Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Might Put 777 Replacement Ahead Of 737  
User currently offlineNycbjr From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 447 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 12205 times:

I didn't see this posted anywhere.. Interesting article, not really new info. But I wanted to share this will you.

If this is a dupe please remove!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-777-ahead-of-737-replacement.html

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21472 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 12169 times:

They can be done concurrently, just as the 787, 748 and 777F are being done concurrently. It's interesting that Boeing is as skeptical about the abilities of the A350-1000 as I am. They are trying to figure out what they can change about the 777 in relation to what is actually going to make it into the A350-1000.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 12169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Nycbjr (Thread starter):

Good article Nycbjr. Thanks for the link.

I'm pretty sure FI has run a related story before, but it's certainly worth posting.

I recall a thread on this last month (IIRC) where Emirate VP of operations (I think) said the A350-1000 would burn 22% less fuel, but carry 11% less payload. The flavour of his comments seemed to be that the 773ER could be made to "compete" (if you include the sharper discounting permitted by an amortised product) with some improvement.

Which seems to pretty much be Airbus's approach with the A332 in response to the 787-8.

Doesn't surprise me that Boeing are looking at upping 737 production..

Regards


User currently offlineRobK From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 3946 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 12145 times:

Sounds reasonable to me. As far as I can recall Airbus don't have any concrete plans to replace the A320 family yet so there's no urgency for Boeing to get a replacement 737 out. Both types are still selling well and both with huge backlogs so it makes sense for Boeing to focus their attention on an A350-1000 competitor so they don't lose their share of the market.

2p..

R


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9976 posts, RR: 96
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's interesting that Boeing is as skeptical about the abilities of the A350-1000 as I am.

It's interesting that QF are saying the A350-1000's spec is hardening up (as in improving).
It will be a surprise if it doesn't do what it says on the tin..........
But the 773ER will still have strengths in terms of sheer uplift, that the A350-1000 is unlikely to match.

Regards


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11913 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
They can be done concurrently, just as the 787, 748 and 777F are being done concurrently.

Yup, going just peachy isn't it  Wink Just kidding, since we aren't talking about an actual 777 replacement (contrary to what the thread title seems to suggest), but more of an upgrade to the existing offering, of course it can be done side by side.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's interesting that Boeing is as skeptical about the abilities of the A350-1000 as I am.

Highly surprising, a company is skeptical about a competitors product. How extremely unusual in any industry, so I guess they must have their customers well being front and center - Airbus had better get on the phone to Boeing and explain the situation in full so as to quickly dispel these doubts their competitor is having, otherwise they might just lose some orders to them...

Sorry, was the side order of sarcasm just a little too much?


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11777 times:

As per widebody's calculations for a 6000nm mission, A350-10 will have a fuel burn per seat/nm of 0.0131 and 773ER is at 0.0157. That's about 17% less fuel burn per seat/nm in favor of A350-10.

Widebody estimates that A350-10 will carry about 6 tonnes less payload than 773ER on a 6000nm mission.

Clearly, the A350-10 does not completely dominates 773ER; in the case of 773ER, it was better than 744 both in fuel burn and payload.


User currently offlineFruteBrute From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11735 times:

But the A350 will also have lower maintenance because of the composite structure ala the 787. Also, Boeing claims their 787 is cheaper to build in "the new way". You would assume the same is true of the A350, so even discounting the 777 may not be as effective as one might imagine. Just a thought.

User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11705 times:

Seeing as how the 737NG is holding its own against the A320, Boeing is certainly going to take any threat to the 777 seriously, especially as the 748i does not seem to be catching on. I doubt very much that anything short of a new plane will suffice, just as Airbus's attempt to present a warmed-over A330 in response to the 787 fell short. Trying to do that at the same time as the 737RS might have been possible if the 787 program had gone as planned, but with the current fiasco to deal with I doubt whether they would have the resources to do it. So it would not surprise me at all to see Y3 (or other 777RS) emerge next. Boeing has lost the jump that they might have had on Airbus which would have given them a window in which to put forth the 737RS/Y1 well ahead of Airbus, but now they pretty much have to answer the A350-1000, and the 787 will not stretch that far.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30547 posts, RR: 84
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11692 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see an all-new airplane replacing the 777 entering service before the early 2020's.

