Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Big Boeing 777 Upgrade, What's The Plan?!  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 45125 times:

.
After initial good sales beating the A340 the Boeing 777-200/ER/LR series is loosing market share rapidly. The 777-200LR is top heavy and attractive for a limited market, the 300ER takes the bulk of the 777 passenger backlog. The A330-300 gained terrain on flights up to 10 hrs and the A350-900XWB scored large orders. EK, BA and ILFC asked for 777 improvements.



1.5 Year ago McNerney said they might improve the 777 to counter the A350XWB. Since then hundreds of XWB have been ordered, the 787-10 has been delayed without a new target date. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ing-studies-next-step-for-777.html

End 2008, both 777-200ER and 777-200LR had 26 unfilled orders. In 2008 the overall Boeing 777 backlog shrunk. I think the 777 needs an upgrade, notably the 777-200ER/LR.
http://active.boeing.com/commercial/...lModel=777&ViewReportF=View+Report

Anybody knows what Boeing 7 year plans are to defend their market share in the 300 seat segment?



No doubt GE wants to give Boeing continued exclusivity >80 k lbs, if sales volumes justify it..

183 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAC788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 45063 times:

Well I believe the answer to what Boeing's plans are for the 300-seat market would come partially from the 787-3, which has up to 330 seats. Also, the 787-10 is designed to replace the 777-200ER.

Keep in mind, the A350 program has produced two scale models thus far. The 787 program is still leaps ahead of the A350 IMHO.


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 45037 times:

Nice pics as always. Thanks.

Here is what Tim Clark had to say about the 77W and 3510 in an interview with the Seattle PI.

"On paper it (the A350-1000) is going to burn a lot less fuel than the 777-300ER,'' Clark said. "What does that mean for the 777-300ER if Boeing does a makeover? I'm sure they can get an 8 to 12 percent improvement on their plane. But for now, they are hung up on the 787 and have their best brains working on that one. As soon as they get that sorted out I'm sure they will turn their attention to the 777-300ER. It carries more passengers and has a higher payload than the A350-1000 over a longer distance, so there are huge benefits to the 300ER. It's just that the bottom line, in terms of profit per seat, will be higher for the A350-1000 than the 300ER. But the 300ER is a very good airplane for us.''

8-12% is impressive. I guess it will come mainly from improved GE90 SFC and weight reductions in the airframe.


http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44926 times:



Quoting AC788 (Reply 1):
Keep in mind, the A350 program has produced two scale models thus far

So did Boeing; even one 1:1 scale model  duck 

Jokes aside, the 787 will fly and so far is ahead of the A350.

But back to the topic Boeing will deal with the 777NG after the first 787 and 747-8 are delivered. They are working on two new aircraft right now, if that is finished they can go on with the next project. They are lucky that Airbus is having its own problems with the A400M



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44880 times:



"You might have noticed that over the past few months there's been a lack of new information on the A350-1000 and 787-10. Both are waiting to see what the other does first. The 777 question will remain open until they resolve the question of whether GE will figure on the A350"

"..if the XWB goes forward Boeing could move out with one more iteration of the 777 - say a 777-400ER. They could improve the economics a little bit more, but it very much depends on what will happen to the 787-10 and A350-1000."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ould-force-new-777-derivative.html


User currently offlineRheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44795 times:

If the A350 delivers as promised, it will be very tough to compete for the 777. The 777 would struggle to achieve or even come close to the A350-efficiency. Of course earlier availability may generate a lot of sales for another decade but with each empty A350 production slot a 777 will be build less.

Thus the long term fortune of the 777 lays in the condition after the word 'if' in my first sentence.

I think that even if the payload capability sits a little above the A350 capability airlines will switch to the more efficient plane as soon as it is available.

On the other hand the large present customer base will help to lengthen the 777 production time.


User currently offlineAC788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44774 times:



Quoting Columba (Reply 3):
So did Boeing; even one 1:1 scale model   

Haha right you are  laughing 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):

Thats a really interesting article thanks for that Keesje. I guess it would be a lot easier for Boeing to respond to the a350-1000 with a 777NG. It'll be interesting to see these designs once they are released.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

GE has announced a small improvement in SFC for the GE90-11xB series (2-3%, I think).

The 777-200LR remains the most-capable twin on the market and doesn't look to be giving that position up anytime soon. Admittedly, there does not seem to be a great need to haul 65t 7500nm, but still, I don't think she's done recording sales. I do agree she's pretty much supplanted the 777-200ER in terms of future sales.

Boeing has likely lowered the "green weight" of the 77L and 77W as much as they easily can. The next step would be a materials change, which brings it's own set of complexities. I do not know what type of development, testing and certification processes are needed to say, move from Al to Al-Li panels, from external rivets to laser welding, and say a new CFRP wingbox. And I don't know if those changes would really make the 77L and 77W significantly competitive against an A350X that hits all of Airbus' stated performance goals.

I do know Boeing had been studying lightening the "dry operating weight" of the plane, but to maximize that reduction, I expect airlines would need to commit to whatever seating product Boeing had selected since just lightening the overhead bins, galleys and lavs will not be enough.

