Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Where Is The 787-10?  
User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3435 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6933 times:

After much speculation earlier this year that a launch was imminent- where is the 787-10?

Boeing can't sell it unless they launch it!!!

Does anyone have a time frame for ita launch?
Anyone besides EK evaluating it seriously?
Any word from Boeing?

AA1818


“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6931 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA1818 (Thread starter):
After much speculation earlier this year that a launch was imminent- where is the 787-10?

Still in development, I imagine.

Quoting AA1818 (Thread starter):
Does anyone have a time frame for ita launch?

Once RR and GE can provide an extra 3-5K of thrust and Boeing can meet the range and capacity demands the airlines want.

Quoting AA1818 (Thread starter):
Anyone besides EK evaluating it seriously?

LH is said to be interested in it.

I imagine SQ is also interested in it as a hedge should the A350XWB program be delayed beyond the timeframe they require those frames to replace 772ERs.

I expect QF won't be interested since they never went for the 777 nor the A340.


User currently offlineKatekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6910 times:

Many reasons for which Boeing is not offering B787-10 at this stage:

- B787-3, -8 and -9 are sold out for the first two-three years of production, the plane is selling like hot cakes. The competition does not have a credible answer to the B787 and the best alternative to the B787-10 is another Boeing (B777-200ER/LR).

- They are focusing on delivering the early version flawlessly - which is the right things to do. Distracting engineering resources to develop a new version and potentially risking a similar disaster like the A380 would be a very stupid decision.

- They are probably waiting for the engine manufacturers to come up with a more powerful engine version to allow a 8000nm range on the B787-10.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6738 times:

To buttress what others have said:

Potential customers want more range and not simply a 777-200ER alternative. The operating economics of a 787-10 would be far better than the current 777-200ER so the operators want increased capability.

GE has got major trepidation about expanding the GEnX beyond 75klbt as it starts to encroach on their established 777 engine business. Conversely RR has no qualms about it at all, PW can not be reached for comment...

Boeing has got major trepidation about marginalizing the 777-200 as a passenger airplane. They vasilate between significant redevelopment and letting the program wither on the vine. I have my own personal opinions about what should be done with the 777-200 after the 787-10 becomes a player but I don't think Boeing would do it...

BTW is there a thread started already on the 34 Unidentified operator 787's on the BCA website?



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 6710 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 3):
Boeing has got major trepidation about marginalizing the 777-200 as a passenger airplane. They vacillate between significant redevelopment and letting the program wither on the vine.

Do you have any thought on how hard would a 787-10 hammer the 777-200LR? I know it will send the 777-200ER packing, but could the 777-200LR (especially if they can lighten it) still have a fighting chance? Or are the economics just too stacked against it compared to a 787-10?

Quote:
I have my own personal opinions about what should be done with the 777-200 after the 787-10 becomes a player but I don't think Boeing would do it...

I'd be interested in hearing them if you wish to share.


User currently offlineAA1818 From Trinidad and Tobago, joined Feb 2006, 3435 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6607 times:

I can kind of see why the -10 is taking long, but then how long would it take to revamp the 777 series and say apply composites to the 777s?

Let's face it, as much as Airbus is in a quandry, they WILL sooner or later launch the A350, and without a formidable competitor a la 787-10/ -11, Airbus will undoubtedly steal the show in the 777-sized market from Boeing, just as the 787 is crushing everything in its path. Whether Airbus launches the A350 in November or as late as March, it will come. Are Boeing going to be caught with their pants down, trying to sell then outdated, heavy and in relative terms inefficient and uncompetitive a/c in the form of the 777 to customers???

AA1818



“The moment you doubt whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan)
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6583 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Do you have any thought on how hard would a 787-10 hammer the 777-200LR? I know it will send the 777-200ER packing, but could the 777-200LR (especially if they can lighten it) still have a fighting chance? Or are the economics just too stacked against it compared to a 787-10?