I do see Boeing does some "quick wins" on the 777 to keep it, if not competitive, relevant and desirable. Same with GE and the GE90-11xB. The goal for both companies is to keep their production lines full at current rates for the next decade or more.


User currently offlineMptpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11689 times:

Could it be a strategy from Boeing into making Airbus believe that the B737 replacement is off in favor of B777 improvements? Similar to how they toyed with SonicCruiser!! You never know... in the meantime Airbus pours their energy into A350-1000 while B737 Replacement is revealed.... catching them off guard. Just a thought......

User currently onlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2213 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11587 times:



Quoting Nycbjr (Thread starter):
Boeing Might Put 777 Replacement Ahead Of 737 

If this happens, the big losers are airlines like AA, that desperately need a new narrowbody to replace the hundreds of narrowbodies in their current fleet.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
It's interesting that Boeing is as skeptical about the abilities of the A350-1000 as I am.

Maybe they finally realize that plastic airplanes are not as superior to metal as previously claimed?  duck 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
I don't see an all-new airplane replacing the 777 entering service before the early 2020's.

If that is true, maybe there's really no reason for Boeing to upgrade the 777 at all. After all, Airbus won't be able to produce enough A350s to cover the whole market, so even if the A350 will be as good as Airbus claims, I still expect Boeing to sell 777s until maybe 2020, just like Airbus still sells A330s today in spite of the superior 787.

Quoting Mptpa (Reply 10):
in the meantime Airbus pours their energy into A350-1000 while B737 Replacement is revealed.... catching them off guard.

A couple of years' headstart doesn't matter. The narrowbody market is so huge, so one airframe maker cannot make enough to cover the whole market. And a couple of years later EIS may even mean that the latter airplane will have slightly superior technology.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6823 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 8 hours ago) and read 11587 times:



Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 6):
As per widebody's calculations for a 6000nm mission, A350-10 will have a fuel burn per seat/nm of 0.0131 and 773ER is at 0.0157. That's about 17% less fuel burn per seat/nm in favor of A350-10.

Which is why I believe that a warmed-over 777 will fall short. Also, the 777 is actually older than the 737NG. I know that the 77L/77W are newer, but it will take a much bigger effort than went into them to make the 777 stay competitive. Certainly Boeing would like to keep selling 777's for another decade and a half, but reality rears its ugly head sometimes, and sometimes when it does it sucks.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30547 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 12):
Which is why I believe that a warmed-over 777 will fall short...I know that the 77L/77W are newer, but it will take a much bigger effort than went into them to make the 777 stay competitive.

Fuel burn is important, but it is not all-important. If it was, we'd be flying 737-700ERs and A319LRs across the oceans instead of widebodies because they burn less fuel.

As noted, the 77W has a not-insignificant payload advantage over the A350-1000 and I the 77L's advantage over the A350-900 should be even larger. There is no doubt on any mission an A350 will burn less fuel then a 777, but the extra revenue a 777 can bring to the table will help offset that higher fuel bill to some extent, just as it does for widebodies over narrowbodies.


User currently offlineChiad From Norway, joined May 2006, 1131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11435 times:



Quoting Mptpa (Reply 10):
Could it be a strategy from Boeing into making Airbus believe that the B737 replacement is off in favor of B777 improvements? Similar to how they toyed with SonicCruiser!! You never know... in the meantime Airbus pours their energy into A350-1000 while B737 Replacement is revealed.... catching them off guard. Just a thought......

I think that it will be extremely difficult for either to catch the other off guard here.
And from what I understand is that both manufactures are waiting for the "right" engine.

I believe that both Boeing and Airbus have their sketches more or less ready to be launched in case the other one does.
Non will accept to be trailing the other one very much in this gigantic market segment.

