Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement  
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Posted (7 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 14904 times:

Okay guys, I was thinking as everybody is talking about the so much demanded 787-10 stretch what kind of consequences this might have for a later 777 replacement. At the moment (okay, the 787 is not flying yet) the Boeing portfolio has the 767 at the lower end (which will be replaced by the roughly equally sized 787) at the top end we have the the 744 which will be replaced by the little bit larger 748. Increasing the gap between the the smallest (here I mean the 787-9) and the largest aircraft for most airlines by about 30-40 seats (premium airlines like BA would perhaps put only 20 more seat in). Taking the 787-10 will be built with a capacity close to the 772 there would only be a gap for a future 777 replacement for just about one aircraft ( 30 seats). Now to my point: If Boeing would built the 787-10 they have either the possibility of just building a 77W replacement at the beginning, as they would otherwise cannibalize the 748. Or at least looking at the EIS of the 748 a stretch of the 77W replacement of about the same size of the 748. The EIS of the stretch wouldn't however be before probably 2025, as Boeing is not developing the 748 just to be built for 10-12 years.
In the long-term it would probably be the best option for boeing to let go of the 787-10 thought (as this wouldn't be by any means the most optimized 787-size) and later go for a replacement for the 772/773 which would be more optimized than the 787-10 would. However, I know that this would mean sacrificing a lot of orders, which would then go to the A350-900.

Just a thought, don't flame me if you think I'm totally of the line.  Wink

Below some typical pax numbers for each aircraft type (however, I don't really know for what layout the 787 confis are, I would guess two and three class layout)



Boeing 787:
(210)250--(250)290 /787-10 ~ 350)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kok Chwee SIM



Boeing 748:
467 (three class)

Boeing 767:
224-269 (two class; left out the 764, as it was of course only built for CO and DL  Wink)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts




Boeing 777:
400-451 (two class)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages




Boeing 747-400:
412 (three class)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Unsworth - WorldAirImages




As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 14857 times:

I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 14833 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 1):
I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000

You didn't really answer anything, however, I sure agree with you that the 777 replacement will have a similar flightdeck to allow some commonality. As this is the only given, that the first model will be a competitor to the A350-1000 given that they do built th 787-10, which is the question. The other question then would be, will the second model be lager or smaller (772 or 748/744 size)?

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 14791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14744 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

If the A350 turns out only half as good as promised, to you really think the 787-11 would stand a chance against the A350-900/1000. I mean, we all know how it turnes out if you overstretch a model which has a strong competitor (A346). So you say, Boeing doesn't need a model in between the 787 and 748?
Personally I can't see how that would satisfy the airlines.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2176 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14736 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

Doing that would require some additional work with a new wing and upgrading the gear but would allow them to start the Y3 at 400 seats and stretch up to cover the 748 and larger.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14736 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-11 would not have the issues the A346 had in terms of structural rigidity both because it has a larger diameter and height (imparting additional rigidity) and that CFRP can be reinforced with a much smaller weight penalty then with Al.

Also, the A350-900 herself is 67m long and the A350-1000 is 74m long, so the 787-10 and 787-11 would only be 1m longer, which is insignificant.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14723 times:

Boeing has stated for a long time that when the time is right, 787 technologies will be incorporated into the 777 line. I think studies have already begun using a composite wing box.


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineSSTsomeday From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 1276 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14701 times:

Your post indicates know more specifics than I, but I think what we have to remember is that sometimes the replacement of an aircraft type is made by a competitor, and a smart manufacturer accepts that.

Boeing may not want to concentrate on replacing the 777 with a successor, because it knows Airbus will do that with the 350. Besides, why compete against yourself?

It makes more sense to me to replace an A/C class of the opposing team, or create a new class of A/C. The way Airbus did so well with the 330. The way Boeing did so well with the 777.