By now, the 777 line should be close to being fully amortized. So the most effective option might be to reduce the average selling price of the plane and leverage it's strong and predictable performance already in airline fleets. Airlines are conservative bodies, by nature, and if the option is saving $10 million on a plane that they have plenty of "hard" operational data on and $20 million on a plane they have none, chances are they'll go for the smaller savings with the comfort that at least they know where they will stand...

Obviously, it's not going to win them all. The A350X's sales to date show that. But if it wins another 250, that is another 3-4 years in the backlog at current production rates.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44467 times:

Boeing 777 enhancements could be focussed at reducing CASM, enhance cabins and set it apart from the upcoming A350-900 XWB e.g.:

 arrow  weight savings / lighter materials
 arrow  improved engines, Trent 1000 / GENX technology / noise absorbing cowlings
 arrow  an inbetween -250 4/5 row / cargo stretch (setting it apart from A350-900)
 arrow  using lare available overhead space for trolleys stowage creating more room in cabin
 arrow  winglets / NG tip extensions
 arrow  bigger windows 787 style
 arrow  cabin noise reducing interior / materials
 arrow  side wall optimized for 10 abreast seating & 10-15% bigger bins


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44417 times:



Quoting AC788 (Reply 1):
The 787 program is still leaps ahead of the A350 IMHO.

In what way, if I may ask?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-200LR remains the most-capable twin on the market and doesn't look to be giving that position up anytime soon.

No, not the entire market by any stretch.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10183 posts, RR: 97
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 44404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
After initial good sales beating the A340 the Boeing 777-200/ER/LR series is loosing market share rapidly.

I'm going to guess that the 787-9 will be an alternative to the 777-200ER in many cases.....

Quoting Swallow (Reply 2):

8-12% is impressive. I guess it will come mainly from improved GE90 SFC and weight reductions in the airframe.

Difficult to see where that might come from. That said, I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand. I don't expect TC made the numbers up..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
GE has announced a small improvement in SFC for the GE90-11xB series (2-3%, I think).

FWIW I reckon that's a fairly big improvement (but well worthwhile).
If the A380 story is anything to go by, EK specifically seem to be able to make good use of the extra payload carrying ability that additional range capability confers on longer sectors..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
The 777-200LR remains the most-capable twin on the market and doesn't look to be giving that position up anytime soon.

Agree with that. Who knows when an A350-900LR might come along.

For now, the most likely substitute for a 772LR is likely to be an A380..  duck   mischievous   biggrin 

Rgds


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 44244 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
No, not the entire market by any stretch.

Please show me another twin-engined commercial airliner that will fly 65t of payload 7500nm.

The 737 family can't do it.

The 757 family can't do it.

The 767 family can't do it.

The 787 family (as currently defined) can't do it.

The A300 family can't do it.

The A310 family can't do it.

The A320 family can't do it.

The A330 family can't do it.

The A350 family (as currently defined) can't do it.

And even if you want to be pedantic about my wording, the only other twin I can think of that haul 65t 7500nm is the 777 Freighter - though it can fly it about 8000nm. The A330-200F at 65t has a design range of ~4700nm.


Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
Agree with that. Who knows when an A350-900LR might come along.

And even when it comes along, we don't know what it's maximum payload will be or what it's range will be with that payload. All Airbus has said to date is that it would have an MTOW equal to the A350-1000, which is also all they have said about the A350-900F.

I expect it will be good, but it is expected to be a lighter frame then the 777-200LR and that might affect it's ability to lift 65t of payload... It will have a smaller belly cargo volume then the 777-200LR per Airbus' information, so that might limit total payload, as well, even if it has sufficient TOW to lift such an amount on paper.

[Edited 2009-01-20 08:54:29]

[Edited 2009-01-20 09:08:55]

User currently offlineAC788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 44077 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 9):
In what way, if I may ask?

In terms of the programs progress.
The 787 is nearing it's first flight (providing there aren't any more significant delays) and the A350 just had it's design frozen, as far as I know. Therefore, the 787 production is and will continue to be ahead of the A350's.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10183 posts, RR: 97
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 44051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I expect it will be good, but it is expected to be a lighter frame then the 777-200LR and that might affect it's ability to lift 65t of payload...

Pretty much a similar situation to the A350-1000/773ER scenario - you'll see an Airbus product that has a lower operating cost, but slightly less capacity, and it will be interesting to see where the trade-off may go.

Again, it wouldn't surprise me if 300Nm-500Nm additional range (which one might expect from a 777 improvement programme) makes quite a difference to an airline like EK at those "beyond the MSP range" sectors

Rgds


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 43909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
Pretty much a similar situation to the A350-1000/773ER scenario - you'll see an Airbus product that has a lower operating cost, but slightly less capacity, and it will be interesting to see where the trade-off may go.

Yup. As I noted, the 777-200LR isn't setting sales records because most airlines don't need to fly 300 passengers and bags the nearside of 10,000nm any more then they need to fly maximum payload the far side of 7,000nm. If you do, there is really no contest - you buy the 77L. But if you don't, there is the A333 and 77E now, for example, and the 787-9 and A350X in the near future.


User currently offlineParapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1643 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 43669 times:

The primary reason IMHO that we have not seen any plans for an improved 77W is that the 77W is a replacement for the 747 series and they have been busting a gut to sell one of these (748i) beasts for over 2 years now!