The operating economics of the B777-200ER and B777-200LR are very close, so this statement applies just about as well to the B777-200LR as to the B777-200ER:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 3):
The operating economics of a 787-10 would be far better than the current 777-200ER

Of course, there are some missions that the B777-200LR can perform that a B787-10 will not be able to perform, though Boeing are able to later produce a B787-10ER with upgraded landing gear, MTOW, and thrust that could perform all B777-200LR missions.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
Are Boeing going to be caught with their pants down, trying to sell then outdated, heavy and in relative terms inefficient and uncompetitive a/c in the form of the 777 to customers???

We'll have to wait and see. Next step is the B787-10.


User currently offlineKSUpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6560 times:

All we know right now is that it will eventually come. It has already been shown in Boeing documents and whatnot. Hell I'm looking at the poster from the Flight International 787 special and it has the -10 included in the family. So as Boeing said, it's not a question of if, but when.

I'm assuming, as others have said, it is a combination of many things, including the fact they want to get the original models going first. The -10 is a bonus for Boeing.

Two, they want to milk the 777-200 a little more before they kill it with the -10 or -11.

They could also be waiting for Airbus to officially launch the A350. Boeing can then rain on their parade with an announcement of the 787-10 (maybe there is something we don't know and it will be more efficient and an all around better aircraft) Why let Airbus steal the show again with another A350 announcement.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6509 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Thread starter):
Boeing can't sell it unless they launch it!!!

Yes, they can. Authority to Offer always comes before a launch order is placed and industrial launch occurs.

Airbus has sold A350 even though it hasn't been officially launched.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
I can kind of see why the -10 is taking long, but then how long would it take to revamp the 777 series and say apply composites to the 777s?

It would take much longer and much more $$$ to upgrade the 777 to the technological standard of the 787.

The 787-10 is a relatively straight-forward and cheap derivative, but Boeing currently lacks the engines with enough thrust to power the airplane.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
Let's face it, as much as Airbus is in a quandry, they WILL sooner or later launch the A350, and without a formidable competitor a la 787-10/ -11,

Problem for Airbus: Boeing is building the 787-10 so they will not enjoy that luxury.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
Are Boeing going to be caught with their pants down, trying to sell then outdated, heavy and in relative terms inefficient and uncompetitive a/c in the form of the 777 to customers???

Uh... that's idiotic. Sensationalist comments should be used more responsibly...

If the 777 wasn't competitive, it wouldn't sell. Period. Airlines know that aircraft are long-term investments, and the 777 remains the most competitive widebody currently in service. Last year, Boeing sold roughly as many 777 as Airbus sold A330, A340, A350, and A380 combine.

Airbus won't have the A350 in service for perhaps 6-8 years, whereas an airline can receive new 777 in 24-30 months. Most 777 orders are for the 773ER, which Airbus won't have an effective competitor for an even longer period of time.

As for being caught unprepared by the A350, Boeing built the 787 platform with the capability to grow into the 777 niche. Keep in mind the original 3-4 versions of the A350 were like-sized with the 787. They only grew to bring down CASM to a level competitive with the 787 and appeal to a select number of airlines desiring a larger product. Given that EK has been lobbying for the -10 long before the A350 XWB debut, Airbus has not turned the tables on Boeing.


User currently offlineShenzhen From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 1710 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6474 times:

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
I can kind of see why the -10 is taking long, but then how long would it take to revamp the 777 series and say apply composites to the 777s?

Let's face it, as much as Airbus is in a quandry, they WILL sooner or later launch the A350, and without a formidable competitor a la 787-10/ -11, Airbus will undoubtedly steal the show in the 777-sized market from Boeing, just as the 787 is crushing everything in its path. Whether Airbus launches the A350 in November or as late as March, it will come. Are Boeing going to be caught with their pants down, trying to sell then outdated, heavy and in relative terms inefficient and uncompetitive a/c in the form of the 777 to customers???

