Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aboulafia: A350 Competitive Threat To Boeing  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14257 times:

IAD787 got an interview with Richard Aboulafia. There are some really interesting points here about the 787-10 and A350-1000. He covers other topics like the 737 replacement, challenges for the 787 program and aviation headlines in 2017.

Full Interview Here:
http://flightblogger.blogspot.com/20...stions-with-richard-aboulafia.html

Fair Use Excerpt:
----------

Q: How should Boeing respond to the A350-1000? Stretch the 787-10 to 350 seats or upgrade the 777-300ER?

A: There's a lot we don't know about the A350. Any further design changes could greatly affect its competitiveness, probably for the better. That metal skeleton might either go away, or be replaced by a composite skeleton. But even with the current A350 design, the -1000 looks like a very respectable player, and Boeing should take it seriously as a competitive threat.

I think Qantas, and perhaps others, are expecting too much from a 787-10. One thing that makes the 787 a great design is that it is optimized for its current range/payload. The price for this optimization is limited growth potential. While a 300-seat 787-10 looks very promising, I think Boeing will introduce an all-new or major derivative 350-400 seat aircraft to replace the 777-300ER, probably around 2017. Given Boeing's likely revenue and profit over the next ten years, there are no financial restraints on Boeing's competitive response.



That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
119 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2830 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14220 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
I think Qantas, and perhaps others, are expecting too much from a 787-10. One thing that makes the 787 a great design is that it is optimized for its current range/payload. The price for this optimization is limited growth potential. While a 300-seat 787-10 looks very promising, I think Boeing will introduce an all-new or major derivative 350-400 seat aircraft to replace the 777-300ER, probably around 2017. Given Boeing's likely revenue and profit over the next ten years, there are no financial restraints on Boeing's competitive response.

I agree. I think Y3 is far more likely then anyone gives Boeing credit for. I think they are just waiting until after Airbus has solidified the design of the A350 and can't change it easily.

I rather suspect that the usual Airbus boo birds won't be complaining about Richard Aboulafia in this thread.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14130 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
I think Qantas, and perhaps others, are expecting too much from a 787-10. One thing that makes the 787 a great design is that it is optimized for its current range/payload. The price for this optimization is limited growth potential. While a 300-seat 787-10 looks very promising, I think Boeing will introduce an all-new or major derivative 350-400 seat aircraft to replace the 777-300ER, probably around 2017. Given Boeing's likely revenue and profit over the next ten years, there are no financial restraints on Boeing's competitive response.

Yep. Exactly spot on (except maybe 2018 or 2019 for Y3). The A350 will be a good plane, and has to be. But Boeing can respond within a few years, just as they did with the 77W to the A346. Ultimately, that turned out fine despite being 2 years "late" in responding.

But Dixon, as I said in that thread, is expecting too much from the 787, and claiming it's what was promised. It's all hogwash, that. But it's a testament to the game changing nature of the 787 that everyone seems to want it to be all things to all people...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14098 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Dixon wants a super 787-10 because it would allow him to leverage his investment in the 787-8 and 787-9.

Y3 - and the A350-1000 - brings with it the same issues the 777 did for QF - a new type different from their current fleet.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14055 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
Given Boeing's likely revenue and profit over the next ten years, there are no financial restraints on Boeing's competitive response.

Bingo  dollarsign   dollarsign  Boeing has their hands full with the 783, 788, 789 now plus a 737 replacement on the horizon. I think Boeing will develop a ten for a sweet 772ER replacement while not spending too much bringing the 787-10 to market. So Boeing may give up a few orders to the 350-1000, wooptydoo, (they can't win all of the orders) but there are a lot of 773ER's yet to be delivered, and those will not need to be replaced when the 350-1000 enters service. If Boeing does build Y3 (a 773ER-747 replacement) and it enters in the late 2010's, then Airbus will indeed be in trouble. No doubt the 350's will be badass jets however. This should become very interesting indeed.