Only when they accept that "the game is up" on the 748i and that LH will be the only large airline order (20-40 copies). (They may well pick up the odd additional order). will they promote the improved 77W.

What it will be -who knows. It could be a small stretch as stated adding 20 -30 Pax.This in itself move it away from the 351. Or they could simply improve the existing offering. (better interior -lighter -improved sfc.

Whatever it is they will have to go public soon as the 351 appears (now) to be set in stone so they know what they have to shoot at.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 43631 times:



Quoting Swallow (Reply 2):
"On paper it (the A350-1000) is going to burn a lot less fuel than the 777-300ER,'' Clark said. "What does that mean for the 777-300ER if Boeing does a makeover? I'm sure they can get an 8 to 12 percent improvement on their plane. But for now, they are hung up on the 787 and have their best brains working on that one. As soon as they get that sorted out I'm sure they will turn their attention to the 777-300ER. It carries more passengers and has a higher payload than the A350-1000 over a longer distance, so there are huge benefits to the 300ER. It's just that the bottom line, in terms of profit per seat, will be higher for the A350-1000 than the 300ER. But the 300ER is a very good airplane for us.''

Also, IIRC, didn't Clark also recently state that the A350-1000XWB will have the total payload closer to that of a 777-200ER?



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 42636 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
GE has announced a small improvement in SFC for the GE90-11xB series (2-3%, I think).

I wonder whether that might be enough for QF to reconsider nonstop SYD/MEL-LHR service.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
I'm going to guess that the 787-9 will be an alternative to the 777-200ER in many cases.....

I cannot imagine any market for which I would buy a 777-200ER rather than a 787-9 if price and availability were equal. Of course, the 787-9 is priced much lower than the 777-200ER, but the 777-200ER is available sooner and on a more reliable timetable. If I already had a 777 fleet and needed only a few more, then commonality would be significant factor.


User currently offlineSwallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 555 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 42465 times:



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 13):
Again, it wouldn't surprise me if 300Nm-500Nm additional range (which one might expect from a 777 improvement programme) makes quite a difference to an airline like EK at those "beyond the MSP range" sectors

 checkmark  Which is probably explains these statement by EK bigwigs.

''The 350 was the most suitable aircraft for our type of mission,'' Al-Maktoum said at a press conference. Asked why Emirates chose Airbus over Boeing, airline President Tim Clark said: ''The 787-9 wasn't suitable for us and the 787-10 wasn't available to us.'' Emirates is willing to talk to Boeing when the 787-10 is available, he said.

By most suitable aircraft, he means better range/payload for the 350 over the current 787 offering. EK like its big 440sqm composite wing with large span which provides better aerodynamics and reduced fuel burn.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
GE has announced a small improvement in SFC for the GE90-11xB series (2-3%, I think).

By working in improvements from the GEnx

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 10):
Quoting Swallow (Reply 2):

8-12% is impressive. I guess it will come mainly from improved GE90 SFC and weight reductions in the airframe.

Difficult to see where that might come from. That said, I wouldn't want to dismiss it out of hand. I don't expect TC made the numbers up..

They are also improving aerodynamics and utilizing data from an improvement study on the 77L done in 06-07 when Qantas wanted year-round non-stop capability SYD-LHR

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
Also, IIRC, didn't Clark also recently state that the A350-1000XWB will have the total payload closer to that of a 777-200ER?

What I recall is this:

1. Both the 359 and 77E seat 290 in EK's standard 3-class configuration despite the 777's 10 across advantage

2. The 359 burns 20% less fuel in EK configuration and mission profile, but the 77E lifts 1.3t more. The 350 wins coz of lower MTOW, TXWB engine and that wing

3. The A350-1000 will burn 21per cent less trip fuel, and on a seat basis 11 per cent less than the 777-300ER, according to EK mission profiles. But the 777-300ER lifts another 6000kg of structural payload

I think it is safe to assume the 3510 will out lift the 77E but fall short of the 77W. Expect an improved 77W to find favor at EK and take priority in fleet planning over the 7810 coz the 359 does what EK wants. In other words, EK prefers Boeing work on the 777NG than the 7810



The grass is greener where you water it
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 42042 times:



Quoting Swallow (Reply 18):
Expect an improved 77W to find favor at EK and take priority in fleet planning over the 7810 coz the 359 does what EK wants. In other words, EK prefers Boeing work on the 777NG than the 7810

I would not bet either way on that. EK would be very happy with either a 787-10 or 777-300ERX depending on the specs. How either can beat the A350-1000 is difficult to see but EK would be happy with whichever could.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 41910 times:



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
No doubt GE wants to give Boeing continued exclusivity >80 k lbs, if sales volumes justify it..

One presumes a lot of potential customers will hope that case won't come to fruition !!



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 41024 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Keesje (Thread starter):
No doubt GE wants to give Boeing continued exclusivity >80 k lbs, if sales volumes justify it.



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 20):
One presumes a lot of potential customers will hope that case won't come to fruition!

All those customers have to do is write GE a check. The only thing holding GE back from powering the A350X is the financial projections. As soon as GE is confident they can make money off such a program, they'll give Airbus and those customers any engine thrust level they want, up to 125,000lbs or more (not that the A350X would need anything nearly that high).