Time might prove me wrong but I expect that as soon as one manufacture reveals the NB replacement, the other one will counter it no later than the next week.

Another thing ... I think both Boeing and Airbus are more than willing to share some information of what to come with each other. The market is so huge that both will be winners anyway, so why permit unnecessary risk of not doing it?

And rumours will float around for months before anything is launched. Which airline wont contact both manufactures before they invest for the next 20 years? Well ... maybe not Southwest, but you get the point.
 Embarrassment


User currently offlineOyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2717 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11363 times:



Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
If this happens, the big losers are airlines like AA, that desperately need a new narrowbody to replace the hundreds of narrowbodies in their current fleet.

If this happens it will also give BBD a better business case for the C-series. I wonder if we will soon see a C150 to replace the MD-80 at Delta and AA. Could it happen if Boeing and Airbus delays the development of new narrow bodies?



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11318 times:

It would make a lot of since to put Y3 or whatever it will be ahead (or just start earlier) than the Y1. The A350, while still in development doesn't really have competition for the larger variants, while the 777 is still a very capable aircraft i have a feeling it may turn out like when airbus tried to push the original A350 against the 787. They can kep the 748, especially as a cargo plane since it seems to be doing very well. The 777 is great but a 777NG could probably help a lot, but it would really make a lot of since to scale up the 787 into a 773 sized plane to compete against the A350. With everything they have learned from the 787 and all the technologies it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult, Make the fuselage bigger, try and make some bigger engines like the 787, or maybe even use the ones from the A350. A 777NG would be great to see and give the A350 a run for its money. While the 777 is still state of the art, compared to the A350XWB it's old technology. But i have no doubt we will see 777 orders in the future.

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11307 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Fuel burn is important, but it is not all-important. If it was, we'd be flying 737-700ERs and A319LRs across the oceans instead of widebodies because they burn less fuel.

Do you mean to say that 737ER and A319LR have lower fuel burn per seat/nm than widebodies on long missions?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
As noted, the 77W has a not-insignificant payload advantage over the A350-1000 and I the 77L's advantage over the A350-900 should be even larger. There is no doubt on any mission an A350 will burn less fuel then a 777, but the extra revenue a 777 can bring to the table will help offset that higher fuel bill to some extent, just as it does for widebodies over narrowbodies.

As per my calculations, for a 6000 nm mission, the A350-10 will save about $16,000 in fuel relative to 773ER. On the other hand, A350-10 will have about $15,000 less in cargo revenue for the same mission. However, there will be some RASM advantage to A350-10(being a smaller aircraft) along with expected lower maintenance costs.

If A350-10 comes in at spec, 773ER will have serious problems.


User currently offlineSxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1257 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11256 times:



Quoting Chiad (Reply 14):
I think that it will be extremely difficult for either to catch the other off guard here.
And from what I understand is that both manufactures are waiting for the "right" engine.

Exactly. Anything more than small, incremental improvements in weight will require new engines.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 11):
If this happens, the big losers are airlines like AA, that desperately need a new narrowbody to replace the hundreds of narrowbodies in their current fleet.

They're losers because they choose not to order fuel efficient aircraft when oil was cheap. It was a short-sighted move that has come back to bite them in the behind.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10638 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 7 hours ago) and read 11192 times:

If men like the fleet manager of Qantas say the "777 is a thing of yesterday" (Interview in Aero international, April issue) Boeing might well think what to do.
I thought that the real deal would be a joint replacement for 777 and 748, with the smallest version being the size of the 773ER, and large versions bigger than the 748I, as the 772 market is mostly covered by the 787. But the reactions now show Boeing is more under pressure with the 777 than it is in the smaller market above.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 11135 times:

Bad article, because what Bell and McNerney said didn't imply anything like that.

April 23rd first quarter earnings web call, excerpt from the Q&A section:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/7364...y-q1-2008-earnings-call-transcript

Mike Mecham (Aviation Week)
Hi. A couple of weeks ago, Steve talked about some weight issues in the 787 continue to had in the -10 as you know isn't a particular program yet, but those implications there as to how you might set the company up to compete with the A350, the larger A350s that would creep into your 777 programs as competitors? Is there any thinking about a development effort on 777 to position against the A350 or are you confident that what you have got definitive 300-ER?