When Airbus started to challenge the 747 market with first the 340 and then the 380, Boeing pretty much let it happen, and instead created the 777, a whole new class of A/C that has no direct competitor, and now ditto with the 787. These are products with much bigger market potential.

Boeing has purposely not come up with a clean sheet replacement for the 747 because it sees market potential in other areas, and realises that that VLA market is "niche," compared to the long range twin market, for example.

It's not Boeing's habit to defend it's markets, in my view, but to create new ones. The 707, 727, 737, 747, 777, 787 all did that.

Further, it's been my view that Airbus seems to have focused on Boeing products when green-lighting new projects, which resulted in what I view to be a few mis-steps (the 340, certainly, and possibly the 380 (TBD). I believe that manufacturers should focus primarily on future market trends, not on defending A/C that were designed 20 years earlier and represent the markets and technology of almost a generation before.

Airbus made a very smart choice by making the 350 decidedly larger and with more range than the 787, so that the two do NOT compete directly.

I suspect that Boeing created the 757 and 767 primarily based on what the market was asking for and what technology could produce, and not so much to protect it's 707 market share. The only time a manufacturer should concentrate on the competition is when there is a possibility of creating competing A/C that are too similar, and so the possibility exists that they cannot both be profitable.

That was Lockheed and MD's downfall with the DC-10 and L-1011.



I come in peace
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21582 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14672 times:

I don't expect the 787 to go past the -10 for practical reasons. Whether the -10 turns out to be the same stretch from the -9 as the -9 is from the -8, or a little longer (which is what QF and EK seem to want), we'll have to see.

Either way, I expect the 777 replacement to start a little bigger than the 777-200, and the 777-300 replacement to big bigger than the 777-300, and then in the future a 744/748 replacement a wee bit smaller than the 748 (in capacity, but not in space).

Basically something in the range of 340 seats, 390 seats and 460 seats. All of them with a minimum of 8500nm range, with a 390 seat LR version at 10000nm.

The plane will be ten abreast at 17.5" seats or 9 abreast at 18.5" seats with wider aisles, which allows for various J configs from 1-2-1 to 2-2-2 to 2-3-2 to 2-4-2 like BA, and F configs of 2-2-2 or 1-2-1.

CFRP will allow for tweaking of the fuselage to eliminate wasted space in the cross section, and I still think that the design could include an expanded crown (vs. the 777) with "upper deck" cockpit + crew rest + pilot rest + galley storage + duty free storage, etc. Much as the 747 gains aerodynamic advantage by the hump slowly tapering toward the back, so would this design. And it would allow for a nose door for a eventual cargo version.

The upper area need not be as tall or wide as the current 747 design as there would be no need to fit 3-3 seating up there, and the cockpit does not need to be as large as the 747 due to advances in technology and smaller crews. The lower deck only needs to be sized for LD3s and modern pallets, not the LD1s the 747 holds. The main deck can have 96" clearance all the way through (unlike the 747).

And by moving the cockpit upstairs as well as galley storage, you open up space on the main deck similar to the 747, but without the need to seat passengers on two decks and without as much headroom up there. A plane 2 meters longer than the 748 would hold 450-460, and one only as long as the 777-200 would hold 340 seats in three classes.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTriley1057 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 1999, 462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 14619 times:

I am by no means an expert, but it seems that Boeing should create a 757 replacement for those medium length international routes. I'm sure Continental wouldn't mind.

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14538 times:

Quoting Triley1057 (Reply 10):
I am by no means an expert, but it seems that Boeing should create a 757 replacement for those medium length international routes.

I assume that the 737-replacement will fit this bill. The bottom end of the 737 range is being chewed up by Bombardier/Embraer/Sukhoi/AVIC/Mitsubishi so it doesn't take much of a size bump on the 737-replacement family to get it into 757 territory.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
Further, it's been my view that Airbus seems to have focused on Boeing products when green-lighting new projects, which resulted in what I view to be a few mis-steps (the 340, certainly, and possibly the 380 (TBD). I believe that manufacturers should focus primarily on future market trends, not on defending A/C that were designed 20 years earlier and represent the markets and technology of almost a generation before.