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 40851 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):

I was actually referring rather loosely to the awful experiences of certain customers (from the face of it) with GE engines, namely, Singapore Airlines and Air France.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 40642 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
As soon as GE is confident they can make money off such a program, they'll give Airbus and those customers any engine thrust level they want, up to 125,000lbs or more (not that the A350X would need anything nearly that high).

Not true. GE does not want to develop a new engine for the A350-1000 that Airbus says will be aimed directly at the 777-300ER, which GE has the exclusive engine contract for. GE invested in the 777 programs, they are a stake holder.

From the horses mouth : http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/aerospace/archives/117818.asp


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31259 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (5 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 40636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 22):
I was actually referring rather loosely to the awful experiences of certain customers (from the face of it) with GE engines, namely, Singapore Airlines and Air France.

Considering how many GE powerplants AF operates (to say nothing of the claims by some that AF won't buy a widebody that doesn't have GE power), and the number of 77Ws SQ has been buying, they must have gotten over it.  Wink


25 Frigatebird : I'm sure Boeing had expected to sell more than the 50 odd 777's they sold in 2008. But I believe the current financial crisis was the biggest factor
26 Post contains images Stitch : With respect, the only thing not true is your consistent claim that Boeing has GE legally bound by contract to not provide any engine to any non-Boei
27 Zvezda : The A330 is a great airliner for its mission, but add the structure needed to match the 787-8 in payload/range performance and the CASM gap will open
28 Nomadd22 : Wasn't there talk of a composite wing box for the 777 a while ago? Or was that just idle speculation over Mint Juleps?
29 Stitch : I did suggest such a thing, as have others. I don't recall a formal acknowledgment of such a thing by Boeing, but I would not be surprised if it wasn
30 Zvezda : Indeed. It would be stunning if a composite wing box for the 777 had not been discussed at Boeing. I expect the bean counters would have asked the en
31 Rheinbote : I think a 777 CFRP wing was studied in the frame of the NASA/Boeing 21st Century Wing research program.
32 DfwRevolution : IIRC, the exclusivity contract was just for 777 variants over 700,000 lbs MTOW. This is vintage Keesje hyperbole. Losing market share to what? Rapidl
33 Manfredj : Does anyone else believe the delay of certain 787 models is a strategic move on Boeing's part? I think the plans for the 787-1 are very much intact. T
34 Acheron : I'm puzzled at how people think that a "warmed-up" 777 can compete with the A350 but when the warmed-up version of the 330 that was the early iteratio
35 Keesje : This is vintage DfwRevolution half truth. I say 777-200/ER/LR is loosing market share & you reply with combined types 777 sales, ignoring these were
36 Stitch : Not really. With the 787-8 so late and the production ramp looking to be more shallow then expected, Boeing just doesn't have any slots available to
37 Zvezda : I would say the 787-9 and A350-900 are the death of the 777-200ER. I've been posting for years that I don't see any plausible way for the 777 to comp
38 Kaitak744 : Would that be possible without having to do the long fuselage pressurization tests? (larger windows would change the integrity of the side walls.)
39 Stitch : The 747-8 is supposed to be getting the window belt from the 777, but I can't remember if we determined that meant they were also getting the 777's w
40 MotorHussy : Re-engine the 77W (and other minors) while they work on a CFRP replacement and get the 787-10 in the air. The replacement should be a natural 10-abrea
41 Jacobin777 : From the quote below: Even after the various iterations/incarnations of the A350 (including the XWB), the B777 still has had some great sales the pas
42 EBJ1248650 : They're two entirely different airplanes, both in size and load carrying capability. How can the A380 realistically substitute for the 772LR?
43 Stitch : Both can haul their maximum structural payloads ~7500nm, or lower payload amounts farther. They are pretty much the two longest-ranged commercial air
44 Ikramerica : The 777-200 lost market share to the 777-200ER. That was the plan. The 777-200ER has now lost market share to the 77W and 77L mostly. The 77W gives a
45 Ken4556 : The 777W are proven airplanes with proven performance records. The 777W really started selling well after the plane proved its performance in the air.
46 Stitch : I think where the A330-300 really stole the sales from was the 777-200. She's significantly lighter and while the initial versions were about as hobb
47 RSBJ : All of this banter is predicated on Airbus meeting said A350 performance goals, which if I recall, are extremely lofty, no? I don't have time to condu
48 Stitch : Until Airbus publicly releases data, all we really can discuss is what Airbus has claimed in their presentations unless somebody with any info wants t
49 WunalaYann : Probably because most airlines realise that while the lucky 80 front passengers might be willing to do it, the not-so-lucky 220 people sitting in the
50 JoeCanuck : Well...the 787 can be a 9 abreast aircraft. Until Thompson seats become the norm, the 330 is 8 abreast. The 777 can go 10 abreast without too much ef
