Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Boeing Widebodies  
User currently offlineMike_mit From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8609 times:

Five years from now, what will be the line-up of Boeing widebodies in production? Is the 787 a replacement for the 777? Or will the 777 replace the 747? What do people think the line-up of models will be?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

767 - Freighter / Tanker
787 - Pax
777 - Pax / Freighter
747 - Pax / Freighter


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8551 times:

I believe the plan is for the 787 to replace the 767, which will continue in production if Boeing wins the tanker contract; otherwise it will shut down. I would expect that Y1 will be the new narrow-body, replacing the 737. The 747 and 777 will stay until Y3 is ready, which may not be until 2020 or so. Depending on the configuration of Y3, the 748F may live on for years beyond that.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8497 times:

Quoting Mike_mit (Thread starter):
SUGGEST DELETIONQUOTE SELECTED TEXT

Mike_mit From United States, joined Oct 2000, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted Sat Apr 28 2007 06:58:44 your local time (24 minutes 43 secs ago) and read 79 times:

Five years from now, what will be the line-up of Boeing widebodies in production? Is the 787 a replacement for the 777? Or will the 777 replace the 747? What do people think the line-up of models will be?

I am not sure if this article was already filed under another topic, so I reference it anyway

Boeing could modify its 777

aminobwana


User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8497 times:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 1):
747 - Pax / Freighter

Didn't Boeing just shut down the production line for the 744 or are you talking about the 748?



Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8458 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 3):

I am not sure if this article was already filed under another topic, so I reference it anyway

There's a thread on the topic, but I did not see this article on it. It referenced a different article making the same points. I think it's the wrong move for Boeing, though; it would be the same as Airbus responding to the 787 with a warmed-over A330. They should forget the 777 and move onto Y1 or Y3, with Y1 getting my vote.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8182 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8191 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
They should forget the 777 and move onto Y1 or Y3, with Y1 getting my vote.

I think there is little doubt that Y1 will be next in line - the 7E7/787 R&D program included Y1. While Y1 release is dependent on new engines (as is Y3) I believe that both the engines and Y1 itself are closer than expected. especially with the pressure the airlines are going to be putting on the engine companies.

As for the 777, I have a feeling that Boeing will continue to improve it over the next few years. They may be only minor improvements, but they will help maintain it's position in the market.

The first indication of Y3 may be additional 787 ovens for increased 787 production that are large enough to cook a Y3 barrel or wing.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8168 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
As for the 777, I have a feeling that Boeing will continue to improve it over the next few years. They may be only minor improvements, but they will help maintain it's position in the market.

I believe that once the A350 enters service the 772's will have a hard time competing, and minor tweaking won't help. Same with the A350-1000 and the 733's; but that is several years away.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30527 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Walter747 (Reply 4):
Didn't Boeing just shut down the production line for the 744 or are you talking about the 748?

Boeing still has a number of 747-400F's to be completed (saw 5X's first one yesterday in the final assembly jigs and another with a white tail [though not a "white tail"] was in the first engine-join bay with Dreamlifter 1 beyond her just inside the factory doors.


User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9176 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

Quoting Aminobwana (Reply 3):
I am not sure if this article was already filed under another topic, so I reference it anyway

Boeing could modify its 777

Do you suppose they do a 777-NG approach like they did with the 737 program? I would like to think that. The 737 has been the best selling aircraft pretty much in aviation history. Production began in the mid 1960s and has not stopped! 6,000 planes and going???

The 737-NG wasn't a totally new design, it was pretty much newer and more efficient technology really. Perhaps the 777 could become the first jet to circumnavigate the planet. What is the range of the 772LR, some 9,000 miles or so? Didn't that thing do a SYD-LHR flight? Anyway, that is what I see Boeing doing with the 777 program...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8036 times:

In many ways, the 737NG is pretty much an all-new airplane compared to the older 737 models. The only thing it had in common with the older 737's was the fuselage cross-section and the nose--everything else is new.

I could see a 777NG program, probably powered by the successor to the GE90 engine and switching heavily to composites to structural materials to lower fuel-empty weight, which will allow for either more pax/cargo load and/or longer range. A 777NG derivative that replaces the 777-200LR could become the first airliner to fly non-stop between LHR and SYD non-stop in both directions in revenue service.


User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1035 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7914 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 10):
The only thing it had in common with the older 737's was the fuselage cross-section and the nose--everything else is new.

Forgive me, but I thought the landing gear was also retained.


