Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777  
User currently offlineDouwd20 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 20076 times:

Interesting article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2003813795_777threat31.html

Is the cash cow 777 threatened?

"Boeing [is] going to be in trouble with the 777-300ER," said Qantas Chief Executive Geoff Dixon in Seattle earlier this month. "The A350-1000 will, if Airbus is correct, produce an aircraft with lower seat-mile costs."

Dixon said he understands Boeing's dilemma and will give the manufacturer more time to consider stretching the Dreamliner to his prescription. But Qantas will decide next year, he said.

Boeing doesn't want to stretch the 787 design that much.

It has already committed in principle to building a 787 to match the A350-900 that seats about 310 passengers. In essence, that means replacing the smaller 777-200ER, which hasn't been selling well in recent years.

But Boeing is reluctant to replace the 777-300ER just yet.

Scott Carson, head of Boeing's commercial division, suggested in Paris that Boeing will respond with a 777 replacement entering service according to the normal development cycle, to trump the A350 around 2020.

150 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 19988 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing eventually has no choice, but they should be able to sell 77Ws into the mid-2010's and deliver them through the late 2010's and early 2020's even if (and, frankly, especially if) the A350-1000 meets all her targets. So I can understand why they don't feel a sense of urgency at the moment and prefer to take a measured response.

User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 19860 times:

If Boeing does not either stretch the 787 to match the 773 or launch Y3 Airbus will eat the 777's lunch. While McNerney and Carson may wish to continue to sell the 777 they can't sell them if nobody buys them, and if Airbus has a better plane Boeing won't sell them. Just look how many airlines bought A346's after the 77W came out, and look how they reacted to the first versions of the A350. Of course Boeing has only themselves to blame; if they hadn't upset the applecart with the 787 none of this would have happened, and they could happily continue to sell 777's. Of course they would also probably be plotting their exit strategy from the airliner business as well.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 19818 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
If Boeing does not either stretch the 787 to match the 773 or launch Y3 Airbus will eat the 777's lunch

Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
Just look how many airlines bought A346's after the 77W came out

But the two were direct, same generation competitors.

We will have to see what Boeing's response is several years from now, when the A350-1000 is getting closer to EIS. If some airlines are already willing to wait several years for the A350, there are probably some who would wait for an updated 777 as well.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 19682 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

Correct. I think there is still a nice sales life in the 77W/77L market. I think Boeing could easily sell another 100-200 or more 777 frames. Afterall, it isn't like they are out-of-date. They are the most advanced widebodies in service.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19632 times:

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):

Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

The A330 is selling because it can be had relatively quickly. Once the backlog of 787's is worked off and it becomes available with reasonable delivery times A330's will be as easy to sell as sunlamps in Death Valley. The same will happen to the 777 once the A350-1000 is available with reasonable delivery. Granted, that will be a while yet.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineNorcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1447 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19612 times:

The 77W is selling well and it is the most economical widebody out there so why should Bowing worry until we all know for a fact what the A350 will do! I am sure Boeing won't seat on their legs and watch Airbus eat their lunch, they've made that mistake before and they;re definately older and wiser in Seattle.


If you're going through hell, keep going
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19560 times:

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 6):
I am sure Boeing won't seat on their legs and watch Airbus eat their lunch, they've made that mistake before and they;re definately older and wiser in Seattle.

With the lead times in designing airliners what it is, it is necessary for Boeing to start making plans now, as QF says. If they do buy 50 A350-1000's that will be a big loss to Boeing; those planes will not be replaced for a long, long time. If Boeing has a concrete answer, even if it will be a year or three after the A350-1000, QF will seriously consider it. But I doubt that Boeing wants to just let Airbus have the order.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19490 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
The A330 is selling because it can be had relatively quickly. Once the backlog of 787's is worked off and it becomes available with reasonable delivery times A330's will be as easy to sell as sunlamps in Death Valley.

The A330 has had an extraordinary year. Since January the A330 family has secured a total of 112 orders with the largest share going to the recently launched A330-200F. In less then 7 months Airbus managed to secure a total of 64 orders for the freighter version and will most likely continue to sell well. The passenger version has also performed well with a total of 48 frames ordered and with still numerous pending orders to be firmed up.

While sales of the A330 will eventually slow down, I predict that the A330 series will managed to reach 1000+ units and the A330F will most likely turn out to be best sold ''NEW'' Widebody Freighter in history, exceeding the A300F, 772F and 747F.

