Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B777-300ER Vs. A350-1000: Boeing's View  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 19998 times:

"So it is too early for us to rush off and start to get in a panic about having to spend a bunch of money for improvements to the 777.''


- Marty Bentrott, Boeing's VP of jetliner sales for Middle East and Africa

More at James Wallace's blog via the Seattle P-I.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
93 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19788 times:

He has a point. The A350-1000 does not enter service until 2015. Sure it will kill of the 773ER, but not for another 5 or 6 years.

I think the notion of updating the 777 is a waste of money. Boeing should press ahead with the HGW versions of the 787 in a few years.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22734 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19762 times:



Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
Sure it will kill of the 773ER, but not for another 5 or 6 years.

Will it? Loyal Airbus customers continued (and continue) to buy the 32x family after the superior 73G came out. Loyal Boeing customers continued to buy the 767 after the superior 330 came out. When you beat your competitor to market, that gives you a very definite advantage, even if your competitor has a superior airplane.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A350 will no way kill off the 77W but it'll reduce orders to a trickle I believe and boeing shouldn't worry about it. the T7 will be 20 years past EIS and then is probably about the time to start developing a replacement. I think with how successful boeing has been with the 787 and with airbus' bad times with the A380 delays and what have you the Airbus fanboys have thought they have put the wind up boeing, so much so did they think this that boeing peeps sort of blieved it as well and and had a bit of a panic and all of a sudden have realised that it'll just be living out its "natuaral life" anyway. congrats to boeing for not getting too scared about their current cash cow.

Fred


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19601 times:

There's just been another thread discussing whether a move to 10Y and whatever efficiency and weight improvements are reasonably possible will allow the 777-300ER to retain some measure of competitiveness with the A350-1000. This is a.net -- no one agreed. Big grin

You'd have to have access to way more numbers than most of us do in order to answer the question "Would an updated 777-300ER, a 787-10/11HGW, a new wider Y3, or some combination of the above give Boeing the best return on investment?" with any degree of certainty. My uninformed intuition tells me to agree with EI321 -- the 787HGW concept has the most promise. Two lengths (-10 and -11), with >6000 nm MZFW range, and the ability to make a 787-8LR or -9LR for those few cargo-heavy ULH or super-ULH missions. (This would also allow for a 787-9F which would truly be a heavy-lift beast.  weightlifter  )

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Airbus customers continued (and continue) to buy the 32x family after the superior 73G came out.

You better  duck  . The 737NG is an excellent airplane and competitive with the A320 series. Each has strengths and weaknesses. Many Airbus fans will have no trouble reminding you that the 737NG is certainly not unambiguously superior.


User currently offlineFlipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19515 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 4):
and the ability to make a 787-8LR or -9LR for those few cargo-heavy ULH or super-ULH missions. (This would also allow for a 787-9F which would truly be a heavy-lift beast. weightlifter )

Would that be super-ultra-long-haul, how about some SUMLH that would be super ultra mega long haul  Silly

seriously though, I don't think boeing will ever do the -11, it will already incur some penalties with strengthening the fuselage for the -10 and i think the benefits simply wont be there for the -11 (assuming approx same stretch from the 9-10 as 10-11). The only way i can see boeing doing it is if many airports become slot restricted and they optimize it for 3-4000nm

Fred


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19305 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing's response will be dictated by the market.

There have been roughly 2200 A333, A340, 777 and 747 planes sold to date. One can reasonably expect that number to reach 2500.

Of that 2500, Airbus has sold 200 A380s and 400 A350s in rounded numbers. With options, that would be 250 and 500 in rounded numbers. If we assume all 150 787-9s are tasked to A333/A343/772 replacements, that would be 900 planes. Assume 100 787 options are there, and now we're at 1000.

So that leaves around 1500 planes for Boeing and Airbus to go after. Under former program goals, that would be enough for Boeing to launch a $10 billion Y3 if they felt they could snag two-thirds of the market (and I think they could). On the flip side, a $5 billion 787HGW that scored even half of the remaining sales would pencil out to be a better investment.