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 14015 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 1):
I rather suspect that the usual Airbus boo birds won't be complaining about Richard Aboulafia in this thread.

As Ikra remarks, the comments are not that far from some recent discussions of the A350 where the effects of the size of its wing are discussed in relation to the limits that appears to be posed for the 787. And once the 787 gets a bigger wing, it might be a good idea to have a wider fuse and....maybe by then it IS a Y3.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13955 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 4):
Boeing has their hands full with the 783, 788, 789 now plus a 737 replacement on the horizon

Last I looked, the A350--all versions--were still "on the horizon", and likely to remain that way for the next 5-6 years. As noted in the Steven Udvar-Hazy thread (by Elvis777) it can afford to be "all things to all people" for now.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13941 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Thread starter):
I think Qantas, and perhaps others, are expecting too much from a 787-10. One thing that makes the 787 a great design is that it is optimized for its current range/payload. The price for this optimization is limited growth potential.

I think he has it right. You can get only so much optimization out of a design. Witness the A330, which was excellent, and the A320 which did well, and the A340 which was a not-so-good.

The big question is just where the future of airline travel is headed. Are we going to continue to see large numbers of passengers go between a limited number of city pairs, such as New York and London, or will we see more and more point to point pairs as longer range smaller aircraft such as the 787 come on line? Many believe that is the case, and if the number of 747s now in service as compared to 20 years ago is any indication, we may well see even aircraft the size of 777s become "too large."

The nice thing for Boeing is they can afford to wait and react when they know where the market is actually going. That should be in the 2012 time frame, making a 2017 Y3 doable.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13940 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Y3 - and the A350-1000 - brings with it the same issues the 777 did for QF - a new type different from their current fleet.

But they dont have a choice by the sound of things, they will buy one of them.


User currently offlineGrantcv From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 430 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13895 times:

Quoting AirFrnt (Reply 1):
I think Y3 is far more likely then anyone gives Boeing credit for. I think they are just waiting until after Airbus has solidified the design of the A350 and can't change it easily.

Boeing will produce the Y3 when the technologies and market warrant it - not just because Airbus has produced the A350. The A350 will be allowed to dominate that part of the market for as long as the market is dormant, as it will become in a few years once the current cycle has passed. Waiting to catch the right wave, and in so doing, letting the A350 get out ahead for a while will be what makes Boeing successful.


User currently offlineAirFrnt From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2830 posts, RR: 42
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13782 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
Boeing will produce the Y3 when the technologies and market warrant it - not just because Airbus has produced the A350.

The A350 being successful will warren Boeing breaking into the market. Also if the A380 gets any traction, it allows Boeing to take a hammer to it.

Remember also that this will be Boeings second composite plane, while the A350 is Airbus's first. Second, we know from decisions like the panel decisions that the 787 may have better technology on first flight then the 350 would. That gives Boeing a commanding lead when it comes to the second new plane. 1000 orders ain't bad for a plane model esp given that it's competitor had a five year lead and less orders.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13705 times:

The 787 will not be, nor should ever be viewed as the end all design for Boeing. The 777 will require replacement by the Y3 before 2020, and Boeing will have had sufficient time and resources to implement 787 technology into this vital program. It will essentially be a 777 sized 787 with a 6 wheel bogey, 400-450 pax and 9000 nm range with 30% gains in operational cost reductions over the present 777.

I do not know if it will be a A-350 killer, but it will certainly be a competitor.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5803 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13636 times:

I wonder if Boeing can size hte Y3 into the 500+ seat categories. We hear a lot of talk of the Y3 being the 350-400 seat airplane but what about beyond that?


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13624 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
I wonder if Boeing can size hte Y3 into the 500+ seat categories. We hear a lot of talk of the Y3 being the 350-400 seat airplane but what about beyond that?

I think it will all depend on what the airlines ask for.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13547 times:

Quoting Grantcv (Reply 9):
Boeing will produce the Y3 when the technologies and market warrant it - not just because Airbus has produced the A350.