For those that think that the end for the A330 is on the horizon, I suggest that you think again.  Wink

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19408 times:

Boeing needs to make a quick move if they want to keep their loyal 777 customers, my question is how difficult would it be to scale the 787 up to the size of the 777, i mean make the fuselage wider, longer, taller, basically blow up the 787 to the size or slightly large than that of the 777. Boeing might have to redesign the wings and get some stronger engines but they already know how to use composites. This could be an interim solution until the Y3 is ready and be a perfect replace ment to the 777 and the answer to the A350. Basically it would be a larger, stronger 787 that would be a lot like the 777 but with all the technology of the 787. That is basically what the A350 is, a 777 sized plane with composite technology so why doesn't boeing get to work before it is too late, the A350 isn't selling great right now but when it is time for the 777's to be replaced and all that is around is the A350, the A350 will start selling as well as the 777 did, so could boeing scale up the 787 instead of just stretching it or would it be insanely expensive (more expensive then building a new plane) or could they get to work and possibly have it out by the A350 EIS since they already have most of the technology from the 787 it just needs to be enlarged

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19383 times:

What is QF going to do with 50 77W sized aircraft? They never saw a need for the 77W before, but now they need a next gen version in large numbers?

Boeing will sell the 787-10, and their backlog is so great, they will be sold out through 2015 at launch. The A350 already looks to be sold out through 2016, and soon will be sold out further. Boeing plans on a Y3 in the 2018-2020 timeframe (which I think is too late, given the age of the 777 platform), but they also mentioned a revised 777LR family to cut into the efficiency of the A350. That could be launched in 2009 for a 2013 EIS. It would offer the "A330" alternative to the A350 for existing carriers.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19287 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
With the lead times in designing airliners what it is, it is necessary for Boeing to start making plans now, as QF says

Not really , if they want a 787-10ER with about 310-330 and 8500-9000nm range then they can wait to launch till late next year or even 2009 . even if it takes boeing 4-5 years to get a varient in the first streched jet would come out in 2013-2014 timeframe.

I would think that they would add money into the 787 program rather then to the 777 program because the 787 program will yeild better profit and return on investment would be greater for the 787 program rather then giving a last life update to the 777. an upgraded 787 with a new undercarriage and a new wing would perhaps cost 2 billion dollars but they could get a new family like a 787-10 (ER) with 320 seats and 9000nm range and a 787-11 strech with 340-350 seats and 8000nm range. These 2 aircrafts would do great .


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19273 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
What is QF going to do with 50 77W sized aircraft? They never saw a need for the 77W before, but now they need a next gen version in large numbers?

That is what interests me. Sure the A350-1000 will be more efficient then the 77W, but so was the 77W over the 744 and QF kept adding 744s (and then A388s), instead.


User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19184 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
Boeing needs to make a quick move if they want to keep their loyal 777 customers, my question is how difficult would it be to scale the 787 up to the size of the 777, i mean make the fuselage wider, longer, taller, basically blow up the 787 to the size or slightly large than that of the 777. Boeing might have to redesign the wings and get some stronger engines but they already know how to use composites. This could be an interim solution until the Y3 is ready and be a perfect replace ment to the 777 and the answer to the A350.

What you described is basically designing a new airplane!

Boeing will decide when it is economically viable to design a 77W replacement. The A350-1000 is YEARS away; it does not have an engine yet and is still a paper airplane, a good one, but a paper one none the less.

IF Boeing has to loose a QF order of 50 airplanes because they feel they are not ready to come up with a 77W replacement then so be it. It takes Billions of dollars to design a new aircraft and I am sure Boeing will not be dumb enough to let A capture the entire 350+ seat market.

The answer to the 77W replacement is NOT a 787-11 (if you want to call it that). Airbus learned the hard way that double stretches dont work. It would make the aircraft way to long. To replace the 77W Boeing will have to design a new airplane, the 787-10 will be a 772ER replacement and Y3 will be a 772LR and 77W replacement with the potential for a stretch to replace the 748 eventually.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19163 times:

Dixon: ""It's the 787-10 that flies the range of a 777-300ER with a 20 percent lower cost factor. This is what the 787 is supposed to do.""

Uh, no it isn't, GD! The 787 was not designed to do that. It was not designed to replace the 77W in size and offer 20% lower costs than the 77W, one of the most efficient jets out there. That is a complete and utter fabrication, and just demanding Boeing offer such a 787 doesn't make it possible.

The 787 was designed to replace the 767 and A330, and offer 20% lower costs than the 767! The 767 is MUCH OLDER than the 77W.