Boeing have the luxury of being able to bring to market a 787-10 within a couple years of launch. They really have no need to cannibalize their 777-300ER sales by providing a EIS for the 787-10 today.

My guess is we will see airlines with an option to switch from a 787-8/-9 to a -10 before we see a launch. This would allow for additional 777-300ER orders, yet provide an alternative to the A350 down the road, without actually launching near term, and preserving the 777-300ER.

Cheers


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6405 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
Of course, there are some missions that the B777-200LR can perform that a B787-10 will not be able to perform, though Boeing are able to later produce a B787-10ER with upgraded landing gear, MTOW, and thrust that could perform all B777-200LR missions.

But is it worth it? I mean the 787-10 will never have the superior hot and high payload performance of the 777-200LR but how much of the potential market is in dire need of all of the 777-200LR's faculties? It's a very small percentage I'd wager. For the meat of what the 777-200ER is doing now and a sizable chunk of what operators will be doing with the LR, the 787-10 is the best bet. Especially as it has nearly the lower hold space of the 777-300ER but with 15-20% fewer seats, that would be a tremendous boost to operators who are currently using 777-200ER's or A340-300's now on medium and long haul routes. However to take advantage of the 787-10 efficiency/voulume package Boeing needs to peg design range at over 8,000nm and most international operators would like to see is a solid 8,500nm or more out of it. I think operators will not warm to lower range/payload points in the beginning for promises of better capability in planes they have to buy later. The market is just moving too fast for that...

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
Let's face it, as much as Airbus is in a quandry, they WILL sooner or later launch the A350, and without a formidable competitor a la 787-10/ -11, Airbus will undoubtedly steal the show in the 777-sized market from Boeing, just as the 787 is crushing everything in its path. Whether Airbus launches the A350 in November or as late as March, it will come. Are Boeing going to be caught with their pants down, trying to sell then outdated, heavy and in relative terms inefficient and uncompetitive a/c in the form of the 777 to customers???

maybe so but we'll have to wait until 2014 or 2015 to know the result? Who knows? I mean by that time the 777-200 will be 20 years old and if not further developed deserves its fate. But Boeing is not going to rest on its collective laurels for eight years to bring out a competitor in the 300-400 seat market. I'm pretty sure that Boeing will have something in the air by 2011-2012.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Do you have any thought on how hard would a 787-10 hammer the 777-200LR? I know it will send the 777-200ER packing, but could the 777-200LR (especially if they can lighten it) still have a fighting chance? Or are the economics just too stacked against it compared to a 787-10?

I love the 777-200LR and what it can do. It is the most capable twin ever built and can perform well under a variety of adverse conditions where other twins fall short and has economics that quads can't match. But it's got a limited market and time to fill that market. Few operators need 9,000nm + range but a lot of operators need high payloads on 6-8,000nm routes. That's where the 777-200LR shines. It's one drawback is that it does not have the lower hold space to really build up with combined operations on long haul routes. Enter the 787-10 with it's potential huge belly space allowing for the same levels of lower deck payloads as 777-300ER, the passenger space of the 777-200 with 20%+ less fuel burn than same. It's an instant winner and if done correctly will the airplane of choice for long haul carriers in that capacity range.

Now what to do with the 777-200LR? My radical Idea is to lighten it and lengthen it! A 9 or ten frame stretch would increase passenger seatingspace by 12-16% and the significant lightening of the structure would preserve superior payload capability in the 8,800-9,200nm range. This would be necessary to put Boeing's next offering, after the 787-10, squarely in the 350 pax range where the alleged A350-1000 will be giving Boeing a formidable competitor 6-8 years hence. Maybe it could be the 777-250, -500, or -8? Whatever you call it I think it's an idea worth exploring...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
I can kind of see why the -10 is taking long, but then how long would it take to revamp the 777 series and say apply composites to the 777s?