You must admit, however, that releasing new and improved versions of Boeing products has been very lucrative for Airbus, so I am not surprised they are pursuing this strategy again with the A350 being a new and improved 777.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14372 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
It's not Boeing's habit to defend it's markets, in my view, but to create new ones. The 707, 727, 737, 747, 777, 787 all did that.
How did the 787 really create a new market? I mean, okay, well lets just all the boeing peer-to-peer no hubs etc. propaganda be what it is, but it is a replacement for the 767. I mean 90% of the routes that the 787-9 will fly could be handled by a 767-300ER.
The 777, give me a sec. I think it came after the A340?! So how did this create a new market? Maybe I'm not getting your point. If they would have built the sonic cruiser.... However, if you mean, that they used new technologies (two engines on the 777, or CFRP on the 787 well I agree with you, but that would hardly be a new market, just new methods)
Well I agree with you that that they did open new markets in the past, notably the 747 was the most impressive in my opinion. The whole stuff about less hub-traffic in the future etc. is mainly PR of Boeing,

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 787-11 would not have the issues the A346 had in terms of structural rigidity both because it has a larger diameter and height (imparting additional rigidity) and that CFRP can be reinforced with a much smaller weight penalty then with Al.
Well, I agree with you, but weight penalty is weight penalty... Personally I don't see that happening. In fact I don't see the 787-10 being built yet... well its likely, but for me its not yet a given, that they will really launch the program soon (in the next year or so). I think, Boeing will wait until more specifications of the A350 are known... so that might take another year or even a year and a half.

GlobeEx

[Edited 2007-09-18 03:25:51]


As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31412 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 14158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 13):
How did the 787 really create a new market?

It will very likely rapidly increase trans-Pacific market fragmentation much as the 767/A310 did for trans-Atlantic. The 777, A332 and A343 started it, but there are still plenty of 747s crossing the Pacific (and Airbus expects many hundreds of A388s to do so, as well). The 787, like the 767 before it, will make city-pair connections that are now unprofitable, profitable, and will spur additional frequencies between existing city-pairs that can now only support a daily 777 or A332/A343.

Also, the 787 will open up new southern trans-Atlantic city-pairs between North America and Africa and Europe and South America.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14117 times:

When Boeing replaces the 777 w/ a new composite frame craft, I sure hope it keeps its cabin size. The interior of the 777 is pretty roomy w/ the 9 abreast seating.

User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5839 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13992 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Either way, I expect the 777 replacement to start a little bigger than the 777-200, and the 777-300 replacement to big bigger than the 777-300, and then in the future a 744/748 replacement a wee bit smaller than the 748 (in capacity, but not in space).

Basically something in the range of 340 seats, 390 seats and 460 seats. All of them with a minimum of 8500nm range, with a 390 seat LR version at 10000nm.

Obviously this concept of Y3 would be able to fill many more missions than a 787-10HGW/787-11 combo (and be much more interesting to a.netters Big grin ). But would it really represent the most sensible business decision?

The 787-10HGW and 787-11 could be done by creating a new wing and gear (and engines). Those planes would compete head-on with the A350-900R and A350-1000, respectively, and I have not seen anything that clearly shows either plane would be superior to the other. Both planes would replace all A340 and 777 variants, and probably substantial numbers of later 744s to boot. The only replacement market these planes could not fill would be extremely slot-limited high-capacity routes (natural A380 markets), heavy cargo routes (where 748s could profitably soldier on), or high-capacity ULH routes, which are still conjecture at this point.