Dixon is either confused or is just giving a public excuse for creating a giant order for the 787 that he didn't fully need, and calling it "the future" of QF, then immediately trying to sell his airline to be split up. He's grasping at straws at this point.

The A380 is way late and is hurting their business, and their decision to not buy the 77W (or the A340 before that) was a very poor one that he is still trying to justify to this day. So was the decision to buy the wrong configuration of A330s. There is no doubt that QF could have been using 77Ws the last couple years profitably and through 2015, nor is there much doubt that they could have used 343s or 772s from the mid-90s (which of course is not his fault, but just shows continued missed opportunities).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 19164 times:

From the article :

Quote:
The larger 777-300ER has been a huge seller in recent years against Airbus' four-engined, gas-guzzling jets in that size category.

Love that. Yes the A346 is far less efficient than the B77W, but it's false to call it a "gas-guzzling jet", even compared to the B77W.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
Basically it would be a larger, stronger 787 that would be a lot like the 777 but with all the technology of the 787. That is basically what the A350 is, a 777 sized plane with composite technology

That's a brand new plane, regardless of how you describe it. Although I suspect Boeing could be a bit more cost-effective, it'd still cost them a lot of money to do that. Airbus spends $10+ Billions for the A350 (though for 4 variants).

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
or would it be insanely expensive (more expensive then building a new plane)

It's be as expensive as building a new plane, 'coz it's the same thing...

OEM reuses their past knowledge anyway, it's not like for the next a/c they will completely begin from scratch, not looking at the B787's engineering results, they won't reinvent the wheel.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Sure the A350-1000 will be more efficient then the 77W, but so was the 77W over the 744 and QF kept adding 744s (and then A388s), instead.

They decided that it was not worth replacing the B744 with the B77W (introducing a new type, etc etc...) back then but in 2015-2020 those B744s will need to be replaced, and they won't be replaced on a 1:1 basis by the A380, you know it better than myself.
Moreover, they might not want to buy the B748 (too close in capacity to the A380 ?) and, without the B744s, leaving an even bigger hole between the B789 and the A380, that won't work. These are only some personal ideas of course...


User currently offlineBoogyJay From France, joined May 2005, 490 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19087 times:

Quoting Luisca (Reply 13):
What you described is basically designing a new airplane!

You beat me to it ! Big grin


User currently offlinePlanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6152 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19073 times:

Much ado about nothing, really!

The advances in computational ability in the next 5 years will be so significant that a triple-7 replacement will be designed in a fraction of the time it took the 787.

The timing is all in Boeing's hands!



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18893 times:

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 11):
Not really , if they want a 787-10ER with about 310-330 and 8500-9000nm range then they can wait to launch till late next year or even 2009 . even if it takes boeing 4-5 years to get a varient in the first streched jet would come out in 2013-2014 timeframe.

They still need to start examining options now and exploring them with the airlines, even if nothing gets launched for two or three years. Airbus got egg all over their faces with the initial versions of the A350 because they were "caught napping," to quote their illustrious spokesman. Are you advocating that Boeing follow their example?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
The advances in computational ability in the next 5 years will be so significant that a triple-7 replacement will be designed in a fraction of the time it took the 787.

You're clearly dreaming, pal. Computers are tools; decisions get made by people. There are many, many decisions that have to be made in the development of an airliner that take time to sort out, and computers will not speed that up significantly. Also, my observation after working with CAD systems for well over 20 years is that as computer power increases so does program complexity, meaning that time required to do a job if anything increases.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18859 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Dixon: ""It's the 787-10 that flies the range of a 777-300ER with a 20 percent lower cost factor. This is what the 787 is supposed to do.""

Uh, no it isn't, GD! The 787 was not designed to do that. It was not designed to replace the 77W in size and offer 20% lower costs than the 77W, one of the most efficient jets out there. That is a complete and utter fabrication, and just demanding Boeing offer such a 787 doesn't make it possible.

This statement from Dixon is specifically citing the range of the 77W...that's it.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineAminobwana From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18840 times:

1) From the Thread Starter article:

Quote:
Dixon said he understands Boeing's dilemma and will give the manufacturer more time to consider stretching the Dreamliner to his prescription. But Qantas will decide next year, he said.

This certainly will reduce the urgency for Boeing to take a decision here, mainly, if a B787-11 is really necessary. I would say, that QF waiting willingness will motivate EK's, BA's, CX's etc. to decouple their decisions what to buy for their smaller B787 or A350 needs, from the larger models, to be ordered later as QF intends.