Boeing's Randy Baseler was asked much that same question in his latest blog entry at http://www.boeing.com/randy/archives/2006/11/air_mail.html.

The question was can Boeing re-skin the 777 with CFRP panels on the current aluminium frame. His reply was that it wouldn't be practical. So it appears that Boeing doesn't feel it's worth the effort.

Now, there was a rumor posted here Airbus was considering doing just that with the A350XWB to make it even lighter.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 6):
The operating economics of the B777-200ER and B777-200LR are very close...

Ok. I know the 772LR's are "better", but I imagined it wasn't amazingly so otherwise we'd see more 772LR orders as 772ER replacements.

Quoting AA1818 (Reply 5):
Let's face it, as much as Airbus is in a quandry, they WILL sooner or later launch the A350, and without a formidable competitor a la 787-10/ -11, Airbus will undoubtedly steal the show in the 777-sized market from Boeing, just as the 787 is crushing everything in its path.

If Boeing indeed stands still, they risk just that. But the A350XWB's delays are giving Boeing some extra breathing room to try and sell 772LRs and 773ERs. However, I imagine most 772ER operators are trying to wait for the 787-10/A350-900 if they can. I would not be surprised if Boeing starts to offer more significant discounts on 772LR (especially) and 773ER RFPs to try and secure more orders for both to load up the backlog as well as try and deny Airbus the "first wave" of replacements, which will give Boeing more time to evolve larger variants of the 787 as well as a possible Y3.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6252 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 10):
Now what to do with the 777-200LR? My radical Idea is to lighten it and lengthen it! A 9 or ten frame stretch would increase passenger seatingspace by 12-16% and the significant lightening of the structure would preserve superior payload capability in the 8,800-9,200nm range. This would be necessary to put Boeing's next offering, after the 787-10, squarely in the 350 pax range where the alleged A350-1000 will be giving Boeing a formidable competitor 6-8 years hence. Maybe it could be the 777-250, -500, or -8? Whatever you call it I think it's an idea worth exploring...

That's an interesting idea. I think it's worth evaluating against a possible B787-11. A B777-250LR would have a cabin floor area of about 305 sq meters. It would carry fewer passengers and fewer pallets/LD3s but have higher purchase and operating costs than a B787-11. On the other hand, a B777-250LR would have better payload/range performance than a B787-11. At first glance, it looks like your idea is chasing a niche market. I'd love to see one of your charts comparing a hypothetical B777-250LR against a hypothetical B787-11.  Smile Please!  Smile


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6173 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The question was can Boeing re-skin the 777 with CFRP panels on the current aluminium frame. His reply was that it wouldn't be practical. So it appears that Boeing doesn't feel it's worth the effort.

Not with CFRP, but what about Al-Li? I've wondered to what degree you could substitute a different alloy into an existing design. If Boeing was willing to spend the money, is it even remotely feasible to build a 777 out of Al-Li? I recognize that the result would be far from optimal, but if it was cheap to do...



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6104 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 13):
Not with CFRP, but what about Al-Li? I've wondered to what degree you could substitute a different alloy into an existing design. If Boeing was willing to spend the money, is it even remotely feasible to build a 777 out of Al-Li? I recognize that the result would be far from optimal, but if it was cheap to do...

That I can't answer, directly, as I am not familiar with the weight benefits of Al-Li vs. Al (though I know a great deal of info has been posted about in defense and detraction of CFRP).


User currently offline787engineer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 572 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5880 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 13):
Not with CFRP, but what about Al-Li? I've wondered to what degree you could substitute a different alloy into an existing design. If Boeing was willing to spend the money, is it even remotely feasible to build a 777 out of Al-Li? I recognize that the result would be far from optimal, but if it was cheap to do...