This is a sound strategy. The excruciating story of the A350 has been entirely due to Airbus developing it as a reactionary response to the 787 rather than developing it because they saw a market and had the technology to fill it.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13535 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 6):
Last I looked, the A350--all versions--were still "on the horizon", and likely to remain that way for the next 5-6 years. As noted in the Steven Udvar-Hazy thread (by Elvis777) it can afford to be "all things to all people" for now.

Yes but I would generally think that the design of the 350 is much further along than the 737RS. We have no idea what the hell the 737RS will look like, or any specs....then again we really don't know that much about the 350 either. Airbus have done several about-faces with the 350 program, they could pull another one with the 350 again (composite barrels, etc.)



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EI321 (Reply 8):
But they dont have a choice by the sound of things, they will buy one of them.

QF always has a choice. They may buy one or the other or they may just stick with the 787-9 on the low-end and the A388 on the upper end. After all, operating just the 767/A330 and the 747 didn't seem to have hurt them. The only thing the A350-1000 brings to the table the 777-300ER didn't is better efficiency, but then the 777-300ER brought that compared to the 747-400 and yet QF continued to buy 747-400s.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 7):
The big question is just where the future of airline travel is headed.

Good point. The 777 opened up the Pacific much as the 767 opened up the Atlantic. Being larger then the 767 - and somewhat close to the 777 - one wonders if the market for a 350+ seat twin will continue to grow or will new city-pairs open that a 200-300 seat plane will work?

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
I wonder if Boeing can size hte Y3 into the 500+ seat categories. We hear a lot of talk of the Y3 being the 350-400 seat airplane but what about beyond that?

I am sure Boeing can, but I am not sure they need to.

A Y3-100 at 350 seats and a Y3-200 at 400 seats would probably be plenty. The 787-10 would become the new 777-200A / A330-300 replacement as well as handle many 777-200ER / A340-300 missions, leaving the Y3-100 to replace the 772LR/A345 and Y3-200 the 77W/A346.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13334 times:

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 11):
400-450 pax



Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
I wonder if Boeing can size hte Y3 into the 500+ seat categories.

But that would cannibalize the 748i...



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7202 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13291 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 17):
But that would cannibalize the 748i...

Boeing should worry about cannibalizing the 748i every bit as much as Douglas should have worried about cannibalizing the DC-7 with the DC-8 in the fifties. When new technology comes along (especially if you are the one who started it) worrying about preserving your obsolete products is the height of backwards thinking.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13259 times:

Quoting NYC777 (Reply 12):
I wonder if Boeing can size hte Y3 into the 500+ seat categories.

But that would just be another version of the A380.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13250 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
as well as handle many 777-200ER / A340-300 missions,

Geoffrey Thomas's article in the August issue of ATW would suggest that the 787-10 will be able to handle ALL 777-200ER missions.
link
http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2025


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31440 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 20):
Geoffrey Thomas's article in the August issue of ATW would suggest that the 787-10 will be able to handle ALL 777-200ER missions.

It may very well be able to. Boeing likely wants to see how LN001-006 perform in flight-test to see how well the planes are hitting their projected targets. The "Achilles Heel" of the 787-10 is MTOW. She has plenty of space to install fuel tanks, however the weight of that fuel would eat into payload.


User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13161 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
Boeing should worry about cannibalizing the 748i every bit as much as Douglas should have worried about cannibalizing the DC-7 with the DC-8 in the fifties. When new technology comes along (especially if you are the one who started it) worrying about preserving your obsolete products is the height of backwards thinking.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The technology differences between the DC-7 and DC-8, especially considering the engines, were fundamental.

But nevertheless, applying your logic, Boeing would already think about replacing an aircraft which hasn't even been built, leave alone flown. IMO, that would show how obsolete the 748i already is.

Please note: This does not reflect my personal opinion!



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5225 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13108 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
The "Achilles Heel" of the 787-10 is MTOW.