Of course, we're just discussing straight replacements. Then there are expansion orders.

Again, the Y3 would likely do very well here and have better percentages then the 787HGW.

So winning two-thirds of a 3600 order market would be better then winning half. Adding in those extra 600 sales might just push the numbers in favor of Y3...


User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19230 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Again, the Y3 would likely do very well here and have better percentages then the 787HGW.

You may have already answered why you think this in an earlier thread, but I am still not sure I understand it. What would a wider Y3 bring to the table that a 787HGW wouldn't, except for the ability to reach higher passenger capacity at the larger sizes? A 787-11 could reach slightly higher passenger numbers than a 777-300ER, and we've seen from the 747-8I and A380 experience that the market for even larger planes is problematic at best. Most of what market there is has likely been claimed by the A380 for the next 20 years.

Wide Y3 might have better structural efficiency than a really long 787, but at the expense of volumetric efficiency. The extra width doesn't help load more cargo, and the plane starts getting really heavy if you try to do anything significant with the extra crown space.

Either plane will need an engine that doesn't exist today, but a Trent XWB variant could power an HGW 787 more easily than a wide Y3. A wide twin Y3, especially if made large enough to replace the 747-8I in its largest size, would need all-new engines.

I agree that a wide Y3 would be successful and nice to see. I just don't yet understand why it would gain enough extra orders versus an HGW 787 to be worth the much higher investment.


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19226 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Airbus customers continued (and continue) to buy the 32x family after the superior 73G came out.

The 73G isn't really superior. The A32x and the 737NG are about as equal (from an airline's point of view) as it's possible for two different airplanes in the same market space to be. There are particular metrics where Boeing wins, particular ones where Airbus wins, but on balance it's basically a dead heat.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Boeing customers continued to buy the 767 after the superior 330 came out.

I think this is a better example. It's more reflective of the technology and performance gap between the 777 and the A350.

Tom.


User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 19171 times:



Quoting Flipdewaf (Reply 5):
Would that be super-ultra-long-haul, how about some SUMLH that would be super ultra mega long haul  

Otherwise known as "SYD-LHR" or, after about another decade of growth in Brazil, "GRU-NRT."  Wink  Silly


User currently offlineBaron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 19044 times:

Excuse me for asking, but how many firm A350-1000 orders does Airbus have? Is it 40? And how many 77W orders has gotten since the Airbus started taking orders for the A350-1000? Is it 80?

Is the 77W outselling the A350-1000 2 to 1?

And that is such a critical problem for Boeing, how?



Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 18897 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Thread starter):
"So it is too early for us to rush off and start to get in a panic about having to spend a bunch of money for improvements to the 777.'

It is fine not to get into a panic, but DO rush off and spend some money on upping your game. Otherwise you know what happens Boeing........ Airbus comes and bites you in the tush.

Early bird catches the worm. I remember when Airbus decided to bet on it's product range to see it through the sales race. Didn't work.

What Boeing need do is work on new wing for 787-10 +11 ala Airbus 345 and 346. Tweak T7 to freshen up the stale line.


User currently offlinePygmalion From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 966 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18844 times:



Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11):
What Boeing need do is work on new wing for 787-10 +11 ala Airbus 345 and 346. Tweak T7 to freshen up the stale line.

bad analogy I think. A345,346 are not the best stretch examples IMHO.


User currently offlineDistantHorizon From Portugal, joined Oct 2005, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18657 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Airbus customers continued (and continue) to buy the 32x family after the superior 73G came out.

You are certainly one of the first guys who says an 73G e better than an 32x!

Even Airlliners who have opted for the 73X wouldn't say it - just that it better suits their needs...

Not an A vs B thing. But you could more easily state the oposite. Orders would back you up.

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 8):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Boeing customers continued to buy the 767 after the superior 330 came out.

I think this is a better example. It's more reflective of the technology and performance gap between the 777 and the A350.

 checkmark 

DH


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 18647 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 7):
A wide twin Y3, especially if made large enough to replace the 747-8I in its largest size, would need all-new engines.

 checkmark  and a new engine in the 130 klbs range would be quite expensive to develop-- possibly prohibitively so: the larger the airplane, the fewer are sold, and only two per airframe at that!