Obviously your new big plane would demolish both the 748 and A380, between the newer materials, modern engineering, and vastly better volumetric efficiency. But it's hard to see that replacement market alone as justifying the extra expense over the 787HGWs, and it's equally hard to imagine that a whole bunch of new, extremely high-capacity missions will suddenly become viable. The only scenario where I can see the investment in your idea of Y3 being worthwhile is in the case of increased environmental requirements, where frequency becomes unsustainable and big planes operating at reduced frequency become more common in high-capacity markets.

Furthermore, your proposed Y3 lineup may extend too far downward. How well would your 340-seat plane compete with an A350-1000? It seems likely to me that it would be heavier and less efficient. Are you relying on engineering improvements to make up the difference?

I love new plane speculation topics. Big grin


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13940 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 1):
I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000

i think that makes sense, i don't really think one aircraft can replace the 777 and 747, even getting closer to the A380. A plane the size of the 747 needs 4 engines, a revamped 777, basically a scaled up 787 (in basically all deminsions) would help especially using composites. Basically a boeing version of the A350, and possible stay around the same size as the current 777s, and the 748 could be around for a while until a real Y3 could be developed.


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13902 times:

The A350 is only 5 inches wider than the 787, the A350 being an 9-Y plane and the 787 being a 8 or 9Y plane.

If you accept the 787 at 9Y (as many airlines have), then there is NO reason, not one, why the 787 can't be stretched efficiently to the same lenghts/capacity of the A350-900 and A350-1000. None.

Sure it will require a new wing and LG for the larger sizes preserving range. So what? The 737NG, got just that and went all the way to the 739ER with 190pax and transcon range, from the little dinky 737-200. And we all know what a failure that stretch is, right? Similarly, the 767-200, went all the way to a 763ER/764ER. The 777-200 went all the way to the 77W/77L.. Yep, it costs money, but it is a viable option and probably near the top of Boeing's consideration as an A350-1000 counter.

By 2015/2020, Boeing's loung haul passenger line up could be 787-8, 787-9, 787-9LR, 787-10 (ER), perhaps 787-11 (ER), 748. What is wrong with that line up? All that would take is a new wing/LG and a few structural changes to the 787 line. In my mind, much better that spending multi-billions more with so called Y3 that would kill the 787-10, the 777 AND the yet to fly 748.

I'm so amazed that here on A.net people say things like "The 787 can not possibly be stretched to match the A350". Why not? Because it is 5 inches narrower? For crying out loud. While others, perhaps more informed, will say that if you have to re-do the wing, you might as well do a new plane from scratch, blah, blah, blah. Well, again I disgree. I htink the 737NG is a runaway success with a new wing and much, much higher weight/range than the classics. same for 77W vs 77A. Even the much maligned A346 is really a great plane if you compare it to the A343. It is only when you compare it to a twin (777), which was a game changer that it suffers.



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineSirOmega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13860 times:

My issue with a plane that is 10Y@17.5" is having to build a new LCF fleet to move the fuse sections around (assuming they build it the same way as the 787). Maybe they build it taller and turn the fuse sections sideways in the LCF?

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8474 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13691 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
CFRP will allow for tweaking of the fuselage to eliminate wasted space in the cross section, and I still think that the design could include an expanded crown (vs. the 777) with "upper deck" cockpit + crew rest + pilot rest + galley storage + duty free storage, etc. Much as the 747 gains aerodynamic advantage by the hump slowly tapering toward the back, so would this design. And it would allow for a nose door for a eventual cargo version.

I agree with the nose door, but would not be surprised to see Boeing bringing out both pax and freight versions at the same time - just as they have done with the 748. With the larger planes selling fewer frames than smaller planes this would make sense in terms of maximizing sales - especially in the early years.

I've also thought about the hump for aerodynamic efficiency and for the nose door. I tend to see Boeing engineers in the back room talking about it, smiling and getting to work on that project. I do believe, however, that Boeing would provide for pax space in the hump - it's just worked too well for too long.

The challenge would, of course, be production and transportation of major components. It may require that the component suppliers build plants near the assembly facilities so the larger parts can be moved a short distance without a problem.