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7816 times:

I can't imagine why Boeing would go with the Y3 in the near term. The 777 is still relatively young and the 748 is in development. An update will keep the B777 relatively competitive for the second half of its production life - and that is the correct move for Boeing. It is better for Boeing to have 3 well spaced out programs 787, Y1, and Y3 than to react to Airbus and prematurely replace the 777. A successfull airliner should experience a 20-25 year production run. For Boeing to have three major product families they should space them so that there is a project start every 8 or so years. Otherwise they end up having to experience painful ramp up and downs of development staff and face an aging product line across the board in a couple decades.

Airbus is making a major mistake directly reacting to the B787. It would have been far better for them to have laid out a long range product plan - deciding how their product family would evolve over time. Now instead they are replacing their one viable widebody model - the A330, sort of replacing the A340 which seriously needs help, and ignoring the lower end of their widebody offering. And in doing this, they are leaving their narrowbody market vulnerable - just as Boeing gets into a position to attack them there. All in all, reactionary thinking rather than strategic thinking.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 10):
I could see a 777NG program, probably powered by the successor to the GE90 engine and switching heavily to composites to structural materials to lower fuel-empty weight, which will allow for either more pax/cargo load and/or longer range. A 777NG derivative that replaces the 777-200LR could become the first airliner to fly non-stop between LHR and SYD non-stop in both directions in revenue service.

Why do that instead of simply doing Y3? You'd be doing 90% of it anyway. Aluminum airliners are going the way of piston airliners; don't try and prolong the agony.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 11):

Forgive me, but I thought the landing gear was also retained.

I thought that too, but another poster on another thread pointed out that the NG landing gear is actually taller, and posted pictures to prove it, so it is new as well. I don't believe that the 737NG is FBW, though.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFruitbat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 549 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7778 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 12):
Now instead they are replacing their one viable widebody model - the A330, sort of replacing the A340 which seriously needs help

Agreed.

But the second attempt at reacting to the 787 is actually aimed straight at the 777 (which to my mind is a much more strategic approach); what happens if this replacement steals significantly ahead of the 777 and any mid-life upgrade that Boeing may be considering?

That's what makes the whole thing so fascinating for us industry watchers!



Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7718 times:

They could introduce the Y3 technology one piece at a time. It'll need a composite wing, right? Make the best damned wing you can and put it on the 777NG. The same with the engines when they come along. When the time is right, mate that wing, (including in any improvements along the way), to an all new composite barrel.

Voila...you extend the life of the 777, while at the same time, start the process of it's replacement. I reckon the engines and then the wings are where the biggest improvements in efficiency can come. The fuse is the area where improvement will be the smallest. Save that til last.



What the...?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7709 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 12):
Airbus is making a major mistake directly reacting to the B787. It would have been far better for them to have laid out a long range product plan - deciding how their product family would evolve over time. Now instead they are replacing their one viable widebody model - the A330, sort of replacing the A340 which seriously needs help, and ignoring the lower end of their widebody offering. And in doing this, they are leaving their narrowbody market vulnerable - just as Boeing gets into a position to attack them there. All in all, reactionary thinking rather than strategic thinking.

The point is that once the 787 is in service it will be extremely difficult to sell A330's. Boeing is facing the same prospect with the 777 and the A350 once the A350 enters service. While I agree with you it was a reactionary approach, it is probably the best move Airbus could have made under the circumstances. The big mistake was getting bogged down with the A380. That will haunt Airbus for years.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7663 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Boeing still has a number of 747-400F's to be completed (saw 5X's first one yesterday in the final assembly jigs and another with a white tail [though not a "white tail"] was in the first engine-join bay with Dreamlifter 1 beyond her just inside the factory doors.

I meant the PAX version. Sorry i meant to put that down but forgot.



Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7985 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7637 times:

I think the 777NG would probably sport a new, mostly-composite structure wing that will offer substantial weight savings compared to the current metal wing of the plane. That weight savings translates into either more pax/cargo capacity or longer range.

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8273 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6747 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Aren't teh 777-200LR and the 777-300ER the 777 NG ? I expect a 777-300LR but lets not retire a great airplane while the 787 program hasn't even flown yet. The 787 & 777 programs together make a great pair and sell well together like at AC and Air India. I can't wait to see the first 773ER, 787 & 748 airline, Cathay Pacific or JAL could be it.