No doubt you read the linked article.How go you interpret Bair's statement "meet airline demands of "777-200ER range" without increasing MTOW." My interpretation is, and I may be wrong, 777-200ER payload and range within the present limitations of landing gear etc., that is a MTOW of about 564000lb.


User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 13089 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 20):
Geoffrey Thomas's article in the August issue of ATW would suggest that the 787-10 will be able to handle ALL 777-200ER missions.
link
http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2025

It seems possible that these could go into both the 783 and 789 models. If sufficient weight could be saved in the 783 to add even 500 nm to its range payload curve would make it much more marketable. Further, saving weight would reduce the landing fees for both JAL and ANA.


25 Aerohottie : I personally believe Airbus would respond to a 773ER Y3 replacement with its own aircraft placed between the A350 and A380 with a possible 10-11 abrea
26 Stitch : Widebodyphotog calculated that with a 540,000lb MTOW and current 787 engines, a 787-10 would fly 7600nm with a typical passenger payload. However, th
27 Aerohottie : Although I do agree with you.. I do think Airbus will do as you say initially, I do also believe they will respond with an aircraft between the A350
28 SEPilot : The 748 was a relatively low-cost answer to the A380; it will sell enough as freighters to make it worthwhile. The 748i is never going to be a big se
29 HawkerCamm : I have calculated almost equal payload ranges too. The question would be is this good enough. I can not answer that. But for shorter missions the 540
30 Post contains images Rheinbote : Read: The design needs to be changed, it actually has to get better to become competitive. well said, fully subsrcibe to that. With the 747-8F likely
31 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..not to mention, the B748F has happily killed off the A380F (for now at least) and the B748I is nicely applying pressure to the A380..its definitely
32 MIT787 : So, you are thinking about a 747 sized plane. You think Airbus wants to cut into that huge demand for the 744 & 748? You really must see where the ma
33 EA772LR : Not necessarily, because Airbus has NO answer to the 788, which has over 500 orders by itself. They handed that market to Boeing by going for the 333
34 Stitch : Airbus is already undercutting the prospects of the A380 by launching the A350-1000. An 80m A350-1100 will twist that knife even more. To then launch
35 Ikramerica : Of course if Airbus had done the A380-800 and A380-900 right from the beginning - 450 seat and 575 seat instead of 550 seat and 675 seat - there woul
36 SSTsomeday : Looking as far ahead as we are, I wonder what China, India or Japan might be up to by that time, considering the joint A/C manufacturing ventures and
37 EA772LR : How would they do this? Could they have done something similar to Boeing and had an extended upper-deck, but not a complete upper-deck as on the exis
38 Brendows : The 300nm reduction in range was because of a higher payload (9 vs 8 seats abreast) wasn't it?
39 Aerohottie : I don't think Airbus will develop an A350-1100. I think the A350-1000 is the largest variant. A potential A360 could come in 2 variants one of 400 ca
40 Stitch : I'm not sure that was an option for Airbus, to be honest. I think a twin would have been out of the question, especially with Al-Li construction. You
41 BoomBoom : They weren't forced to do anything. They would have been better off doing nothing. Far, far better off...
42 Astuteman : Don't think so. The Boeing website now lists 2 ranges for the 789 - 8 500 Nm with 250 pax (presumably 8 abreast) 8 000 Nm with 290 pax (presumably 9-
43 EI321 : Theres a reason why they did not - demand for aircraft in the 400-500 seat segment is miniscule. How many 400-500 seat aircraft have been sold in the
44 MD-90 : The top five headlines of 2017 are hilarious: A: Top Five Headlines in 2017: "Airbus Board Resolves Dubai-Abu Dhabi Ownership Spat" "Aeroflot Begins S
