14ATomcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8022 times:
Quoting Saturn5 (Reply 6):
Also please note that both 787-9 and 787-8 will share the same MTOW - so clearly there is a limit to what 787-10 can do if you put more seats into it.
Dude.... Boeings' website shows.....
The Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is a super-efficient airplane with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size......
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner is a slightly bigger version of the 787-8. Both are super-efficient airplanes with new passenger-pleasing features. It will bring the economics of large jet transports to the middle of the market, using 20 percent less fuel than any other airplane of its size....
ATLflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 744 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7708 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2): The 787-10 as it is now is a simple stretch of 787-9, suffering from payload and range penalty as a result. Depending on the final configuration, it will have a range of about 7000 - 7500nm and seating capacity between 310 and 360.
If the 787-10 will be able to seat up to 360, won't it affect the market for the 777-300ER as well? Also, do you think it is possible for Boeing to make 777s out of composites and put the same (or similar) engines as the 787 on them to make the 777 even more efficient?
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7318 times:
Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 11): Also, do you think it is possible for Boeing to make 777s out of composites and put the same (or similar) engines as the 787 on them to make the 777 even more efficient?
No, first there is no current need, the 777 rules that end of the market, and secondly, the comparable engines aren't available. Most likely, what you are proposing will be the proposed 777 replacement (I'm not using Y names for clarity's sake) that will happen in the 20teens, but it is scheduled to happen after the -8 EIS and 737 replacement happens in the 2010-2015 timeframe. So look for it sometime in about 10 years. Unless Airbus brings out a strong competitor early and along with the 787-10, both end up killing the 777 market. But it isn't looking like Airbus will be able to react any earlier than 2012, some say 2014, and the 777F (based on 772) and 773ER are selling well, so I would say that they will have a 777 backlog well into 2015 by the time it comes time to design a successor. And that also helps Boeing, as they would like to build airframes after completing the amortization of the 777 development costs. That's where real profits lie. One thing that is also driving these dates is that the engines manufactors have said that it will take a decade to get the necessary engine technology advances that will give significant operating efficiencies for such sized aircraft. That's why Mr. Clark talked about why a four engined A340/777 sized airframe is still viable, twins are a stretch at the long ranges and payloads that the airlines are asking for. The current Trents and Genx lines are reaching the upper end of possible developments. GE has talked of the neccessay materials research needed to allow increased operating efficiencies. Add in that alternate fuels are what everyone is also wanting to see put in use and these studies are currently underway but no real production engine has been put in service yet. So the planned progression is decided by both airframe and engine advances. 2015 IMO at the earliest.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 6971 times:
Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 11):
If the 787-10 will be able to seat up to 360, won't it affect the market for the 777-300ER as well?
The B787-10 will kill the B777-300(non-ER) because it is smaller, has greater range and lower CASM. The B777-300ER has payload/range performance that the B787-10 can't touch, so it still has a market. If Boeing want to replace the B777-300ER with a B787, they need to increase the MTOW to about 620,000 lbs by adding a 2-wheel center bogey and strengthening a lot of components and stretch it another 6 meters (beyond the B787-10) to the length of the A340-600. That would have an amazing CASM. Don't hold your breath though.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6681 times:
Come on, dont you think that Boeing has a plan here and has carefully considered the alternatives and impacts on its model line.
First, if EK is ready to sign up for 50+ 787-10s, Boeing is going to launch the variant, no question about it....landing this order is important for so many reasons.
Second, Boeing does anticipate that the 787-10 will impact 772ER orders....but that in itself is not going to prevent Boeing from moving forward. All new products affect the sales of older versions: interest in the 772ER will be reduced to carriers looking to add to existing fleets and the like, but remember that the 772ER will have ben in production for 15 years by this point in time with over 500 in service, not bad at all.
Third, the 772LR/772F/773ER have a bright future, being capable of missions that are outside of any currently anticipated version of the 787 family. While Airbus now things that it can offer one type to cover the entire 787/777 range in terms of seats and performance, Boeing does not.
Fourth, the 787 line will continue to be developed and tweaked...we could see a 787-10ER or other variants over time, but that depends upon the specs and missions for the the Y3 project that will come much later on.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21713 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6448 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 20): Second, Boeing does anticipate that the 787-10 will impact 772ER orders....but that in itself is not going to prevent Boeing from moving forward.
It did impact Boeing from offering it in the first place though. They wanted a successful EIS for the 777LR program first, especially the 772LR. Now that the 772LR has 41 orders, there is less pressure on Boeing to keep the 772ER afloat (even though it is a higher profit jet). A 787-10 launch with EIS of 2011-12 will still allow for 772LR sales for a few years, though I doubt it will be more than 35 more like others have said.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6367 times:
Quoting ATLflyer (Reply 11): If the 787-10 will be able to seat up to 360, won't it affect the market for the 777-300ER as well? Also, do you think it is possible for Boeing to make 777s out of composites and put the same (or similar) engines as the 787 on them to make the 777 even more efficient?
Considering that Boeing's website lists the -8 at 210 to 250 pax and the -9 at 250-290, I would expect the -10 to be about 290-330. I think -10's stretch would be less than or equal to the -9s. 330 pax is significantly less than the 773ERs 385-395 pax capacity. The 787-10 should have little affect on the 773ER.
It would be almost impossible to make 777s out of composites and gain the same advantages of the 787. The 777 is built "the old way" with the fuselage coming in as big pieces of aluminum, and they are attached together with lap joints/rivets. One of the biggest advantages of the 787 is the one piece barrel section. . . which has to be designed from the beginning since you have varying number of plys and the composite matricies running/changing directions to maximize strength where it is needed, etc. I'm sure replacing aluminum pannels with composite ones would save a little weight, but not all that much. I suspect that's where Airbus got the 550kg weight savings number for a composite fuselage A350.
If (big assumption here) they were able to get big enough engines for the 777 based on 787's engine technology, most of the systems would also have to be redone to accomodate the bleedless engines. Basically it would be a pretty big mess. However, it may be possible for the 777 to get Al-Li to replace some of the current aluminum alloys. That would help the 777 save a little weight here and there, and would not require a massive redesign.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6266 times:
Quoting Tigerotor77W (Reply 23): Was SQ one of the airlines who had pushed Boeing to produce the 787-10?
Thats a good question - I dont think so....the 787-10, as far as we know, was developed in response to EK's requirement for more seats. EK was always looking for something a little bigger than the initial 787 offerings; Airbus then supersized the A359 which not only appealed to EK but also improved per seat operating costs; Boeing intially did not want to develop the 787-10 at this early date since the 787-10 will overlap with the 772/ER models; and the rest is history: Airbus determined that the A350 needed a major redesign (which will probably be a bigger airplane than originally envisioned) and Boeing has inidicated that the 787-10 will go forward and we may see an EK order for the variant in the near term future.
Back to SQ, most thought that SQ would be interested in the 787-3 or 787-9.......the 787-3 as a successor to the A310 for regional routes which would allow SQ to stop "mis-using" 772s on shorter haul routes that do not need the capacity and the 787-9 for long thin routes out of Singapore to destinations that cannot support 772ER service on a daily basis. So far, we have SQ ordering 20 787-9s with 20 options for unspecified variants.
The SQ order is an important one - not only for prestige - but SQ will likely grow its 787 fleet and look to the 787-10 as a 772/ER replacement and may also eventually order the 787-3. Just as with the 747 and 777, one can expect SQ to grow its 787 fleet and order various members of the 787 family.
: The only reasons to that would be for better range-payload and to keep it from encroaching on the 773ER's turf. But then there isn't as much of a dif