Here's hoping for the return of the trijet Big grin


User currently offlineIwok From Sweden, joined Jan 2005, 1108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 18535 times:



Quoting DistantHorizon (Reply 13):
You are certainly one of the first guys who says an 73G e better than an 32x!

I think the 737 is slightly lighter, slightly faster, burns slightly less fuel and flies slightly farther. Of course its slightly more expensive. So they're pretty damn close to each other, that operationally it seems as there is no real cost difference.

iwok


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 18463 times:

I tend to agree that Boeing isn't in a panic tight now. There are probably engineers looking at bits & pieces that will improve performance, just as they have in the past. There will also be some rather detailed discussions going on with some good customers.

But there is no need to make any rapid decisions before Boeing has all of its ducks lined up in a row. First they need to know what the 350-1000 will end up being, then what comes out of discussions with customers and what comes out of engineering. Finally, if the engine companies deliver on engines for Y1 there is the potential of moving that to market while Airbus is spending R&D resources (money and engineers) on the 350 program.

Boeing has some time to watch the game play out and when they move I believe that it will be a profitable move for them and their customers.


User currently offlineOlle From Sweden, joined Feb 2007, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17525 times:

remember thet th 737 RS is expected in this time range. A 777NG would be more simple in order to handle the resources and I consider that the mid management fight hard with the top management to get funding for both 737RS AND 777RS. This was the problem Airbus had a few years ago with 350, 380 and M400

User currently offlineMestrugo From Chile, joined Apr 2007, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17451 times:

They should have kept the MD-11 into production! That way, they can say that the triple seven, the A330 and the A350 are all superior aircraft, but that three-hore is a much cooler-looking airplane.  Smile

Just kidding, as usual!  Smile


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12394 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
There have been roughly 2200 A333, A340, 777 and 747 planes sold to date. One can reasonably expect that number to reach 2500.

Yes, but don't both Airbus and Boeing see the sub-VLA market at 6,000+ over the next 25 years? So, they seem to think there's more to play for there than you do.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinePlunaCRJ From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 574 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17270 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Airbus customers continued (and continue) to buy the 32x family after the superior 73G came out

As said before, my general perception is that the A32S is slightly better than the 737NG...

Quoting EI321 (Reply 1):
Boeing should press ahead with the HGW versions of the 787 in a few years.

That would be nice, but remember that the 787 is optimized on its original size... nobody would want to stretch a wonderfull plane and get a sub-optimal one in the end.

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 11):
What Boeing need do is work on new wing for 787-10 +11 ala Airbus 345 and 346. Tweak T7 to freshen up the stale line.

I don´t think Boeing wants to have an equivalent to the A340-600 in the stretched 787...


What Boeing should do is to stay calm, kind of forget about the 777-300ER market and concentrate on the wonderfull product they have right now: the 787 Dreamliner.


User currently offlineGlideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 17110 times:



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
Finally, if the engine companies deliver on engines for Y1 there is the potential of moving that to market while Airbus is spending R&D resources (money and engineers) on the 350 program.

Agreed, and in the 160-190 seat range also.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 16930 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2):
Loyal Boeing customers continued to buy the 767 after the superior 330 came out.

That's a much better example then the A320 vs 737 as like many other have mentioned there is little difference between the two.

However I don't have any figures but i'm willing to bet that there were very few new 767 customers in the years after the A332. Partly because there already were a lot of 767 customers, and partly because there was a better offering (in many cases) available. A similar thing will probably happen with the 773ER, airlines that already have such an aircraft within their fleet, will likely continue to order it as introducing the A350 may mean too many family types. What will keep the 773ER going is Boeings ability to offer it for less - as they have already covered R&D costs, and can essentially 'milk' the product like airbus have been doing with the A330 recently. And keep it competitive. It's a sensible business strategy.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1037 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16650 times:

Boeing probably has 2 to 3 years before they realistically have to make a decision on which way to go with the 777 or its replacement.