2) from Topic "BA Looking To Fly Nonstop From London To Sydney"

Quoting Aminobwana,reply=76, :
Factually, if the consensus were that so long Y class flights would be not attractive, both because of the excessive confinement time and the high cost due to the fuel burn (compared with 1 scale), the extra long range A350-1000 and B787-11 would not be attractive themselves. I wondered why Boeing is so reluctant to develop such: could this be the reason ???

Supplementing the said in 1), and this could be a reversal of my own opinion too, for what it is worth, Boeing should evaluate if due time if to address the extra-long range B787-11 at all (a shorter range B787-10 seems to be necessary anyway) and also Airbus should do the same with the A3510.

regards

OTON


User currently offlineBringiton From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 18759 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
They still need to start examining options now and exploring them with the airlines

It is widely believed that they are doing just that. Obviously boeing has a number of configurations that they are exploring for the 787-10 from everything to a conservative (less expensive) Range/payload tradeoff to a new wing which is more expensive for them . For me the timeframe is more important. IMO boeing will wait until 2014-2015 instead of 2013 , those slots would be gone by the time a firm descision is made on the 787-10. I would find it very strange that boeing launches the 787-10 without first firming up plans to ramp up production as the biggest challenge to the 787-10 may well be production slots given the way the current varients are selling.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 18617 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
as computer power increases so does program complexity, meaning that time required to do a job if anything increases.

What!!?? Development times for any new product gets faster with faster computers. What you're saying sounds like the fastest way to design a new aircraft is to go back to the slide-ruler days. I'm confused  Confused I am NOT putting you down, seriously. Just confused by your statement.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
Computers are tools; decisions get made by people. There are many, many decisions that have to be made in the development of an airliner that take time to sort out, and computers will not speed that up significantly.

Agreed  checkmark 



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21516 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 18571 times:

Quoting DIA (Reply 19):
This statement from Dixon is specifically citing the range of the 77W...that's it.

No, not according to the article. It was believed that when he said QF would buy the 787-10, he was talking about the 787-10 we are all hearing about: 290-330 seats.

Turns out he wants this:
"He stipulated a lightweight 787-10 with low operating costs that will seat 350 passengers."

In other words, he wants a 77W replacement with 20% lower operating costs, just as he stated. Why read anything into what he said when it's pretty clear on the face. He wants Boeing to use the 787 to replace the entire 777 lineup, and this is just not practical. By the time Boeing makes all the changes, they end up with a new plane other than a super long fuselage. Would be better to actually build a new plane entirely! Which of course is Y3, which would start at 350 seats and grow from there...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30922 posts, RR: 87
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 18450 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It may very well be worth Boeing's effort to develop the 787-10 as a 777-200A and A330-300 replacement. At 560,000lbs MTOW, it should have good range even at MZFW which could make it a very strong contender for trans-Atlantic and Hawai'i operations. This way GE and RR can use their current engines and it's quick and easy and inexpensive.

Then Boeing can launch Y3 with 10-abreast at 18.5"/11-abreast at 17.2" as a true 77L and 77W replacement. You can have the Y3-100 with 350 seats and Y3-200 with 400 seats (at 10-abreast), both can have 8500-9000nm range, would carry loads of cargo (especially palletized where you can maximize the hold width and height). RR can offer the Trent XWB and GE would develop a GEnx2 which can also hang off the A350, maximizing the RoI of the plane. Set an EIS for no later then 2020 for both models and pull a "Leahy" by constantly promising the moon and the stars to keep current 77L and 77W customers on the fence (and away from the A350) until you're ready to deliver it.