51 Stitch : What would be interesting is to see what the 77L looks like in 11-abreast Thompson seating. She could fly those routes current 77Es are doing with 9-a
52 JoeCanuck : An 11 abreast 777...? Perish the thought. 10 across on EK's 777's is a butt numbing, elbow squishing affair. You'd have to be a real people person to
53 Astuteman : Have to say this one puzzles me a bit. The A330-200 already has a greater maximum structural payload than the 787-8 There are suggestions/indications
54 XT6Wagon : The reason is that the 787 and A350 can't touch the 777LR family for a healthy part of its range/payload curve. So there are things that it can do th
55 Post contains images Keesje : I have the feeling many people think the 777 sold great, its a great aircraft, the A350 is far away and everything will be ok. If you look at the actu
56 Zvezda : That is my impression also. It strikes me as short-term wishful thinking. The 787-9's 257.4 sq meter cabin floor area is 92.3% of the 777-200's 279.0
57 Rheinwaldner : In such cases the better efficiency always trumps (of course the second key criteria is availability, but if given the efficiency excels). If an new
58 Dennys : hello, all of you , Don't you think a 4 engined 777-400 provided with 400 pax F/C/Y with a range of 11000nm would filely be the way to fly LHR - SYD a
59 Post contains images Keesje : Agree. The current wing is very much optimized for a specific payload /range, as are e.g. the GENX engines. A bigger wing, bigger engine (e.g Trent X
60 AirbusA6 : Just as the A330 has been selling like hotcakes, despite the launch of the 787, the 77W will continue to sell well, as while it may not be as efficien
61 Rheinwaldner : I agree again. Boeing is bound to two or three clean sheet programs to be on par with Airbus. Airbus only one: VLA class: no new clean sheet design b
62 Stitch : I imagine 11-abreast in Thompson is likely more comfortable then a straight 9-abreast cabin.
63 Post contains links Keesje : Boeing will have to make tough choices to be ready when the economy recovers and / or oil goes $100 again. I think the 747-8i, 787-3 and 767 products
64 Zvezda : No, not at all. Two engines would be better than four. Also, a stretch is not needed because nonstop SYD/MEL-LHR services would be unlikely to includ
65 Keesje : Thompson seats need more pitch to get in out of them. Say 3 inch or 10%. If an airline, like Delta probably will, goes from 2-3-2to 2-4-2- on the 767
66 FlyABR : i'd much rather see the resurrection of the tri-jet! three holers will be dearly missed once the remaining dc10s and md11s are put out to pasture ...
67 JoeCanuck : Didn't Boeing have a plan for an APU large enough to provide some real thrust before the engine makers came up with enough thrust for the 777? Consid
68 Stitch : Yes. It was called a "thrusting APU". Keesje is a big proponent of them. Weight and complexity. You need to get air to it, which means large ducting
69 JoeCanuck : Would it be more or less complex than trying to design an all new engine, or upgrade a current engine to a larger thrust rating? There's already an e
70 Jetlife2 : Correct. Public info. GE has also made plenty of public statements about its position on the A350, specifically related to the -1000 and 777. Rest of
71 Flighty : That was the smartest thing Boeing did in recent years. A rare moment of pragmatism, B realized they were years behind schedule. Remember when the 78
72 Post contains links Joecanuck : From the Thompson website; http://www.thompsonsolutions.co.uk/ts_economy.html The High Capacity version offers up to 15% increase in capacity (or alt
73 Khobar : But for what difference in fuel burn? If - IF - Boeing's guesstimates are good and the 787 performs as well as expected, there will be a substantial
74 Astuteman : I accept that, with the current engines. There will almost without doubt be a double-digit fuel burn delta based on engine SFC alone. My response was
75 Zvezda : No, not at all. The 777W/L beats the A340NG handily for any mission. The A330 holds its own pretty well against the 787 only for shorter to mid-range
76 Rheinwaldner : Ok the two stick quite closely together. Some parts overlap and no clear boundary can be seen. Most evident difference is the wing area. It tells me
77 Post contains images Keesje : If you assume the pitch in economy is already a "typical" / "brochure" 34 inch, you do not need to remove many rows.. marketing. Airbus has already p
78 Astuteman : It would. However, there appears to be a view that the first 787-8's off the block will have little more range capability than the existing A330-200,
79 Zkpilot : The 777 is significantly (not hugely though) larger than the A330 and has a larger range. Its configuration is already close to that of the A350 so w
80 Zeke : Not to mention the 40 million more you need to pay for the 77L over the 789/358/333 just for the airframes, and then you have the ongoing fuel differ
81 Parapente : We don't "know" that a new engine on the 330 would require a complete new wing spar now do we. Indeed there is evidence (see above posted picture) tha
82 Post contains links and images Keesje : Parapente, I would have expected a little more patriotism. Rolls did a good job on the A380, provides the leading engine on the A330 and is launch en
83 B777LRF : Look, guys and gals, while the LR is capable of some stunning range/payload figures, the sale numbers does nothing but confirm that there's a very lim
84 Zkpilot : Try telling that to SQ with its direct flight to New York! The whole point of such ULH flights is that it is for F/J/Y+ only as Y fares would be cons
85 Parapente : B777LRF is of course right.However the (as I see it) only development that can be achieved -and many airline chiefs have said it - is a small improvem