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6290 times:

Well, one potential 777NG project would be to stretch them both, creating a 777-8 and 777-9. The 777-8 would seat 340-350 and go up against the A350-1000, the 777-9 would seat 390-400 and fill another hole in the market. Through lightening and reworking the wing (like the 748) and lightening of other materials (possible a composite front and rear?), and a GE90nx engine family, there's a chance to push Y3 back until 2022 at the earliest. The question is the same as Airbus faces: can you actually lift a large plane like that, more efficiently, with similar or less powerful engines. Airbus wants to lift the a350-1000 with smaller engines than the GE90-110, and Boeing would need to lift the larger 777-9 with GE90nx-115s or smaller to be efficient enough. And fly 8200nm...

778 and 779 models would both have more cargo space, as well, and through reworking the interior walls, could be designed to fit 10Y at 17.2" width. They need to find 2-3" to achieve that, but it seems like it's possible due to new materials... I do wonder about the structural efficiency of the 779, but people the 77W has room to stretch and still fit in the 80 meter box. The stretch to 80 meters adds room for 3 rows of Y, 1 row of J and 1 row of F and support space (using 32/40/60 nominal "seating" for comparison purposes only), or 38 seats at 9Y, 7J, 4F, meaning you wouldn't even need to got to 80m to reach 390 seats. You'd see real configurations around 350, with 10Y configurations at 400+ seats.

This strategy would also leave more room for th 787-10 to seat 305 pax, replacing the 777-200 series aircraft. In theory, Boeing could offer a 777-7 that is the lenght of the 777-200 but with 777-8 improvements and a 10000nm range, but i still wonder if there's a market for that plane.

[Edited 2007-04-29 00:56:43]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9286 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4112 times:

Quoting Walter747 (Reply 17):
meant the PAX version. Sorry i meant to put that down but forgot.

Well yes and no the Fs and PAX are the same line but the are not make the PAX versions anymore......the last won was delivered not to long ago but i cant remember who it went to??????
it is like the 767 line in a few years just be making 767-300ERFs and 767-200ER or LRFs for the tankers which one did it come down to? Has Boeing said? there was talk of a 767-200LRF (this would just be for the KC767 though)



yep.
User currently offlineFlyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 987 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

I thought that the tanker order fell through...............

Is Boeing actually going to end up making them then?



"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 22):
I thought that the tanker order fell through...............

Is Boeing actually going to end up making them then?

Boeing is currently in the process of certifying the tanker so orders can be filled. I believe Italy and Japan have ordered the 767 tanker.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 21):
there was talk of a 767-200LRF (this would just be for the KC767 though)

The "new" B-767-200LRF version is the airplane Boeing submitted to the USAF in response to the KC-X RFP. Since this would be a Boeing design, they would be free to offer the B-767-200LRF to almost anyone, as either a tanker, or a commerical freighter (though I doubt we will see many sales of B-767-200LRFs to UPS, FedEx, etc.).

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 22):
I thought that the tanker order fell through...............

Is Boeing actually going to end up making them then?

This is a new program. Boeing is offering the tanker version of the B-767-200LRF, while NG/EADS is offering a version of the A-330-200F, called the KC-30A. Both airplanes are in compitition for the USAF KC-X program. It will be a contract for up to 179 new tankers to replace 157 KC-135Es

There are two follow on USAF tanker programs, the KC-Y to replace the KC-10A beginning around 2020, and the KC-Z to replace the KC-135R, beginning around 2035.


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...
3 Engine Choices On Future Boeing Aircraft posted Thu Mar 16 2006 22:37:43 by 1337Delta764
Future Boeing Product List posted Thu Dec 15 2005 10:26:42 by AJRfromSYR
Any Possible Future Boeing/Airbus Common Aircraft? posted Mon Apr 18 2005 22:15:40 by RootsAir
Future Boeing Prediction:end Of Commercial Aircraft posted Tue Dec 2 2003 06:53:22 by United777
Future Boeing Orders? posted Thu Apr 11 2002 14:48:23 by JAL
Future Boeing Planes posted Thu Oct 11 2001 19:58:29 by RJ777
Will All Future Boeing Aircraft Have Sidesticks? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 23:43:38 by Mason
Future Boeing 777, 747, BWB, & SST Projects posted Sat Dec 11 1999 02:55:34 by DeltaAir
Future Boeing 777, 747, BWB, & SST Projects posted Sat Dec 11 1999 02:38:07 by DeltaAir
Qatar Airways And Boeing - Future Relationship posted Sun Sep 10 2006 21:35:58 by Reggaebird