Like Y1, Y3 is going to depend on the engine manufacturers - might be why GE isn't interested in investing in the 350-1000.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13619 times:

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Even the much maligned A346 is really a great plane if you compare it to the A343

No, for many airlines the A346 ISN'T better than the A343. Which is the amazing thing about the entire A340NG project. It produced planes that on paper look far more capible, but the reality was that you pay for that capiblity with terrible operating economics incomparison TO ITS OWN BASE VERSION, on any route the A343 can fly. Imagine if the 777-300 was decisively better on any mission that it could fly than the 777-300ER? Yah its like that. Instead On the 777 and virtualy any "NG" program ever done before the resulting plane is not only more capible at the edges of the range-payload chart, but more economical across the heart of the previous generations mission profile.


User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 742 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13409 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The 787, like the 767 before it, will make city-pair connections that are now unprofitable, profitable, and will spur additional frequencies between existing city-pairs that can now only support a daily 777 or A332/A343.

Also, the 787 will open up new southern trans-Atlantic city-pairs between North America and Africa and Europe and South America.

Well it is right that the 787 will open up some new routes. But honestly, most of the routes the 787 will fly where handled by the 332 or 767 before, or could at least be handled by them. And looking at the current oil price, which will likely increase, it probably won't make routes profitable that never were profitable. Maybe some routes that could have been profitable earlier with the 767 but now aren't due to the oil price. What I mean: a 787 will consume quite more fuel (by $) than a 767 did a couple of years ago (of course now a 767 consumes even more).


GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineCarls From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12994 times:

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
I suspect that Boeing created the 757 and 767 primarily based on what the market was asking for and what technology could produce, and not so much to protect it's 707 market share.

Boeing designed the 767 to compete against A300 / A310, the only twin engined wide body for its time.


User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 12404 times:

Unless EK orders it, or another airline in very large numbers (100 +), there will not be a 787-10 anytime soon. Boeing has pubically said the 777 will undergo modifications to keep it competititve with the A-350. I think that when the time is right, you will see a true 777 replacement, sized pretty much where that airplane is right now.