86 JoeCanuck : Before the 350 pops the final cap in the 777's @ss, it first has to prove itself. I think with the recent new aircraft debacles, customers are going t
87 Dennys : Sorry but for the couple of years comming , the SIA A345s will continue to play its right role on the NYC and LAX non stp flights , before the A350 78
88 Zvezda : I've heard a lot of suggestions that the A330-300's CASM may be roughly competitive with that of early 787-8s (and I think that's plausible). Are you
89 Astuteman : I don't think so. I was specifically suggesting that the range/payloads (ref to EARLY 787-8's), might be closer than was originally thought. But impl
90 Zvezda : I don't see any such implication. The alternative explanation is the earlier availability of A330s.
91 Burnsie28 : My guess would be something like the 787 cabin, better lighting, bins, seats, and cabin enviroment (humidity, cabin pressure, etc)
92 Baroque : Hmmm, just trying to work out what weights you mean there. I am not sure about the later GEs but the later RRs have been said to be lighter for a giv
93 Stitch : While Boeing and Airbus use different metrics to define what an "empty" plane weighs, the two planes might end up being close in weight when in a "gr
94 BoeingVista : Trent 768-60 was certified with a basic engine weight of 11023 lbs back in 2001
95 Baroque : After I posted I found that the Wiki entry on Trents has weights for the whole lot -except! The T772 is given at 10,550 lbs and the T800s at 13,100 e
96 Astuteman : Don't disagree at all. It's obvious that the difference is more than just fuel burn Rgds
97 DocLightning : There are people who fly SIN-JFK every week or two. For them, flying even in Y class is still a long, boring routine when they just want to get home
98 Zeke : Dry weights from the FAA TCDS T700 - 14,368 lb T1000 - 12,710 lb CF6-80E1 - 11,225 lb GEnx - 12,882 lb For the 772 engine GE90 - 17,400 lb T800 - 13,
99 B777LRF : Right, so you've managed to identify ONE single route that may (or may not, none of us are privvy to the inner workings of SQ's financials) be profita
100 Zvezda : The 777F has no direct competition until Airbus offer an A350F -- but that is likely to be at least ten years from now. I agree that nearly all futur
101 Post contains images EPA001 : Though this might be true, you have to ask yourself the question how many airliners will operate these planes on the maximum distance routes they can
102 Zvezda : Does your vision of a 787-10 and 787-11 include a new wing and new maingear?
103 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes! It does. But I am of course speculating here. I have no inside knowledge whatsoever to back this up.   But it seems logical to me. Boeing is ye
104 Zvezda : If Boeing do develop a new larger wing and six-wheel bogeys for a 787-10 and 787-11, then that will be the end of further 777 development. Such a deve
105 EPA001 : That is why it looks logical to me. A new wing and more composites would be extremely expensive upgrades. Most likely the investments will not be ear
106 Stitch : A more important question is how many airlines are going to trade "maximum" range for "maximum" payload and fly that farther then they can no. An A33
107 Lightsaber : I've read every post on this thread. What I haven't found is a cost effective solution to keep the 777 selling well after A350 EIS for passenger duty.
108 EPA001 : Maybe you have not found it because maybe that solution does not exist? That is why I am betting on the B787-10 & B787-11! It would be imho the bette
109 Stitch : Well I suppose they could slap new engines on it. The top-end Trent XWB would work with the 777-200ER frame. Seriously, just as I expect a re-engined
110 Zvezda : About the size of XWB engines? I suggested that here about three years ago. Why do you expect that?
111 Revelation : You kind of lost me here. You say 777 can benefit from a new wing with new materials, yet you say 787 is not gaining much benefit from its new wing w
112 Post contains images Stitch : I of course do not think it would be, I just omitted the word. At least my set-up ("just as") was okay. [Edited 2009-01-24 12:05:03]
113 Post contains links Jambrain : Does anyone have the numbers to compare a 772LR with XWB to A359, I attempted to infer the L/D and TSFC numbers from aviationspecialist to plug into
114 Stitch : I do not believe Rolls has released formal SFC numbers for the Trent XWB series. Then again, I do not believe they have even finished the design of t
115 Astuteman : That's ok, but the Trent XWB will get nowhere near the thrust required by a 772LR. It would be just fine for this... Rgds
116 JoeCanuck : I believe, the 77W will have a size and lift advantage over the 350-1000. As a result, while they may overlap in some areas, they don't in all areas.
117 Jfk777 : YES, those SQ 777-200ER can be uprated back to Trent 892 and fly 15 hour flights like DL and AA use them for. DL for one needs more 777 if only for A
118 Post contains images Keesje : I notice many people switch to the succesfull 300ER & 787 sales. The center of this discussion is the -300 seat market & the small backlog of the 777-
119 Stitch : I suppose it depends on how much they can lift. A 747-400BCF carries almost as much payload as a 747-400F, but I don't know if the 777BCF would need
120 Lightsaber : The question is how close is 'close enough?" The 777F has some capabilities that are only needed trans-Pacific and in many cases only to bypass ANC.
121 EPA001 : No, that is not what I am saying. Maybe I have expressed my intention a little bit too short. Please note that the situation for both airplanes is ve