25 Ikramerica : Actually, it would be a 772ER replacement, roughly, at 7500nm. And they could work on an ER version for the future that flies 8800nm. But not at 350
26 Stitch : Yes it would, but I am operating on the reasoning that current 772ER customers would buy 772LRs to get the same (or greater) payload and carry it a b
27 SEPilot : My experience is that as computers get faster, the programs get more elaborate and require that speed just to function. Case in point; have you tried
28 EI321 : But by then the A330 replacement will already be in service.
29 SEPilot : Yes, it's called the 787. The A350 is quite a bit bigger than the A330.
30 EI321 : Oh come on. The A350 is airbus's replacement for the A330 and A340. The 787 is boeings replacement for the 767, also bigger lets not forget.
31 Atmx2000 : Is he really asking for a signficantly longer stretch? I've asked this before, because when QF announced the 787 order, they said the capacity for th
32 OldAeroGuy : Maybe you should discuss this with WINGS.
33 Osiris30 : I'm amazed how everyone missed EXACTLY what Dixon said: He's not even making the statement for a position of certainty.. which would suggest the numbe
34 Post contains images Planemaker : Sorry, but you are the one that is clearly dreaming! We are talking about aerospace here... not MS Office! MS Bloatware is totally irrelevant to aero
35 Post contains links HawkerCamm : QANTAS/JETSTAR already have a 290seat 787. Its the 787-9 245T MTOW 8000nm in 9-abreast. Its therefore not unreasonable to assume they want at least a
36 ORDFan : Not to nitpick...but all the Boeing brass are in Chicago now. Many, if not all, of Boeing's senior executives are based there and their business dire
37 Ikramerica : I thought that too, but then why compare it to the 77W? He wouldn't compare it in size to the 77W if he was talking about a plane the size of a 77L.
38 BoomBoom : This caught my eye: Isn't it much better for ROI to sell 1200 planes in 20 years than to sell 1200 planes in 25 years? And just how many 777s does Boe
39 RIHNOSAUR : basically a new plane!!!!.....what did you keep from the "source" design?!!?!.... ok the knowledge of using composites...I would argue that once you
40 Post contains images RIHNOSAUR : I am not sure ..(if I interpret the earlier statement correctly, regarding future computing power allowing companies to build planes quicker) if comp
41 MattMSP767 : So the 777 has been in service for how many years... and it has taken airbus this long to come up with something along the same lines? Why is that?
42 BlueSky1976 : 9-abreast 2-class 787-10 would most likely be able to acommodate 350 seats easily - maybe even as many as 370, given that JetStar's 787-8s will have
43 Post contains images WingedMigrator : That is indeed what Airbus has been saying. I tried playing with your numbers and couldn't see it coming out that badly. If you add 6.2t to the 789's
44 Ken777 : I'm both a layman (my engineering knowledge is basically limited to changing light bulbs and checking the oil in my car) and old enough to remember c
45 HawkerCamm : What is your starting aircraft? 787-9 8000nm 290seats 787-9 8500nm 250seats I understand that 1T = 100nm. So with basic stretch (no more fuel) 787-9
46 BoomBoom : Didn't Boeing charge high prices for the 777 in an attempt to recoup those costs? And again I ask, how many 777s do they need to sell to get a decent
47 EI321 : Boeing or Airbus can only charge what the market will bear. Its not as easy as just deciding you will charge customers a higher price and expect to r
48 Post contains links Columba : Also a very interesting article mentioning that BA is interested in the A350-900R to fly to Australia and that the 777LR is too heavy to be economical
49 EI321 : The A350 really would make a good 777 replacement for them. Watch this space.
50 Post contains images F27Friendship : ROTFLMAO! ; however what you are claiming was originally the idea Since computational abilities have been expanding, so have developement times for a
51 Revelation : Which culture is that, the one where new airplanes are ~20% more efficient than the ones they replace? What everyone is missing in all of this is the
52 Mham001 : Boeing has been working very hard to get their development time down to 3 years. Eventually they foresee it down to 18 months almost making a custom d
53 Post contains images SEPilot : I am not talking MS Office either, but midrange CAD programs. The 777 was the very first plane that was totally computer designed; if they had not le
54 Post contains images F27Friendship : We are not quite there yet unfortunately I'm not even sure if we will ever get there... SEPilot sums it up nicely! I have nothing to add to his comme
55 Revelation : Not to mention the labor saved in the procurement and manufacturing spaces by the use of CAD. Let's face it folks, we aren't going back to slide rule
56 Post contains links BoomBoom : At the same time it has to make a decent ROI. And they were "drawing a line in the sand" on pricing as this article from 2004 shows: http://seattlepi
57 Post contains images Astuteman : FWIW guys, the justification (accepted by the customer) for the time and cost overruns during the development of HMS Astute was that the more advance