Market conditions do change, and technology changes as well.

I think it is in Boeing's best interest to wait those 2 to 3 years and see what plays out and what engine technology would likely be available for either an upgraded 777 or a replacement product. That would also allow them to much better understand the technology and any issues with the 787.


User currently offlineCaljn From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16539 times:



Quoting PlunaCRJ (Reply 20):
As said before, my general perception is that the A32S is slightly better than the 737NG...

Others have made this contention with the same tone of certainty. But what is the evidence?
Or is this a case of ..."if we say it oftern enough it has to be true!"

What are the criteria for saying the 32S is better than the 737NG? Personal opinion? If "better" is based on operation costs, than it is difficult to say one is superior than the other.

Many people say the 320 is quiet, which to them makes it better.
I say the flying experience on the 737 is infinetly more fun and interesting. In my opinion, better!


25 PlunaCRJ : Not personal opinion, neither facts. It is the perception I have of the aircraft.
26 EbbUK : I got that. However, what I see is that the Dreamliner is great for it's market and can be amazing as a T7 replacement. All that is missing is a new
27 Boeing74741R : How is it superior? Compared to the 737 Classics then yes it is a superior jet, but if the 737NG was superior then the order book would've been even
28 Post contains images GrahamHill : True. And that's one of the reasons why I prefer to fly in a 320. Would you give me more details? I don't see clearly the "fun" and "interesting" par
29 Worldrider : superior? in what way?
30 Post contains images Stitch : One wonders how well the A380-800 would be selling if it weighed 25% less and burned 25% less fuel... And yet the plane does not need to be a perfect
31 Caljn : Agreed. One would never describe the 320 experience as fun...more like an evening by the fire with a good book. The 737 conversely, which I fly on So
32 Boeing74741R : Comes in very useful if you've been up since 3am that morning for a flight with an A320 Family a/c, you can fall asleep without being woken up.
33 Popski777 : I think Boeing should press ahead with a 787-10HGW but not a -11. Boeing should leave the 777 be, as it will continue to sell for atleast a few more y
34 Post contains images GrahamHill : So you prefer the Ferrari to the Bentley?!
35 Kaitak : Remember that chap, Widebody-something, who used to prepare some excellent comparison charts of the various types; it would be very interesting to see
36 Post contains images Ikramerica : I think part of the main point the boeing fellah is making here is that he frankly does not believe Airbus will meet their targets for the A350-1000,
37 Khobar : Perception = personal opinion. IOW, to you the A320 seems better for whatever reasons. Nothing wrong with that at all. I think Caljn was taking the p
38 JoeCanuck : Emirates is currently 10y wiith 17.0" seats, at least according to Seatguru.com. 2" more width across 10 seats is all that's needed.
39 Zvezda : I've been wondering that for a year and still haven't seen a satisfactory answer. The 787/A350 cross section seems optimal for a 777-300ER sized airl
40 Stitch : Yes it will, but what I really meant was Y3 likely doesn't need more then 115,000lbs of thrust, which we know is doable. I have all of Widebodyphotog
41 SSTsomeday : I agree. I would venture that as with other areas of technology, commercial airliners are going to evolve/improve at a faster rate than in the golden
42 Post contains images Rheinbote : These two replies pretty much sum it up for me. I think Bentrott is just sowing FUD here. In case the 350XWB does not meet its guarantees, customers
43 Ikramerica : I don't know. I think Boeing has already learned that all the new technologies they are using in the 787 are not quite offering the weight and perfor
44 Post contains images Justloveplanes : I think Boeing would like to have an offering on the table in 3 years, and refine its dialogue with the customers until then. I think Airbus is playi
45 EI321 : The A350 is optimised around a different length than the 787. Look at the wings - they are considerably larger. When an airline signs a firm contract