122 Stitch : I tend to think not. FX has shed their last DC-10Fs and 5X doesn't operate the type. So I don't see how a 777-200BCF would appeal to them, even as a
123 JoeCanuck : I maintain that as long as the 77w has capabilities that the -1000 cannot match, Its demise is far from certain...at least at the hands of the 350. A
124 Lightsaber : Your 'spit balling' might be in the right ballpark. Hence why on the freighter conversions I'm asking at this point. Touche'. A very valid point. But
125 NCB : So true. The XWB will easily beat the B777 models by a dozen percentage numbers. Or RR. RR is taking 4 years to develop the XWB engine, it will take
126 Frigatebird : We might see a Trent-XWB engine on the 787-9, with its EIS in 2013... Although it won't be called XWB then of course
127 Stitch : The current Trent is likely too large to hang off the wing of the 787. That is why many of us predict that if Boeing goes forward with "777-sized" mod
128 Revelation : I'm trying hard to find a case where a manufacturer re-engined a plane. Sure they have offered tech upgrades of the same basic engine architecture, b
129 B777LRF : Lightsabre: "The 777F has some capabilities that are only needed trans-Pacific and in many cases only to bypass ANC" That's rather far from being the
130 Olle : Well, the 737 has got different engines.... Considering that we see a 320 NG we might see it.
131 Stitch : Yes, but those have all been variants of the CFM56 family on the 737 Classic and 737 Next Generation.
132 Lightsaber : Add me to that group. 733. Or the DC-8 (Pratt's to CFM, aftermarket) or... the 77W! The GE-90-115 is a much different engine (e.g., fan diameter) vs.
133 Hawkercamm : Me too.. Although I would go futher and add a completely new wing of 450-500m^2. I think it would be possible to take the -8's Nose, fuselage, Rear-E
134 Stitch : I don't think Boeing will need to go with an all-new wing. The existing wing was projected to be good to lift better then 290t and the A350-1000's cu
135 Post contains links Hawkercamm : There is no way the current B787-8 wing with 347m^2 can efficiently (and therefore realistically) support much more that ~250t. At 290t the initial s
136 Stitch : Well 252t is what the gear is said to be good for, so maybe Boeing designed the wing to be the same. I've just heard from folks on the program it cou
137 HawkerCamm : You probably right! Better to go ahead with a new aircraft! There is a nice space between 350-500 seats. 350-500 seats is a very interesting capacity
138 Zvezda : I don't see any reason for Boeing to abandon the 787's fuselage cross section. I'm for either a new wing or a wingroot extension and new maingear. I
139 Post contains images HawkerCamm : B787 ~= A350 cross section. Both very efficient in terms of wasted volume and used cross-section (seating / cargo hold / overhead bins / system routi
140 Stitch : The Ecoliner is a pretty plane, but I don't know how practical it is. Being a double-decker, it kinda needs the dual-level jetways the A380-800 has to
141 XT6Wagon : 777BCF's don't have to match the 777F, they just have to be good enough to replace 747classics, and DC10/MD11's and it will do fine. I think the cost
142 Zvezda : I think any all-new VLA (if there turns out to be a substantial market for airliners with more than 400 seats) would be a twin, not a quad. Twins hav
143 JoeCanuck : Depending on the extra lift devices, (slats/flaps), used for take off and landing, the speeds might not be significantly effected at all.
144 Post contains links and images Keesje : Agree with most. I think the 787 fuselage provides a good platform to replace the 777 family, although new wings / engines, LDG's might be neccessary
145 Frigatebird : The Ecoliner looks very sharp indeed, I'd love to see that bird become reality. Definitely an advantage. I'm not sure what the limits are of what you
146 Parapente : There is little doubt that the Ecoliner is one route that Boeing "could have" taken -perhaps even "should have" taken. But for whatever reason they de
147 Zvezda : How much would a thrusting APU help over the poles in the unlikely event both engines shut down due to failures that did not affect the APU? I very mu
148 Keesje : Not long, the idea of the thrusting APU would be to have twin economics for aircraft larger then 350 seats and prevent a unique low rate mega engine
149 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : I see the 787 cross section as foundation of a 777 successor too. The 787 cross section could become to Boeing what the A300 cross section was for Ai
150 Zvezda : 707/727/737/757/737NG
151 SEPilot : I cannot see a 777 replacement keeping the 787 cross section; there is no need for a new designation in that case. They need a plane to compete in the
152 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : The cargo compartement is different for all of these except 727 and 737: Source: - 707 -> 727: http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=8
153 Stitch : GE has pushed the GE90-115B to 128,000lbs, but I freely admit a single certification test is entirely different from revenue operations. However, it
154 SunriseValley : Others re-engined the DC8- 63 series.
155 Rheinwaldner : I agree fully. At that time the Boeing product spectrum ends where at Airbus the gap to the next bigger model just begins. Boeing has to make either
156 Tdscanuck : That's a *huge* APU. You're talking about thrust in the class of a PW2000. To get that much thrust you either need to pack around the fan of a PW2000
157 Post contains images Keesje : A high BPR trijet would probably be much more complex and would be a difficult way to add thrust to an existing Airframe. Using an APTU would enable