One Nation Under God
25 FlyingClrs727 : Ten abreast 17.5" is too close in size to the 787 cross section. I think the plane will have a high capacity Y configurization of 12 abreast 17" to 1
26 ConcordeBoy : Um, how can it be either, when it: came after the M11 and A340?competes in the exact same market as do they, only more effectively?
27 DeltaDC9 : It would seem that Boeing is still where they were years ago with this decision, and waiting for the market to decide. The original Yellowstone conce
28 Stitch : They wouldn't. If Boeing does Y3, I believe they will be a ~325 and a ~375 seater. I've been really torn by which way it's going to go. I've bounced
29 DeltaDC9 : In that scenario, do they simply stick with the 748 for 400 seats and above? Or do you envision a later stretch Y3 to cover the 747?
30 Stitch : I don't think there is a long-term, profitable market for two 400+ seat planes, to be honest. The 747 will remain the preeminent freighter until the
31 DeltaDC9 : I agree, I kinda think that Boeing has already decided to cede the VLA market near term just like they have no interest planes much smaller than the
32 Stitch : Yup. The 747-8F was enough of an advancement to protect the 747 against an improved A388F. Once the 747-8F program was launched, offering a passenger
33 WAH64D : What you pass off as "only a new wing" etc... is practically a complete redesign. The wing takes a huge amount of time and money to get right. It wou
34 Tdscanuck : I don't think that's an issue. The 787 program justified the creation of the entire LCF fleet from scratch. There's no reason to believe that another
35 EBJ1248650 : My understanding is that Y3 is supposed to be the replacement for the 747 and 777; so what you're talking about in an advanced 777 would be an interi
36 Post contains images Hloutweg : no I don't think that's the seat arrangement for a three class cabin. The possibilities of replacing the 777 with a 787 are closer to this:
37 SEPilot : But I don't see a profitable future for the A380 when competing against smaller planes with a better CASM. If Boeing makes Y3 to be 375-450 seats and
38 DeltaDC9 : Replacement for the 773, not the 772. The 772 has long been considered in the Y2/787 range.
39 Stitch : When Airbus starts delivering the A350, that will (eventually) put the A380 out of business. The 787HGW is only going to help the A350 do it, as woul
40 GlobeEx : Well how couldn't 210 seats for the 787-8 and 250 seats for the 787-9 not be three class config? Yeah, the 350 for the 787-10 wont't be three class,
41 PHKLM : Sorry but how can you unite this within one post? You blame someone for not given any references or data, thereby claiming his point of view inferior
42 Post contains images Revelation : The 787-8 already is bigger than 767-400 and has more range, so using 787-9 to cover 767-300ER is overkill. I agree that at this point a good ROI is
43 Lesismore : Airbus states on their website that the A350XWB fuselage diameter (horizontal) is 5.96m. Boeing states on their website that the cross section is 574
44 GlobeEx : I think you should get your facts right first. The 767-400 is almost the size of the 772... The capacity of the 767-400 could be the capacity they wi
45 BlueSky1976 : As much as I would love Boeing to "redo" the 777 and come out with 777-8, 777-8ER and 777-9, I don't think it will happen. The 787-10 is one reason fo
46 WAH64D : Have you ever been on an aircraft with a centre row of 5 and you're stuck in the middle seat? Its not much fun having to crawl over 2 people every ti
47 Stitch : However, such a configuration offers the best chance of not having an adjoining seat filled, which is a plus. It does appear the it is most the US ai
48 Zvezda : Boeing would be delighted to be able to sell 747-8s for another 10 years. That, however, is rather optimistic. Yes, of course. So, you expect the 787
49 Revelation : I think you may be changing the argument in midstream. In any case, here's the basic info provided by boeing.com (total length x interior width). Unf
50 GlobeEx : I know these numbers, however, the numbers of seats which boeing is marketing for the 787-8 do not really equal the numbers for the 767-300 and by no
51 Zvezda : This is very interesting. 0.7 meters is nearly one Economy row. Both are 9 abreast airliners, but let's be generous to the venerable 777 and say the
52 SSTsomeday : Yes - the 330 was certainly a new and improved 767, as it turned out. The 350 can be considered a new and improved 777, but I actually consider it a
53 Zvezda : Cabin floor areas are facts. Suggested seating capacities are marketing drivel. Boeing also designed the 777 for domestic operations. It was Wall Str
54 GlobeEx : Well that remains to be seen. There are lot on order, and sure many will be used on routes, that have never been operated, but 95% of these will stil