58 Scbriml : Generally true, but ironically, not for EK since the AED is pegged to the $ at a fixed rate!
59 Lesismore : One thing I'm having a hard time with is the constant comparisons of the A350XWB-1000 to the Boeing 777-300ER. I understand they will be of similar le
60 Stitch : In a nutshell, the ratio of premium (First and Business) class customers to Economy class is higher for Boeing then for Airbus. So if you had identic
61 OldAeroGuy : The AED valuation against the USD won't help Airbus with the conversion of their Euro costs to the USD price of their airplanes.
62 Planemaker : Both your posts actually show just how little you all know about aircraft design and manufacturing... in addition to how IT has sped up design and de
63 JTR : Stitch, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
64 Post contains images Astuteman : Guilty as charged, your honour. I can only go by my own experiences, which are in a different, possibly more onereous field, from a CAD usage point-o
65 Post contains links IAD787 : First off, it's worth noting that the fact that these strategic decisions are being made on both sides ultimately validates the two-engine point-to-po
66 Post contains images Stitch : Excellent post and summation, IAD787.
67 Jacobin777 : ..however B772ER sales have lagged for quite sometime....Right now, there isn't a plane which can match the -200F platform (lets see what the A359F d
68 Post contains images Osiris30 : Then why Dixon's overly cautious tone?? (Note I'm just ammused by what he said and I'm not saying anything about the 350 one way or the other here) D
69 Post contains images F27Friendship : LOL! I'm actually quite involved with aircraft design. It is actually how I spend most of my time. The exact opposite of what you are claiming is tru
70 Post contains images Planemaker : Very hard to believe that you are a involved in aircraft design!!! Perhaps only designing rivets! You obviously don't have a clue... to put it bluntl
71 SEPilot : You may well be right; if you read my posts I made the point that it was up to management to make use of the new computational tools efficiently. The
72 Post contains images Planemaker : Unfortunately, your point all along had been that my statement (way back in Reply 17) that Boeing would be able to design and develop Y3 in a fractio
73 SEPilot : Point conceded. I interpreted your first post to imply that the IT improvements alone would enable Boeing to shorten the design cycle. I never meant
74 Post contains images Planemaker : FYI, even with just IT improvements Boeing will still be able to shorten the design cycle. For example, just in designing the 11 wing designs for win
75 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Right in the middle, 787-9 8250 nm 270 seats Pretty close... I get 1000 kg = ~113 nm on the 789. If you meant a different kind of ton (the 2000 lb ki
76 Brons2 : I agree. It's hard to fathom that QF passed on both OEM's offerings in the 777/A340 generation and now all a sudden they need all these medium sized
77 Post contains images Astuteman : I thought that was Airbus's exclusive province..... Nice bit of sleuthing. Big question - Is that enough, even at 255 tonnes? FWIW I'll go along with
78 XT6Wagon : Astuteman, I think your experience is fairly typical... of programs that are first transitioning to CAD from "traditional" methods. There was very muc
79 Scbriml : My point was only in response to BoomBoom's post about the weak dollar helping to sell 777s to EK! I appreciate that the AED being pegged to the $ is
80 Post contains links and images F27Friendship : allthough just at the start of my career I am specializing in design and integration of Aerospace systems (where a system means an entire aircraft, h
81 Post contains images Planemaker : Absolutley admire... it is impressive. Not only new PLM software but also across 135 sites including partners and vendors around the globe working co
82 Post contains links BoomBoom : You still don't get it. It doesn't really matter who's buying or what they peg their currency to. Everyone is paying in dollars--that's what planes a
83 F27Friendship : sure, no one is contesting all that, but the result is, that you will have more means and time to do more detailed design earlier in the design stage
84 Gbfra : ..or let their suppliers bleed.
85 Post contains images Scbriml : I get it exactly, thank you! You quoted an article talking about EK and the Boeing 777. You said: and I pointed out that in the case of EK, the weak
86 Moo : Or Airbus could stop pricing their aircraft in dollars. Or Airbus could start using more suppliers within a dollar linked economy. Or all of the abov
87 XT6Wagon : Which is a serious point since Airbus publicly stated that they don't really care if thier suppliers go under, even if its Airbus itself causing it.
88 BlueSky1976 : Actually, 777 was the third aircraft designed wholly in the computer. The first one was Dassault Mirage 2000 fighter jet, followed by one of the Falc
89 Post contains images Planemaker : I know from personal experience. On the other hand, you do have difficulty reading... or perhaps comprehending... or perhaps the subject matter is tr
90 Moo : Is this really true, considering the 777 shares its section 41 with the 767 (the nose) and the 767 was not computer designed?