46 Scbriml : Of course the -1000 is also the model that's furthest away from EIS (2015), so I would expect it to garner much slower sales at this time. It's clear
47 Stitch : One of the big advantages of CFRP is that it will handle far more cycles then Al. I expect many 787 operators are looking at keeping their planes for
48 Rheinbote : What should make a difference is that the 350-1000 wing is *baseline* for the whole family. Still needs extra wheels, indeed.
49 EI321 : Correct. the A350-1000 is a replacement for the A340-600 and 777-300ER. These are both very young aircraft, so their replacement cycle eill not come
50 Post contains images Astuteman : However, the A350 is being designed from the outset to achieve this. It's a bigger, heavier aircraft than the current 787. The A350-1000 SHOULD be a
51 Caljn : Not speaking for ikramerica but a large order for an aircraft that barely exists on paper and won't be deliverable for at least 8 years...yeah, hubri
52 Post contains images Astuteman : Ah, thanks for the clarification Caljn. I must also have missed QF's large order for 787's being labelled hubris. Note to self - must concentrate mor
53 YULWinterSkies : Well, unfortunately for MDD, it got killed by 4 hair-dryers aka the A340-300, and B finished off the execution with the T7.
54 Atmx2000 : The 773ER replacement market doesn't start until the end of the next decade, except possibly sooner for SQ. Like the original A359 proposal it is pre
55 Cubsrule : FWIW (since so many have asked), the difference between the 73G family and 32x family is essentially in the larger family members. The 738 is a bette
56 MotorHussy : That's a very niche advantage and can put it a a disadvantage when airlines are looking for a craft to fly shorter hauls. How's the cargo hold in the
57 Stitch : Part of it is likely that Boeing won't have something similar available for even longer. Part of it is that Airbus has a proven track record in desig
58 Cubsrule : That's a really interesting question... has anyone asked Boeing for this capability? I don't know of any NG operators who have expressed an interest.
59 MotorHussy : A320 operators enjoy this advantage. Particularly good for getting perishables to international market from my home port of WLG. MH
60 Atmx2000 : Jumping on the A340NG bandwagon wasn't a great idea in retrospect. You would think airlines would learn to wait and compare. Let us contrast the situ
61 Cubsrule : Yeah, and quite a few do use it. We know that Boeing knows how to make an aircraft accept containers of some sort (it's not hard: bigger cargo door a
62 Ikramerica : Then the A350-800 must be a piece of crap, heavy and can't compete with the 787-900 or 777 for that matter. Yet the A350-800 is selling surprisingly
63 Stitch : And yet it wasn't a terrible idea, either. Especially if you fly the A300, A310, A320 and/or A330. It is true the 777 was the better plane, but many
64 EI321 : Firstly, its a smaller aircraft than the 777. Secondly, Would this anology also assuime that the 787-8 is a piece of crap, since the 787 is going to
65 Zvezda : The timing of a replacement cycle depends not so much on age but on when a replacement becomes available with improvements in operating economics tha
66 SirOmega : A lot of what Boeing will doo with the 777 and 787HGW is dependent on flight test of the 788. By the end of 2008 Boeing will know what its options are
67 WingedMigrator : It bears pointing out that the wing for the smallest A350 is a smidge larger than the wing for the largest 777.
68 Tdscanuck : There is no inherent benefit to FBW technology at the size of the A320/737NG. There are some upsides and some downsides. It's an interesting technolo
69 Post contains images Jacobin777 : .....I'll take a BWB at Moffett field also.... .....IIRC, EK has a 50+50 order on the A350, of which at least 40 are for replacements...so I don't th
70 Post contains images Astuteman : Hubris, we're advised.... Thus defining the boundary between a valid business deal, and one based on hubris? Think I need a holiday.. Regards
71 Boeing767-300 : An interesting point but what does this mean for the operating economics. Does a larger wing which would obviously be able to lift move not create mo
72 Post contains images Scbriml : It certainly would be if a new engine of the same size had been developed in the last five years. Any CFM56 replacement would probably show at least