55 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...is that why Boeing management has incessantly stated there will be a B787-10? ...isn't that what you are doing? ...I call it (hypocrisy)^2 .....
56 WAH64D : While potentially not having an adjoining seat filled is certainly a benefit, I don't think there are too many airlines who see this as a plus. The b
57 GlobeEx : I know, but just because something has X% more floor doesn't mean, that it can carry X% more passengers. (look at the A380) To keep it simple: If you
58 Zvezda : You agree with whom on that point??? The fact is that the 787-8 is larger and has a greater real-world seating capacity than the 767-400. Even if a 7
59 Baron95 : I don't have to imagine it. The 773 has OF COURSE better economics than the 77W on shorter routes. 77W and 773 same cabin/cargo space. 773 is lighter
60 Tdscanuck : That's exterior diameter. You can get the interior dimensions from the airport planning guides for each plane. In fairness to Airbus, the A340 wasn't
61 Revelation : Ačiū Labai, Zvezda! So going from B767-3 to B787-8 is a 21% gain in area, whereas going from B767-3 to B787-9 is a 40% gain in area. Each o
62 Post contains images Zvezda : Actually, the 777-300ER has lower SFC engines and some aerodynamic improvements relative to the 777-300, so the distance below which the 777-300 is m
63 Post contains images Stitch : I'm the exact opposite. I prefer UA's 2+5+2 because there is only (at worse) one person next to me since I am able to preselect my rows and take the
64 Post contains images Revelation : An interesting counter-point is how airlines are now pushing 757s closer to their limits by flying them across the Atlantic. I suspect the days of ov
65 WAH64D : If I were always able to choose the outside row aisle seat, then yes, I'd be much happier on the 2-5-2 configured aircraft.
66 SSTsomeday : -I would argue that the 330 has severely curtailed 767 production. -The 777 has severely hurt the 340, and was not the MD-11 still in production when
67 Post contains images GlobeEx : Well a counter question. Did Airbus get I also wrong, and suddenly the A350-800 doesn't compete with the 787-9 anymore? I mean, because, due to that n
68 Zvezda : I don't know what you mean by "get it wrong" because there are not correct and incorrect aircraft sizes. The A350-1000 is virtually identical in effe
69 Post contains images GlobeEx : Sorry, wit "got it wrong" I actually meant "miss understood boeing"... So the 787-9 is what? The same size of the A358 or bigger/ or smaller? I person
70 Zvezda : As above, the 787-9 has a cabin only 0.7 meter shorter than that of the 777-200. I really don't understand the need so many posters seem to have of t
71 DeltaDC9 : Kinda like a zipper, except for the narrow body, this is the only business plan that makes sense. Both companies have done a good job at this, despit
72 Tdscanuck : There is a difference between "curtailed" and "obsoleted". The 767 isn't obsolete by any normal definition, although the A330 is a better aircraft th
73 DeltaDC9 : That is true, I often forget that. It is actually the F-14A of civil aviation.[Edited 2007-09-19 20:11:37]
74 Buckeye : If the limit to the length of an aircraft is 80m, how can an aircraft with a single deck hold 400 to 450 people in a three class seating without havin
75 Stitch : I don't think you'll see 450 people in Y3. My vision is: Y3-100 - 325 seats at 9-abreast or 350 seats at 10-abreast. Y3-200 - 375 seats at 9-abreast
76 Zvezda : Boeing could cover the same market by developing a new wing for the 787 at about 30% of the development cost.
77 Post contains images Astuteman : Both of these assertions could be questioned - the current A380 maybe..... Every other widebody in your table gets its numerical designation, but the
78 JoeCanuck : If you keep using logic, facts and stuff, you'll get banned for sure. I've often wondered the same thing. The 787 and 350 have, virtually, the same c
79 Stitch : No argument there, but if Boeing truly does go forward with a new plane, then I believe that is what we're likely looking at in terms of models. Afte
80 Parapente : Airbus have already proven that there is no commercial market for a 550 let alone a 650 seater. Route fragmentation will seal its fate. Boeing have al
81 Baron95 : I agree. The A350 may need a new wing/LG to compete in the 788 size and the 787 may need a new wing/LG to compete in the A350-1000 size. So what? Tha
82 HawkerCamm : If Boeing created a 787-10 787-11 with a completely new wing (tip-to-tip), new engines and new MLG they will have effectively created a new aircraft.
83 SEPilot : Of course they can; that's the fun of this forum. But I was referring to the current A380; which if it doesn't get more sales is likely to be the onl