91 F27Friendship : You can keep on repeating this as much as you like, trying to question my credibility, but you should at least back it up by arguments. I will not fo
92 BlueSky1976 : Boeing actually purchased the software that Dassault designed for their own needs in order to streamline the design process of the 777. As a result,
93 Moo : Have a google around, Section 41 (the nose section) is shared between the frames.
94 Post contains images Stitch : Let them get the bird into the air and start flight testing, at least...
95 Post contains images Astuteman : An extremely valid point, sir! I sincerely hope so - the scars seem to be taking ages to heal up......... Regards
96 BoomBoom : No, you didn't. You keep harping on the currency exchange rate as if that was the only factor. As I pointed out, a weak dollar (strong Euro) makes Ai
97 Post contains images SEPilot : My mistake; I meant to say airliner. I'm sure that the 777 also has rivets that were originally used on the B-17. Don't be so picky.
98 TKV : This is true only short term. But Airbus is now arguing this for years. They conveniently forget WHY the EURO is so srong (not the DOLLAR so week !!)
99 Post contains images Osiris30 : No, really you don't. Your comment about the value of AED vs. the US Dollar is no way, shape or form relevant to Airbus's costs in USD to manufacture
100 Post contains images Planemaker : Yes, Boeing is indeed fibbing!!! The 787 has taken longer to build and develop than the 777... and, hasn't sold the number Boeing claims!! In fact, i
101 Post contains images Ikramerica : If pretty sure the 777 argument was not about being completely designed in the computer (it wasn't the first, nor was it completely designed there), b
102 Post contains images Scbriml : Yes, I do. Because I'm talking about the effect of a weak $ on the sale of 777s to EK. When selling 777s to EK, the weak $ is not an advantage for Bo
103 WAH64D : Are you conveniently forgetting something or do you just refuse to acknowledge the fact that a great deal of Boeing's parts suppliers are located out
104 BoomBoom : It's an advantage to EK AA US and all airlines regardless of what currency they use or what it's pegged to. It hurts Airbus profits and forces them t
105 Atmx2000 : And a great deal of Boeing's suppliers buy parts from US suppliers. The 787 has high US content, even though Boeing's immediate subcontractor worksha
106 BoomBoom : Are you conveniently forgetting something or do you just refuse to acknowledge the fact that most, if not all, of these suppliers contracts are in do
107 Post contains images F27Friendship : believe who you want. I have on purpouse revealed I am the start of my career, not claiming anything I can not hold up too.. I really don't care that
108 WAH64D : Absolutely irrelevant to the medium-longterm outlook.. No supplier regardless of where in the world they are located will deliberately operate at a l
109 Zeke : I think they will do the most politically expedient solution that is available to them, just get the fed reserve to print money to pay domestic debts
110 Abba : Short term - that is. Longer term is another story. Abba
111 Osiris30 : Scbriml: Please... read what you wrote and what you quoted again... Your comment was irrelevant regardless of if Boeing was selling to EK or AA or the
112 Post contains links F27Friendship : It's not something I support, it's something I merely observe. I'm not in favour of longer developement times, and I think CAD/CAM, CFD, FEM and any
113 Osiris30 : That quote right there is a perfect example of why I and others are likely not to listen to your arguements. Your arguements sounds a lot like the fr
114 F27Friendship : hey, I'm just taking part in this discussion as much as everybody else, and sharing my opinion backing it up to the best of my knowlegde. According t
115 Post contains images Jacobin777 : .....as history has shown, Boeing didn't need a "Power8".....which goes to show just how much more flexibility Boeing has over its competitor. ....th
116 Post contains links and images Zeke : Which bit of US economy did you not read...hang on ... perhaps I should learn to write properly first as "before you attempt at correcting one's Engl
117 Jacobin777 : ..so what's your point? " target=_blank>http://igeographer.lib.indstate.edu/...d.pdf ....even using the biased (IMHO) reference you provided...the au
118 Zeke : University of New York biased now ? evidence ? yes it is ... We all make mistakes....don't we...
119 Jacobin777 : ...hence why I stated "IMHO"... ..yes we do..that is why I don't have the hubris to initiate correcting one's English, especially on A.net (my point
120 JayinKitsap : It appears that Airbus had a 2 year delay in EIS with a lot of expensive metal in the parking lot. Instead of design-build it was design - build - fi
121 Post contains links and images BoomBoom : And you apparently underestimating Canadian inflation: http://dcnonl.com/article/stats/23889 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1082&sid=agOyrFgS
122 Moo : The US economy entered the last 20 years with a major recession in 1987, with the initial drop being seen as a 25% reduction in the Dow Jones Industr