AFAIK, Boeing looked into using Al-Li on the 777 back in the early 1990s, and ended up deciding against it. Al-Li has come a long way since then so I'm not sure if advances in the alloy would now change Boeing's mind. IMHO, with the A350 seemingly drifting further away (now 2013/2014), I don't think an Al-Li 777 would be a worthwhile investment.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 5865 times:

Does anyone have a good sense of what it would cost to switch to Al-Li on the B777? Or how much weight would be saved?

I suppose there are two possibilities:
1) The easy way. Use the same gauges of Al-Li that are now used for Al. This would require less engineering effort, less new tooling, and might cost less to certify.
2) The optimal way. Recalculate the gauge needed for each skin panel. This would save more weight, but would cost more to develop.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5767 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 16):
Does anyone have a good sense of what it would cost to switch to Al-Li on the B777? Or how much weight would be saved?

Not necessarily what it will cost but Boeing is not going to develop a production infrastructure for Al-Li to be used on a plane that is already designed. While substantial integration of CFRP into large primary structures on the 777 is pretty much out of the question there is still the possibility of limited redevelopment of the 777 using CFRP. Tail fuselage and empennage structures as well as the wingbox carry through are prime candidates for weight savings from CFRP integration. Contruction methods like FSW hold additional promise for lowering production costs and structural weight while maintaining the same bill of materials and basic design. Boeing has already made substantial investments in new construction methods such as this.

Aluminum as a primary structural material will factor less and less into future Boeing projects as they have decided to undergo a major philosophy shift to more generic materials for aircraft construction. Al-Li is going in the opposite direction. It is a "boutique" material as Walt Gillette put it and as such it will become more expensive and more rare over time.



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quoting 787engineer (Reply 15):
AFAIK, Boeing looked into using Al-Li on the 777 back in the early 1990s, and ended up deciding against it.

There have been many "generations" of Al-Li alloys, so to speak.

A considerable amount of the 747-400 was rebuilt with Al-Li in the mid-80s, but this is obviously different material than what Airbus is now considering with the A350-XWB.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

Why should Boeing do a thing with the B787-10 until, or unless the A350XWB appears? If there is no A350XWB for many years, Boeing would be better off forcing people to buy the 777-200 series.

On the other hand, if Airbus does finally commit to a A350XWB, then the 777-200 is dog meat so it makes sense to build the 787-10 to reply to the lower end of the A350XWB, but tuned to be optimal against the A350XWB. On the other hand a interim 777-300 series mid-life kicker (MLK) such a weight reduction would hit the higher end of the A350XWB.

In all scenarios, it makes sense for Boeing to wait for Airbus to commit on the A350XWB first. It can reply faster than Airbus and probably has a dozen sets of plans for various options already sitting on the shelf.

LI-AL is on option for the B777 MLK, but I don't see plastic panels in place of AL unless they are non-structural.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 19):
Why should Boeing do a thing with the B787-10 until, or unless the A350XWB appears? If there is no A350XWB for many years, Boeing would be better off forcing people to buy the 777-200 series.

I don't think so. Boeing's production cost would be much lower for a B787-10 than for a B777-200ER or B777-200LR. Since the B787-10 would probably be more attractive to most airlines, the sales price shouldn't be any lower. That makes for a much higher margin.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 977 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5577 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 19):
Why should Boeing do a thing with the B787-10 until, or unless the A350XWB appears?

Because Airbus is offering a paper plane that can meet the exact requirements of some very important customers that Boeing would also like to win. Boeing thus needs to offer something other than the 787-8 and 787-9.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 19):
On the other hand, if Airbus does finally commit to a A350XWB, then the 777-200 is dog meat so it makes sense to build the 787-10 to reply to the lower end of the A350XWB, but tuned to be optimal against the A350XWB.

I don't think there is much doubt that there will be an A350. The question is when Airbus will begin the A350, not if.

In regards to the 772ER, people are way overrating the fact that is being "killed." Keep in mind that 85% of the orders for the 772ER were placed before 2001. Boeing has booked 517 orders for the 772ER, and yet only 72 of those were placed between January 2001-today.