Jim McNerney
That's a good question. Obviously, the A350-1000 as it comes together, it comes together as Airbus has characterized it will in terms of its performance would put some pressure on our longer range 777 fleet and we would have to answer the question what we would do about it. So it's very much of a wide issue. I think the driver is what were the real performance of the A350-1000 be and since that probably won't be introduced until 16ish, I am guessing here, but I think that's right, it's introduced after the 800 and 900, we have plenty of time to make the decision on what kind of modification might be needed if the performance does threaten the bottom of our long range part of our 777 fleet. But given the order rates that we continue to have on 777s, I don’t think the marketplace is all really worried about it yet, but it will be an issue we have to address.

Mike Mecham
You are doing so well on the 737, is it possible you might address this issues before you address an issue on replacing 737?

Jim McNerney
Well, yes, it's possible and it's also possible we could be -- there could be some overlap as we address both. But we are asking the questions independently obviously because there are two different, very different market segments, but yes, you could paint a scenario where some work on the 777 would be done before the majority of the work on the next generation 37 but we don’t know yet either.


The two sentences in bold say it all. Pure hype by FLIGHT. More than by anything else the sequence of 737RS and 777RS is probably dictated by engine manufacturer strategy.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9489 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 11076 times:

I think there is a general consensus here that if Boeing launched a 737RS, it would meet the goal of 10-20% fuel efficiency increase. Well, can that actually happen? The 737NG has been continuously improved. One benefit of having the highest production rate that it has ever had is that there is the support available to make improvements. They are small and incremental, but overall they keep the plane competitive. Could a fresh design truly be worth the cost if the efficiency gains aren't that big? The timing of a new design isn't necessarily equated with when the engineering support is available. The 737 sold about 850 planes last year. That's more than twice the current production rate. With a backlog increasing like that and production slots sold all the way out to 2014, is a 737RS needed or does it just prove how good the 737NG is?

Pushing for a 777 replacement earlier can make sense. The original 777 design is older than the 737NG design. The 773ER and 772LR are fresher designs, but they were not as dramatic as the NG was to the 737 line. Airbus is coming out with a new competitor. Boeing wouldn't want to lose market share.

The wild card is the new pressure coming from new players on the 737. Embraer, Bombardier, and Sukhoi all have jets in development pushing that size. China and Japan are also developing 100-120 seat jets. That could erode away the Boeing market. That's where Boeing needs to be concerned.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30547 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 10969 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 17):
Do you mean to say that 737ER and A319LR have lower fuel burn per seat/nm than widebodies on long missions?

No, that they burn less fuel, period, then widebodies. Simplistic, but true.


Quoting NA (Reply 19):
If men like the fleet manager of Qantas say the "777 is a thing of yesterday" (Interview in Aero international, April issue) Boeing might well think what to do.

And yet men like the fleet managers of AF, NZ, NH, OZ, BA, CX, CO, DL, EK, KL, PA, QR and others all saying "the 777 works for us today and tomorrow and that is why we have ordered it / added to our orders" (sales since January 2007), Boeing might well think that the 777 is not under near-term threat.

No offense to QF, but they are only one airline. A darn good airline, but many of those airlines above are, as well.

[Edited 2008-04-25 12:12:53]

User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 6 hours ago) and read 10874 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
No offense to QF, but they are only one airline. A darn good airline, but many of those airlines above are, as well.

 checkmark  have to agree with Stitch.

QF is one of the few airlines with an insatiable appetite for range. Why compromise your product portfolio towards the specific desires of customers who represent a mere 5% of the market? Could be left to niche players, in a duopoly market it may be ignored altogether.