158 Stitch : And dropped it when GE and Rolls both showed they could make engines which produced 511kN of thrust. I remain convinced that unless the Ecoliner can
159 Keesje : Raw capasity. An additional full lenght deck of seats on top of the above mentioned cabins. Say max 50 rows of 3-3. CASM could be amazing.
160 Stitch : But neither capacity nor CASM has really helped the 747-8I, has it? That plane lifts 80t and flies it 6000nm. That's 10t more lift then a 777-300ER f
161 SEPilot : That's assuming that those targets can be met. It is easy to put specifications on paper; building the plane that actually meets those specifications
162 Stitch : Oh color me skeptical it could be that light, but as I noted, if it really could, it would be almost a magical plane and would likely sell incredibly
163 Post contains links Keesje : The 747-8i is a 40 yr old design. No one wants to be the last airline to order it. The ground time required for maintenance, the manhours needed, mbt
164 Ikramerica : Nonsense. My egoliner is 10% more efficient than any ecoliner concept Keesje can cut and paste. As long as I write it down and create a model, it's 1
165 Post contains images Keesje : I do not know how more sufficient your egoclimber would be, but the ecoliner wasn't to unrealistc it seems..
166 Nomadd22 : If egoliner was a typo, it had to be the greatest unintentional pun I've ever seen.
167 Revelation : Post deleted in 3... 2... 1...
168 SEPilot : The wheel is a 6000 year old design, yet nobody worries about being the last to order it. All current jetliners trace their basic layout to the 707;
169 Stitch : It's also a proven design. I freely admit it doesn't have the future growth potential the A380 has, which is why it continues to lose RFP after RFP,
170 Jambrain : With a given core mass flow, the main route to more thrust is higher fuel input hence higher temperature rise, & hence exotic alloys. The route to be
171 Zvezda : If Boeing were to develop a new wing and maingear for 787s of up to 80 meters in overall length, then I could very easily imagine Boeing ceding the m
172 Tdscanuck : There is no way to get 40-60K of thrust through an inlet that small without horrific efficiency penalties. If you're going to get the thrust of a ful
173 Lightsaber : Far from it. As Tom has already noted, you scale the engine based on the mission. Its rather exciting doing the final trade studies for a design bein
174 Post contains images Keesje : 40-60K ? That a full size Turbofan ! Boeing considered BR715 CF34 size engines as basis. I similar technology is already used on turbo props e.g. ATR
175 Zvezda : It seems I'm not clear on the concept. Is it the idea that a thrusting APU would be running throughout a flight? I had assumed that it would be runni
176 Post contains links Stitch : I stumbled across the FlightGlobal article that had the data. Right now, Boeing is guestimating a payload of 66-72t for a 777-200BCF and of 82-88t fo
177 Post contains links HawkerCamm : It may be possible to make something like the Ecoliner work as a Twin (with out APTU). http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.ma
178 Tdscanuck : I know. That was my point. However, I realize in reviewing the thread that I somehow morphed from 30-40K (which is still a full size turbofan) to 40-
179 Zvezda : Assuming the Ecoliner could be a twin, rather than a trijet with a small middle engine i.e. thrusting APU, taking the Trent XWB-92 and scaling it to p
180 JoeCanuck : I'm not engine guru but I am under the impression that engines are generally more efficient at higher thrust ratings than lower. If so, it would seem
181 Areopagus : The APU is normally shut down soon after the engines are started up, isn't it? Under that assumption, may I suggest a couple of changes that would all
182 Lightsaber : You have the right concept. But if you're in cruise and the APU is needed, a thrusting APU is going to be far tougher to hot start. The more thrust..
183 Tdscanuck : There's two things behind this. If you look at different sized engines, the larger ones tend to get more efficient because they suffer from relativel
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 737-300F... What The?! posted Fri Mar 29 2002 15:20:57 by 747-600X
Boeing And The Unions-what's The Status? Part 2 posted Fri Oct 3 2008 00:22:09 by HB-IWC
Boeing And The Unions-what's The Status? posted Thu Sep 18 2008 01:54:54 by Beaucaire
Emirates Awaits Boeing's 777 Succession Plan posted Sat May 3 2008 05:16:37 by Aviationbuff
What's The Big Deal With LHR? posted Thu Mar 6 2008 08:34:43 by B777A340Fan
GE Exclusive Deal For The Boeing 777 LR posted Sun Jan 20 2008 06:09:08 by AT
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch
What Is The Plan For TP And NI? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 13:25:04 by RicardoFG
What's The Big Deal With London City? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 07:20:10 by Remcor
What's The Big Deal With Jet Blue posted Fri Mar 17 2006 04:21:49 by 9252fly
Boeing And The Unions-what's The Status? Part 2 posted Fri Oct 3 2008 00:22:09 by HB-IWC
Boeing And The Unions-what's The Status? posted Thu Sep 18 2008 01:54:54 by Beaucaire
Emirates Awaits Boeing's 777 Succession Plan posted Sat May 3 2008 05:16:37 by Aviationbuff
What's The Big Deal With LHR? posted Thu Mar 6 2008 08:34:43 by B777A340Fan
GE Exclusive Deal For The Boeing 777 LR posted Sun Jan 20 2008 06:09:08 by AT
Can Boeing Make The 777 Competitive With The A350? posted Sun Nov 18 2007 08:49:16 by Stitch
What Is The Plan For TP And NI? posted Mon Oct 22 2007 13:25:04 by RicardoFG
What's The Big Deal With London City? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 07:20:10 by Remcor
What's The Big Deal With Jet Blue posted Fri Mar 17 2006 04:21:49 by 9252fly