45 Post contains images Helvknight : Nah, more likely he'll be abused by the Boeing Kool-aid drinkers for being an A fan. I would have thought 2 problems with a 787-10 / 787-11 stretch w
46 Kanebear : Apparently so is demand for 550 seat aircraft... I'm hopeful the plane finds a niche and/or operators figure out how best to utilize it (as with the
47 BoomBoom : Aren't most operators configuring their A388 at about 500 seats? Are you saying demand for the A388 is minuscule and it will do nothing for slot cons
48 Post contains images EA772LR : "Virgin Atlantic has finally decides on a "greener" fleet replacement opting for 2,000 VLJ's to operate point-to-point services to every destination
49 Stitch : A 787-10 would be 69m in length and a 787-11 would be 75m, based on Boeing's 6m stretch of the 787-8 to the 787-9. The 777-300ER is 74m in length, so
50 EI321 : No games please. Im talking about the size of aircraft mentioned in the post I quoted - the 747. Some opators like BA might put in less seats but the
51 Planemaker : Not that I want to ruin anyone's "blue-skying" but we are talking about an EIS from 10 to 12 years from NOW!!!! Just stop to think what the airline i
52 Tdscanuck : Why would it requiring strengthening the barrel joints? They're the strongest part of the fuselage already...they're the least likely to require addi
53 Buckeye : As I understand it, a 300 seat 787-10 based on the 4 bogey landing gear and current aircraft design would be a replacement for the 777-200ER. A 300 se
54 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..haven't seen it yet.....
55 Post contains images ER757 : You forgot one... "NW to retire DC9's Good point - it was probably the right move by Airbus - concede the market at the low end since the 788 is such
56 SEPilot : That's not 2017, that's 3017.
57 Baroque : ??? Fantastic as plastic is, surely even the 787 would be fairly restricted in its capabilities if it did not have high bypass engines? So after the
58 Post contains images Astuteman : Of course, when people say "CFRP construction is the biggest new thing", they're usually alluding solely to the CFRP barrels, thus restricting furthe
59 Post contains images MBJ2000 : This is missing: "Foot and mouth disease outbreak in UK" my british friends, please don't kill me for that...
60 SEPilot : High bypass engines was certainly a big change, but in terms of obsoleting what existed before I think that the CFRP construction has had a bigger ef
61 Post contains images Keesje : Lets not forget the present situation: Airbus is in the driver seat & Boeing has to do something, ref. Richard' s article. Is it really? I think Airb
62 Stitch : I'm not dissing Airbus when I say that. I just don't think Airbus can, in a period of less then a decade, launch the A350, the A320RS and a larger tw
63 EA772LR : You're right, but I think many of these went to prior-Airbus airlines, and availability of the 330 vs. the 787. No doubt the A330 is great, really gr
64 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....why is Airbus having such a hard time selling A380's to BA? If the B748 wasn't applying pressure to the A380, that BA A380 would have been "in th
65 Post contains images EA772LR : True indeed. Like it not Airbus cheerleaders, the 748I might not be a brand new plane, but it is affecting 380 sales I'd bet. But they also ordered t
66 Post contains images MBJ2000 : Anyone who thinks that in the present situation or even in 8-10 years Airbus can throw an even bigger A350XWB XXL on the table should do a reality ch
67 SEPilot : However you want to categorize it, all airlines want CFRP planes and are only buying the competitors (i.e. A330) because they are available much soon
68 TomB : Reference Boeing 787-10: With Emirates and Qantas clamoring for both capacity and long range on the 787-10, I believe Boeing will increase the MTOW of
69 SunriseValley : You are talking full passenger load. Not enough for QF in my view. They want to stuff it full of freight and go something like 6500nm.
70 Widebodyphotog : 5t less payload yes, but range in the 7,500-7,700nm range is achievable at 540Klb MTOW. This is key because thrust growth for the current engines, es
71 Stitch : So launch the 787-10 "as-is" using 787-9 components as a bridge to Y3-100 and Y3-200 with an EIS towards 2020... Frankly, it might make sense. 787-8