73 Rheinbote : Not necessarily a stinker. Airlines do not just by an aeroplane, they buy a complex product. The don't buy primarily for optmized aerodynamics, sleek
74 Zvezda : Everything I'm hearing from Boeing is that IF they ever build a Y3, the earliest possible EIS would be 2018. By then, the SFC of the GE90-115B will p
75 Par13del : Which engine technology are we talking about as it relates to the widebody field that will obliterate the GE90-115B, the GENX or the TRENT, should we
76 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ....ah yes, that is correct.... ....thanks for the breakdown.. ..so 58 are for replacement...makes my argument that much better (I'm being a smart a*
77 Post contains images Scbriml : Correct. They don't need to use the A350s for expansion. They have 50+ A380s on order for that!
78 Post contains images Stitch : GE is said to be considering some mild updates to the GE90, but there is only so much they can do and still maintain commonality with the rest of the
79 EI321 : It also bears pointing out that increased use of composites in wings means that the wing can become larger (thus increasing lift) wgile reducing the
80 Zvezda : Lightsaber could give you all the details, but there are a lot of new technologies going into engines. The GEnx and Trent XWB already have close to 1
81 Post contains links Scbriml : I don't think they've ever claimed it's an all-new design. Indeed, this would be a pretty rare event in the industry. The Trent series has a long lin
82 Tdscanuck : Not necessarily. There are two (major) contributions to the drag on a wing...drag from the shape (aka "form drag") and drag caused by generating lift
83 Osiris30 : Y3 if done right gives Boeing a new larger base platform with which to work. It allows newer engines, further improved aerodynamics and lessons learn
84 JoeCanuck : It's not just span that makes the difference in induced drag but aspect ratio which is span/cord. Winglets are one way that you can mimic the benefit
85 Sebring : Maybe in the case of heavy turbulence, but otherwise when I sit in an aircraft I am thinking about legroom, elbowroom and perhaps the entertainment s
86 Justloveplanes : I believe it was Jim McNerny who said that a "refresh" of the current 777 would involve improvements to the GE-90. So this engine's SFC will not rema
87 Flipdewaf : Yeah but I think that would beat the expense of a lot, and I mean a hell of a lot, of cycles. Remember how "relatively young" the Qantas 744 fleet is
88 Astuteman : But did this ever come to anything? Regards
89 Justloveplanes : I don't know, but I am guessing not since Dixon is very vocal about pressing for a 787-11 and doesn't seem to mention a 777 solution.
90 Scbriml : Apparently not enough to convince QF. It hardly seems like a trivial task does it? If it was that easy, wouldn't Boeing have just done it anyway? I g
91 Cloudy : Pratt is putting its geared turbofan on the Bombardier's C-series, if and when they launch it. They don't seem to be afraid of killing the 737-600/70
92 Stitch : The goal was to get SYD-LHR 365-days a year at whatever QF considered a nominal payload. Either 7t wasn't enough, or QF felt that the service life of
93 Zvezda : The problem for QF was that the operating cost would have been too high. We won't see SYD/MEL-LHR nonstop service until a 787 or A350 can do it.
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...
Passenger View Of AC B777-300ER Taking Off.. posted Thu May 10 2007 16:42:42 by AirCanada014
AirAsia X Boeing 777-300ER Vs A330-300 Selection posted Sat Jan 6 2007 00:39:18 by Keesje
New Air France Or Boeing Livery: B777-300ER? posted Fri Nov 29 2002 09:50:43 by JetMark
GEnx Vs. Trent 1000 posted Sat Jul 7 2007 00:43:40 by Pillowtester
AF To Fly 2 B777-300ER To JNB This Winter posted Fri Jun 29 2007 16:24:08 by AirGabon
Actual Seating Capacity Of B777-300ER And A340-600 posted Tue Jun 19 2007 02:05:58 by Lesismore
Longest Flight Nonstop On B777-300ER? posted Thu Mar 15 2007 11:41:00 by AirCanada014
SQ Seat Pitch--B777-300ER posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:50:37 by Iloveboeing
Finnair: A330 Vs A350 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:57:12 by Ravel
Any Chance Of KLM And BA To Order B777-300ER? posted Tue Oct 24 2006 23:52:46 by AirCanada014