User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10638 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 5 hours ago) and read 10367 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
And yet men like the fleet managers of AF, NZ, NH, OZ, BA, CX, CO, DL, EK, KL, PA, QR and others all saying "the 777 works for us today and tomorrow

What would you expect from someone who has heavily invested in the 777 in the past or present? I see almost none in this list of whom a sizable future 777 order could be expected.


25 Astuteman : It's a bit ironic, I suppose, that, although the response to the "warmed-over" A330 "fell short", the "un-warmed over" A330 appears to be holding its
26 EA772LR : Great post I also believe that an early start will generate strong sells for the first replacement narrow-body to market, but, with thousands pf narr
27 LAXDESI : A single engine Cessna burns less fuel than a 737. What is the point of these simplistic observations? It makes no sense to compare total aircraft fu
28 EBJ1248650 : You're talking about developing a 737 replacement in secret and then suddenly revealing it for all the world to see. I don't think that kind of thing
29 Bringiton : Boeing should play it smart . This isnt about EGO's here but about BUISNESS . How many 777 do boeing roll out each year ? How many 300ER's ? With the
30 Stitch : Yes it is. But so is fuel burn per payload carried. Many people seem to think that the A350 will burn less fuel then the 777 is all that matters to a
31 LAXDESI : Using widebody's calculation, for a 6000nm mission, 788's lower fuel burn over A332 will save about $11,000. 788(revising the figure given the report
32 DocLightning : Of course the A350 will be more efficient than the 777. The 777 had EIS in 1995. The A350 will be 20 years newer. Boeing can come out with Y3 later th
33 ConcordeBoy : But not per passenger. If it was, then we ~would~ be flying 737/A32x over the water routinely. And also a worthless, in terms of priority of consider
34 Thegeek : I understand that NBs DO burn less fuel per passenger, as they are lighter per passenger. Stitch's point is that this comparison ignores other factor
35 KochamLOT : wouldnt a 737 replacement make more sense now?..before gas prices push regionals and smaller 'legacy' routes into prop planes? some airlines are chang
36 Tdscanuck : Lighter per passenger does not, by itself, mean less fuel per passenger. When comparing small to big planes, there can be a large difference in lift/
37 KC135TopBoom : Yes, You could say the same about Airbus with their failed attempts at competing against the B-787 with the A-350 Mk.1, Mk.2, Mk.3, Mk.4, Mk.5, and M
38 FruteBrute : Well then the exact same thing can be said for the Boeing 787. Until the thing has been flown, stress tested, and has a history of mx reviews, no one
39 Thegeek : This is mostly true. However, the comparison is not completely unfair as widebodies are used on segments that can easily be handled by narrow bodies.
40 SXDFC : Since were talking about a 737RS we have to mention WN of course, why? well is it me or they will indeed play a major role in the designs of this airc
41 Ikramerica : In terms of weight savings, no. Especially how Airbus is building it, using a hybrid of conventional and composite methodology. The 787 is not lighte
42 EBJ1248650 : How far can Boeing go with upgrades to the existing 777 airframe before they finally have to settle down and design its replacement? I have said befor
43 Ikramerica : But… the 747 is a 40 year old, non-CAD designed platform. Though the 748i is drastically improved over the 747-100/200, it is still an older design
44 Thegeek : QF is often criticised for this, but I can see where the 777's problem was for QF. The main route that it was needed for was MEL-LAX. By the time the
45 WingedMigrator : Part of the problem is that Airbus has never mentioned any empty weight figures in public. One has to back into these numbers from other parameters.
46 Astuteman : Hang on a minute..... Last month didn't we all conclude that direct VLA flights consumed a considerable amount more fuel than the same journey carrie
47 Thegeek : Every aircraft will have a break even range at any given payload. And divert distances can have an effect on that too. But I'm sure you already know
48 Astuteman : Wish I'd said it..... Regards