123 Gbfra : Great idea, but you should be so consequent to apply your rule not only to countries but to OEMs too. In this case you would no longer be allowed to
124 Planemaker : On this very point he shows, on the one hand, his ignorance, and on the other, his arrogance. I am truly amazed at how shallow his logic is for someo
125 Post contains links BoomBoom : Wrong! A drop in the Dow does not equal a recession. There was no major recession in 1987, there wasn't even a minor one. The US has undergone two mi
126 MIT787 : Boeing does not have to launch a 777 replacement till 2015 at the earliest. There is absolutely no interest in the A350. Every major carrier who is in
127 Olle : First I would like to recall that the € central bank has its roots from the german one... The DMark increased in value for around 50 years before be
128 Olle : B787 vs A330 around 20 years in difference - 20% more efficient A350 vs B777 around 10 years in difference now - still 20% more efficient How it is po
129 JoeCanuck : Since the only data on the 350 is a sales pitch, it remains to be seen what its efficiency improvement over the 777, will be. The 350 is also supposed
130 Moo : What precisely do you think was the primary cause of the 1992 recession if not the 1987 Dow crash? The 1987 crash caused recession in the rest of the
131 Post contains images WAH64D : Having lived there, I can confidently state that your assertion is utter rubbish. "Sustainable growth" is a term you may not be familiar with. It is
132 Stitch : Airbus is expecting that the significantly lower MEW and MTOW of the A350, SFC improvements of the Trent XWB over the GE90/Trent 800 and wing improve
133 Dougloid : A little goes a long way. As the man says, reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated. The numbers do not lie. Employment's far better here t
134 Gbfra : I never made this comment. (Can't you read properly?) You better clean up your own collapsing house before you attack other people. Really, there is
135 BoomBoom : You're equating a strong currency with a strong economy. They don't necessarily go hand in hand as demonstrated by Germany in the last 20 years. When
136 Atmx2000 : Wow, those are inaccurate dates. The 787 only competes directly with the A332, whose EIS was about 10 years before the expected EIS of the 787. Expec
137 Post contains images Atmx2000 : The 1987 crash had little to nothing to do with the recession. I would suggest you look what happened during 1990: the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and
138 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...as they say, a picture tells a thousand words..
139 Pygmalion : To some extent you do have a point with one big exception... I think that you could make a good case that the past few years of 787 development has b
140 Dougloid : The big difference between the two airplanes is this. Take two average citizens and sell them a plane ticket. Let's say, to Hamburg from Marseilles.
141 Post contains images Scbriml : The 787 enters service in 2008, the A350 in 2013. You seem to be out by 100%.
142 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..but the comparison was between the B777 and A350......
143 Post contains images Astuteman : What happened to the great NW A330 pic? Has this replaced it? That told a thousand words too But it is now 2007, and the A350 is due to enter service
144 Post contains links and images Jacobin777 : I know you might be taking the piss , but here you go mate...I love this BEAUTY... . It CANNOT be replaced. MyAviation.net photo: Photo © Jacobi
145 Post contains images Astuteman : Ah, I can relax now - I thought you'd lost it......... Regards
146 Mham001 : Same old rhetoric from those who wish the US poorly. The national debt compared to GDP is not historically high and last I looked, was lower than sev
147 Post contains images Norcal773 : Here we go again with your plugging in of your pics.
148 Post contains links BoomBoom : It's the German economy that's not sustainable. Low growth, high unemployment, and a falling birth rate are a recipe for further economic decline. As
149 Dougloid : Please make the distinction between B seven seven seven and B seven eight seven there...that's better.
150 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...you're just jealous.. ...I've got more copies of my photos than there are copies of the Bible, Torah and Quran combined..
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...
Why Did AA Shrink Their Biz Class On The 777? posted Sun Jul 15 2007 18:27:16 by Albird87
Thai's Livery On The 777 posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:22:26 by FL370
A350 And 787 On The German Market? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 11:40:33 by Columba
Seating Configs On The 777 posted Sat Dec 10 2005 22:04:21 by Speedbird19
Documentary On The 777? posted Sun Feb 20 2005 00:26:43 by Dolinja777
Father Of The 747 Chimes In On The A380 posted Sat Jan 22 2005 21:37:40 by ClipperHawaii
AI Zeroes In On Boeing 777 posted Thu Oct 7 2004 15:11:20 by Nyc777
Airbus Plans To Take On The 7E7! posted Tue Jul 27 2004 19:53:06 by VSFullThrottle
Question On The 777 posted Thu May 27 2004 07:16:39 by CO737800
Traveling On The 777 posted Tue Mar 9 2004 05:21:28 by Corey07850