The A343/772ER market in general has been cool for some time. Will it heat-up again in 2012? The average age of a 772ER will just be turning 10 years old at the time, so it will require very high fuel prices to make early fleet renewal of young, amortized long-haul aircraft worthwhile.

This is why I think Boeing has it "easy" by offering a derivative to hold their spot in the 300-seat market without optimizing an entire product family around that particular niche.


User currently offlineWidebodyphotog From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 917 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5537 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 19):
On the other hand, if Airbus does finally commit to a A350XWB, then the 777-200 is dog meat...

Dog meat? Hmmm...is that the technical term? As skeptical as I am about the ability of Airbus to produce the A350 at all. I am even more skeptical that the launch of such an airplane means the automatic demise of the 777. I don't think it's just that axiomatic. Even if Boeing never sells another 777 after 2006, with nearly 900 units sold in 16 years they've done pretty good for themselves...

Airbus has many-many hurdles to overcome before they can get to the point of launching the A350 let alone producing it. With EIS of A350 now thought to be around 2014-2015 a great many things could happen in the interim period. As far as I'm concerned the A350 is going to have to be the best thing since sliced bread for operators to commit in large numbers to a plane that will take to the skies nearly a decade hence...



-widebodyphotog



If you know what's really going on then you'll know what to do
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5536 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
I don't think so. Boeing's production cost would be much lower for a B787-10 than for a B777-200ER or B777-200LR. Since the B787-10 would probably be more attractive to most airlines, the sales price shouldn't be any lower. That makes for a much higher margin.

I was thinking "Boeing politics" -- which are real. I do agree with your real world thinking.  Big grin


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 22):
Dog meat? Hmmm...is that the technical term?

Old Silly Con Valley term, which makes it techie. "Dog meat -- obsolete, unsellable, useless."

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 22):
As skeptical as I am about the ability of Airbus to produce the A350 at all. I am even more skeptical that the launch of such an airplane means the automatic demise of the 777.

I think the A350 XWB would certainly wipe out the 777-200, and take a chunk of 777-300 sold for delivery after EIS. Until that time, there are plenty of people in need of the 777 in the next few years. Thus it would sell for a while, to be sure.

Quoting Widebodyphotog (Reply 22):
Airbus has many-many hurdles to overcome before they can get to the point of launching the A350 let alone producing it. With EIS of A350 now thought to be around 2014-2015 a great many things could happen in the interim period.

In particular Airbus will also have to learn to stop shooting themselves in their foot. Hopefully, they have. But yes, there are about 9 to 10 years before the A350 is likely to be flying. I would guess Boeing would have a plastic 777 replacement by then.


25 Shenzhen : Except for one thing, Boeing have two production lines (787 and 777) and are having no problem filling out the production in one, so why kill the oth
26 Zvezda : That's a good point, but Boeing could open a second B787 line 12 to 24 months after the first.
27 Brendows : If you're referring to the 772A and 773A, yes, the A350XWB will certainly be more economical than those two, and it will also be a very good replacem
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...
Where Is The DC-10-15 Now? posted Mon Nov 3 2003 07:42:40 by Ar385
Why Is The 787-9 Coming So Late In 2010? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 08:54:25 by Baron95
Where Is The New Cessna? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 02:33:34 by 2H4
Where Is The $$$ For A370 Coming From? posted Mon May 8 2006 22:06:38 by CX747
Where Is The Piedmont Throwback? posted Tue May 2 2006 05:28:11 by AviatorTJ
QF Interested In The 787-10 And 787 Progress posted Thu Apr 6 2006 17:17:20 by BoeingBus
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
Where Are The 787 Delivery Slots Coming From? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 21:27:39 by Moose1226
Where Is The Qatar VIP A340-500? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 23:35:24 by Bothani
Is The 787 Losing Momentum? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 00:36:01 by Aloha717200