72 Post contains links Jacobin777 : ...interesting observation WBG....you are one of the very few people on A.net who advocate such a direction with the B777's (the redeveloping part of
73 TKV : 12 of the 15 B77ER UFOs booked by Boeing July 31 went to a sole purchaser Could it be that QF (i.e. Dixon) decided they could not wait for eventual A
74 EA772LR : Doubtful it would be QF. They've had the option to buy the 77W/L for a while now. I think you may be right however on QR and EK.
75 TKV : True !! But such issue cannot be strtched for ever. Dixon probably want not to order A3510 in parallel with the B789 and possibly is not very confide
76 Stitch : I do not believe a 777 will ever fly in QF Group colors, alas, so I do not believe the order is for them.
77 Olle : >To my mind the better way forward is to focus efforts into redeveloping or replacing the 777 line over the next 7-10 years. >A "777-9" with 315 seats
78 Buckeye : Quoting Olle (Reply 77): ...reality is that replacement cycles are getting shorter... IIRC the composite construction of the 787 is supposed to have a
79 Post contains links and images Keesje : "The plane that we want is not the 777-300ER," Dixon said. http://www.kansas.com/101/story/140169.html Referring to the Airbus A350 alternative - whi
80 Stitch : It sounds like QF and SQ are interested in the same gameplan, and neither can afford to be caught with an "old technology" product like the A345/A346/
81 PM : "And development of the aircraft was famously over budget, costing Boeing somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion, according to Hamilton." "...
82 Post contains images Stitch : Lucky for Boeing they should see at least three hundred or so more ordered over the next decade, counting 777Fs.
83 Wsp : I don't think the break even point or the "decent ROI"-point matter anymore, given they can't retroactively cancel the program. But it would be inter
84 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Tell that to A380 critics!
85 Grantcv : The Y3 will be a replacement for the 773 and 748 models - sized from 350 to 500 passengers. The initial model will be timed to ride the 773 replacemen
86 Post contains images Baroque : Post of the day WM! for In fact reading some you would think it was possible to make money with a cancellation.
87 Post contains images Stitch : I've heard numbers of around 250 tossed about. Adding in a 50% cost-overrun (which is probably excessive), that would be 375. Figure another 25% (als
88 Post contains links TKV : In the article under URL indicated below, which encloses several different issues http://leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn073107.pdf Page 5, inside the
89 RedFlyer : One thing people are not taking into consideration is the fact that the chances are very good that we will hit a recession between now and sometime i
90 Widebodyphotog : I want to be clear and say that IMO I don't think Boeing should do the 787-10 at all anymore. It really does not make sense at this point and is not
91 TKV : I assume, Keesje, that you refer only to the market niche A3510-B7810, where Boeing has not decided if it merits to develop the B7810X (or 11!). If i
92 Stitch : Does Boeing really need a 747 replacement? I like the 787-10 in that it could make a decent 300-seat plane, allowing "Y3-100" to be 350 seats and "Y3
93 TP313 : From the numbers we already have (789 carries 20 more pax than the 358 for the same range) it is pretty clear it is the latter. And it is the best co
94 Tdscanuck : Not any time soon but, eventually, yes. Although the trend is to average smaller aircraft, the absolute number of VLA's keeps growing. Especially as
95 Widebodyphotog : Yes they do... First because the reality is that the 747 has gone as far as it can go. While it's a great aircraft in th latest iteration, the 747-8,
96 TP313 : Modified or new wing + modified landing gear + 90,000+ lb new engines... before 2015, yeah right...
97 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....if the B787-10 costs on R&D/manufacturing are low enough and if "x" amount of carriers are committed to a decent amount frames, then I don't see