84 AirTran717 : I wasn't aware the 777 needed to be replaced just yet. It want into service in like 1996, right? This is 2007... umm... I drive a car older than that.
85 Astuteman : Billions? Unlikely IMO That's the question. It's not impossible, by any means. Regards
86 RIX : - old 350 was "not acceptable" because of 787 advantage in technology, it might work pretty well otherwise, just like 737NG (even as it was, "330 ref
87 Post contains images Zvezda : ... and together with the 747-8 proves there is no significant market above 400 seats. We're in the biggest airliner sales boom in history and neithe
88 Post contains links Zvezda : LH do this with all their A340-600s. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Luf...sa/Lufthansa_Airbus_A340-600_A.php http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Luf..
89 SeaBosDca : All things equal, this seems totally correct. The flexibility of smaller planes with the same or better CASM as today's VLAs is compelling for all bu
90 Zvezda : Why would high frequency be banned? Not for environmental reasons as larger 787s and A350s models have fuel consumption similar to that of the VLAs.
91 Seabosdca : Today's VLAs, yes. A future VLA with technology surpassing that of the 787/A350 would presumably restore the VLA's historic advantage in fuel consump
92 Zvezda : What new technology is that? Short of a BWB, we're not likely to see any dramatic advances in aerodynamics. VLAs seem to have a natural disadvantage
93 JoeCanuck : The advantages of CFRP over al fuse construction have more to do with saving money on construction and maintenance that weight, at least when dealing
94 Zvezda : Yes, but that is more true with smaller structures than with larger structures.
95 Astuteman : I don't suppose it helps much that many hubs are operating at or near capacity, making growth more difficult. "Fragmentation" may well quickly result
96 Stitch : And yet, larger and larger planes are not necessarily the panacea to address that. Major hubs like LHR will eventually reach passenger saturation - t
97 Swallow : In this scenario, GE would develop higher thrust versions of the GEnx to power the 787NG. Admittedly, I do not know how much more the GEnx can be sca
98 Zvezda : More single-connection options would be a good thing. I'd rather see each alliances each pick one major London airport to dominate.
99 Post contains images Revelation : They have - unfortunately they've all picked LHR!
100 AirTran717 : But still, I want to know why the 777 needs a replacement at all...
101 SEPilot : Because it will not be competitive against the A350. Simple.
102 JoeCanuck : ..or possibly not so simple. We've yet to see what improvements can be made to the 777 by the time the 350 enters service which is a long way off. Mos
103 Revelation : We'll know more end of 2008 when A350 design freeze happens, 2013 when A350-800 is out and/or 2015 when A350-1000 is out. Boeing's 777 backlog is till
104 Keesje : I think the number of 777-200ER (best selling version) orders in recent yrs has declined. 200ER´s have been converted to 300ER´s. Boeing already in
105 Buckeye : The current backlog for all 777s according to Boeing's website is 346. At the current production rate of 7 per month, there is nearly a 50 month cushi
106 AirTran717 : That's what I think. You people like to overthink and talk about things that are so far in the future... The 777 line is barely a decade old... It si
107 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : "I believe" being the operative phrase. The 777IGW was launched concurrently... Boeing definitely foresaw the T7 as going far beyond the USA domestic
108 MCIGuy : I'd say B has it's finger on the pulse of the market better than anyone else right now. If they continue on that path I'm sure they'll have no issues
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...
Boeing Starts First Phase Of Moving 777 Assembly posted Sat Mar 4 2006 02:55:42 by Atmx2000
AC Notifies Boeing Of 787/777 Order Cancellation posted Sun Jun 19 2005 04:50:42 by Avek00
Boeing Expects To Deliver 737 Replacement By 2015 posted Tue Jun 26 2007 20:10:33 by Parapente
Anyone Have Any Video Of Queens 777 Landing At RIC posted Fri May 4 2007 18:41:54 by Mainrunway
Range Of SQ's 777-300ER posted Fri May 4 2007 11:22:31 by Zvezda
Any Chance Of More Versions Of The 777? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 01:09:02 by JAM747
Dog Flees Cage On Cargo Deck Of JAL 777 posted Fri Mar 2 2007 20:24:31 by Jimyvr
First Picture Of AC 777-300 In Full Paint posted Tue Feb 27 2007 05:40:45 by Heavy747
Boeing Not Planning A New 737 Replacement posted Tue Feb 6 2007 22:27:12 by T773ER
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777