49 CJAContinental : Thats quite a theory, though I doubt that is the case. A similar theory could be that Boeing is falsely exploiting difficulties on the 787 to ease th
50 Srbmod : One potential risk Boeing (and Airbus) face in delaying any narrowbody replacements is the fact that a few of their competitors could come in and stea
51 Thegeek : Actually, I can foresee Y3 beating Y1 to market. If an engine advance is what is needed for Y1, why not just put the new engines on the 737/A320? It's
52 Post contains links Fruitbat : In the current economic environment it's pretty damn close to all-important - it's the single commopn factor causing the size of losses recently anno
53 StickShaker : No aircraft manufacturer in their right mind would attempt to to launch and bring to market two completely separate clean sheet designs on the scale
54 Rheinbote : Let's try a more realistic comparison: Say you manage to produce 500 narrowbodys per year at 30-35m (you don't get much more these days) that's 15-17
55 SEPilot : True, because the airlines that need a plane in the next couple of years can get one. Once the delivery time for a 787 is within hailing time of the
56 Columba : The best selling variant of the 777 is currently the 77W, the 777-200ER/LR did not see many new orders and mostly orders of airlines that already oper
57 Tdscanuck : Because there are a bunch of people who (wrongly) assume that 777 sales will go to zero the second the A350 becomes available. Well, at one end of th
58 Ken777 : While I would love to see both Y1 & Y3 move ahead I believe there are a few problems in the way. First, there are the engines - which will be a critic
59 SEPilot : As one much more familiar with the details of what Boeing can do, I'm curious as to what precisely you think Boeing can do to the 777 that they haven
60 Ikramerica : No, it's not in any way "all CAD" if you consider CAD to be Computer Aided DESIGN. It was not designed with the aid of computers for the most part. I
61 Moo : Well, to reply to your quote in reverse - the 787-3 hasn't exactly emerged as a market currently worth pursuing, as indicated by only 43 737-3 orders
62 Post contains links Rheinbote : Sometimes it helps to read someone's post thoroughly. Again, I know that profit margins on widebody programs are higher than profit margins on narrow
63 Tdscanuck : The 77W/77L were fairly minor upgrades in terms of systems and aerodynamics. They were mostly a stretch with an engine upgrade. A 737NG-style overhau
64 Thegeek : What's bang for what buck would retrofitting GEnx technology (including integrated blade rotors, counter rotation, still more bypass and higher pressu
65 JoeCanuck : One thing that the 350 can never achieve is 10 abreast. While it's not the most comfortable configuration, it's not bad. I've flown in Emirates econom
66 LAXDESI : EK's three class 773ER offers 18 flat bed first, 42 reclining business, and 320 economy for a total of 380 seats in 330 sq. meter cabin area. The A35
67 Astuteman : It can. And probably will, at some stage, with some carriers. Just not in EK's configuration. It is undoubtely disadvantaged in this respect, though.
68 DocLightning : What boeing needs to focus on right now is a plane to replace the 757. And I don't just mean the 737-9. I mean a 757 *replacement.* The beauty of the
69 Stitch : A 737-700ER can do that now, albeit with a mid-two-digit pax load.
70 SEPilot : So what improvement would that give? And how much more would you get out of a full CFRP clean-sheet design?
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's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement posted Tue Sep 18 2007 00:57:10 by GlobeEx
Boeing Surges Ahead Of Airbus On Orders So Far posted Thu Sep 13 2007 17:09:56 by Mptpa
Boeing 2006 Sales Ahead Of 2005 Total posted Fri Oct 13 2006 22:40:01 by AirMailer
WSJ: Airbus Pushes Ahead Of Boeing At Dubai posted Wed Nov 23 2005 14:41:30 by FlyingHippo
What 1st? 737 Or 777(A) Replacement? posted Tue Jun 21 2005 02:16:29 by Propulsion
777 Engine Really As Big As The Fuselage Of A 737? posted Sun Jul 22 2001 04:40:16 by SJCguy
Boeing Delivers 700th 777‏ posted Tue Mar 4 2008 10:54:57 by 777ER
New Larnaca Airport Ahead Of Schedule posted Mon Dec 31 2007 07:16:35 by OA260
UA Cancels Some Flights Ahead Of Midwest Ice Storm posted Fri Nov 30 2007 19:30:29 by 777fan
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch