Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Versus 777-200, 777-200ER, And 777-200LR  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8039 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.

Thank you in advance for your considered answers.

[Edited 2006-06-16 21:01:09]

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5735 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8011 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.


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1871 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7735 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.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7722 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I'd be surprised if 777-200LR will sell more than 50 - 75 frames. Y3ER will kill it.

At 41 sold, Making 50 should not be hard...  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7491 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).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7443 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.


User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
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,

I would be careful in making such statements - anything "expected" in this business often brings the "unexpected".

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.

[Edited 2006-06-17 07:24:44]

User currently offlineF14ATomcat From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 88 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7117 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.....

Brief Description:
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:
476,000 lbs

and....

Brief Description:
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....

Maximum Takeoff Weight:
540,000 lbs (244,940 kg)

Not quite the same eh?


User currently offlineAircanada014 From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7094 times:

Don't forget Air Canada has options to purchase more 777-200LR and 777-300ER.....

User currently offlinePavvyben From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 7024 times:

Quoting Aircanada014 (Reply 8):
Don't forget Air Canada has options to purchase more 777-200LR and 777-300ER

I doubt it, most of Air Canada's fleet is Airbus, can't see them shelling out money to train pilots to fly a completley different aircraft.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2825 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6925 times:

Quoting Pavvyben (Reply 9):

I doubt it, most of Air Canada's fleet is Airbus, can't see them shelling out money to train pilots to fly a completley different aircraft.

Your are aware the the Airbus widebodies are on the way out at AC right?


User currently offlineATLflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6803 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?


User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6413 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.


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6385 times:

When was the last time Boeing sold a 777-200ER?

Seems to me, the 777 is split into two eras: Before the -200LR / -300ER and After.

Going ahead with the 787-10 makes sense. Yes, you canabalize any audience for the 777-200ER, but you keep customers in the Boeing tent. It looks like 777 Era #1 is over anyway.

On the EK 787-10 subject: I don't believe in "expecting" any company to do anything.



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlinePavvyben From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6169 times:

Quoting C680 (Reply 13):
When was the last time Boeing sold a 777-200ER?

2 days to ANA along with a 777-300ER and a 737-700  

[Edited 2006-06-17 18:48:48]

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6066 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.


User currently offlineEclipseFlight7 From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Quoting Pavvyben (Reply 9):
I doubt it, most of Air Canada's fleet is Airbus, can't see them shelling out money to train pilots to fly a completley different aircraft.

Wow, that certainly shows that you can make great connections! And your opinion is entirely refuted by Air Canada purchasing 777's and 787's.

http://micro.newswire.ca/release.cgi...y=1311093071&view=58060-0&Start=20



Holy sh*ts and burritos.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5974 times:

Quoting C680 (Reply 13):
When was the last time Boeing sold a 777-200ER?

B has sold about 10 a year for last 4 years (using May-May data).

I would expect that to taper off a bit until the 787-8 EIS, when you won't see any more 772ER sales.

But that's maybe 14-16 more 772ER sales, bringing the total sold to 440 772ERs. Not bad for one specific model of an expensive widebody jet!

And the frame lives on in the 772LR and 777F, and it's sister 773ER.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1717 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5851 times:

Quoting C680 (Reply 13):
When was the last time Boeing sold a 777-200ER?

El Al ordered 2 B772ER on 30 November, 2005.

Sales since 2000

2000 51
2001 23
2002 15
2003 9
2004 12
2005 10



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineSaturn5 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5817 times:

Quoting F14ATomcat (Reply 7):
Dude.... Boeings' website shows

There was a mistake in my original post. I meant to say 787-9 and -10 will share identical MTOW.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5776 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.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5543 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.
User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5462 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.


User currently offlineTigerotor77W From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5410 times:

Was SQ one of the airlines who had pushed Boeing to produce the 787-10?

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5361 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.


25 Atmx2000 : 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
26 Tigerotor77W : Thanks for your reply.
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...
777-200LR Vs -200ER And 744 posted Mon Oct 17 2005 23:28:45 by DesertRat
AA's 777's - 200 Or 200ER? posted Mon Jun 12 2006 19:15:49 by Rwylie77
330 Versus 777 And 340 posted Sat Jun 26 2004 23:06:49 by Schweizair
10 Across In Coach Class On A 777? posted Sun Dec 14 2003 18:28:28 by TLHFLA
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Continental 767-200/ER With 777-Style Interior posted Wed Jan 25 2006 21:58:56 by N484ER
A330-200 Vs. 763,777 posted Tue Aug 8 2000 23:25:28 by Blink182
Where Is The 787-10? posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:11:18 by AA1818
1st 787-10 Shows Up In Boeing Presentation posted Fri Sep 29 2006 16:16:37 by Boeing7E7
Baseler: Boeing In "Serious" 787-10 Talks posted Thu Sep 14 2006 07:09:26 by Leelaw