98 TKV : I would say that the statement "that will drive operators towards the lowest CASM and that means big airplanes" is correct if you speak of planes of
99 TP313 : You misunderstood me, what I meant was that when Boeing launched the 787 their aim was to take over the whole market with the 787 + 777 combo
100 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Your plot in this thread: Fuel Burn - How They Stack Up (by WingedMigrator Aug 4 2007 in Tech Ops) Reply 53 with this title LONG HAUL AIRCRAFT SEAT S
101 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...actually I haven't misunderstood you..there is no B787 which at this present moment could take out some variants of the B777..... The B767/A330 ma
102 SEPilot : Undoubtedly the 748 will eventually be replaced, but there must be a substantial market for it before Boeing will spend the $15-20 billion it will ta
103 TKV : I am not sure that we should speak of a B748 replacement. But as I wrote in another thread, can we exclude that the Y3 could be a 350-450 pax (3cl) l
104 Stitch : But as fuel prices rise, so do fares. And more money needs to be spent on the cost of living, which means less leisure and even business trips. So as
105 Azhobo : My guess is the 748 will outsell the a380 from this point forward. No doubt in my feeble mind. HOBO
106 Boeingluvr : Haven't GE and RR turned them down for engines?? So what's left PW or bust? Haha they need engines first. I'm sure that would start to make it competi
107 Stitch : Turned who down for engines? If you mean the A350, GE doesn't want to build an entirely new engine, but they have not written off the GEnx (though Le
108 Boeingluvr : Most likely... We shall see though. And yes I was refering to the A350.
109 Stitch : Ah. Well RR is developing a new variant of the Trent engine for the A350, so it will at least have RR power.
110 Post contains images Astuteman : It is? My understanding is that the "specifications" are:- 787-9 290 pax for 8 000Nm OR 250 pax for 8 500 Nm A350-800 270 pax for 8 300 Nm Accepting
111 Post contains images WingedMigrator : I have to agree with that... If a 748 replacement is ever built, then the A380 will necessarily have done just fine, or such competition would not be
112 Scbriml : Which engines (and how many of them) would Boeing hang on this plane today?
113 TP313 : Hi, Astute! You're right, I was mixing the range for the 250 pax with the 290 full capacity...
114 Keesje : Three aint so bad. GE would probably migrate GENX technology back to the GE90 design from which the GENX evolved.. I wonder if RR has plans do the sa
115 Post contains images Astuteman : I suspected as much. I've done the same thing myself. Regards
116 SEPilot : My expectation is that Y3 will probably cover the 350-400 pax range. This does not completely replace the 748. If you look at my post you will see th
117 Baroque : Just as Astuteman comments that the A350-800 is a bit overwinged, it appears that a 787-10 might be a bit underwinged. If the Y3 is a twin as has bee
118 Post contains images Scbriml : The real point of my comment was to highlight Widebodyphotog's "today" claim.
119 Post contains images Stitch : Well a larger wing would help range (better lift and more fuel capacity), but I do not think it is critical. Consider the 767-400ER - if it had been
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...
Lcal Add To Boeing 787 Order posted Thu Mar 29 2007 11:21:42 by PanAm_DC10
Finnair Order 11 A350-XWB Commit to 7 x A330/A340 posted Thu Mar 8 2007 07:11:23 by UpperDeck79
Threat To UK Share Of Airbus Project (via FT) posted Sat Jan 20 2007 20:06:19 by SeJoWa
Is There An Alternative To Boeing Connexxions? posted Thu Dec 28 2006 00:26:24 by Gilesdavies
Aboulafia's Book Review Of "Boeing Versus Airbus" posted Fri Dec 22 2006 09:04:03 by Leelaw
Threat To Delta Connection Flight At TOL posted Fri Dec 15 2006 20:41:57 by Flyinryan99
Eads To Fund A350 With Bonds To DCX/French Gov. posted Thu Dec 7 2006 20:23:32 by N328KF
China LoI 20 A350-XWB, "To Buy 150 A320" posted Thu Oct 26 2006 05:37:08 by PanAm_DC10
Honda Aerospace: A Threat To Aviation? posted Mon Oct 23 2006 03:17:01 by CF188A
Planes Most Profitable To Boeing And Airbus? posted Wed Sep 13 2006 21:29:14 by JAM747