Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"Boeing Could Offer T7 Replacement"  
User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 33542 times:

Hey everyone,

I havn't seen anything posted about this yet. Just saw the article on flightglobal.com:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ent-to-rival-a350-within-four.html

IMO, it would be great to see a Boeing T7 replacement and see this legacy of an airliner to continue gracing the skies, just like the 747 has done. However, it does appear from the quotes given in the article that Boeing is underestimating the abilities of Airbus with the A350, and possibly over-estimating their own. Obviously Boeing makes great aircraft, but the last time they were so over confident it turned out into this 787, I dare say, disaster of delays and underperformance. And here they continue with their parade that Airbus will only make an evolutionary progress with a completely new airliner, and Boeing can make something far superior with a existing design (albeit possible new wings and engines, though no mention of the use of composite materials), I'm not really seeing it.

Quote:
He says that "in the best case scenario [for the A350]", Boeing could "come to market within three to four years with a 777-replacement aircraft that is overwhelmingly superior to the A350".

I have my doubts, but anxious to hear what the outcome will be. In fact, I can't wait, the T7 is a beauty!


ALLARD.


edit: quote.

[Edited 2009-05-14 10:30:41]


ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
210 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 33410 times:

It shouldn't be too hard for Boeing to incorporate most of the 787 developments into a 777 replacement. The 787-10 might sound nice but it will just reach the 777-200 size. Making the 777 replacement cover the -200 would probably give it more range, especially if it was designed with the base model the size of the -300.

Boeing has to do something about the 777, more customers are going to move to the A350 because it is the only real alternative right now. If Boeing created a 777 replacement that is pretty much a larger 787 they would really have an amazing aircraft family, 787 all the ay up to the new 777


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 33357 times:

Quoting AFKL (Thread starter):
However, it does appear from the quotes given in the article that Boeing is underestimating the abilities of Airbus with the A350, and possibly over-estimating their own.

I'm not sure Boeing is underestimating the abilities of the A350 as noted by the fact that they remain open to responding with a T7 replacement in the event that the A350 does turn out to be a T7 "killer". But until the A350 is proven - and that is still years away - there's no point in sinking billions of dollars into a replacement aircraft if it's not warranted. And even if it is warranted, the T7 still has many years of sales life left in her because the A350 will not be flying in appreciable numbers (meaning orders placed today are still 7 - 8 years away from delivery) for many years to come. Airlines needing a T7 class airplane today still only have one choice available to them.

Quoting AFKL (Thread starter):
Obviously Boeing makes great aircraft, but the last time they were so over confident it turned out into this 787, I dare say, disaster of delays and underperformance.

The delays are obvious. But I'm not sure "underperformance" would describe the aircraft accurately. Sure, the first few birds will be overweight and even possibly range-limited. But that's against the 787's original specs. Even an underperforming 787 will still offer benefits beyond the A330.

Your assumptions, and that of Mr. Shankland's of Airbus, assume the A350 suffers no delays and meets or exceeds its performance specs out of the gate. Possible, but not highly probable.

[Edited 2009-05-14 10:50:52]


My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 33249 times:

IF CFRP is the future of commercial aircraft, as I suspect it is, Boeing really needs to get the 787-8 into smooth production and up to performance, take that knowledge and experience, apply that to the 787-9, and get it proven. Only then with that real experience does it make good sense to tackle the 777.

The 787 has a lot of new systems and a new manufacturing method, it will take time to gel. The Y3 will be able to scale these up effectively, but it needs a clean slate for a while.

I think this also pertains to the 737 RS.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31254 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33236 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When Airbus launched the A350XWB in 2007, they calculated the strongest years for 300-seaters (so A343 and B77E) would be 2017 (four years after the planned EIS of the A350-900XWB) with 110 planes retired that year. The next four years would see retirements of 90, 80, 90 and 100 planes, respectively. It would then drop to around 50 for the next three years and 40 in 2025 (the final year on the chart).

In total, Airbus projected retirements of 891 frames between 2010-2025 with each frame being retired after 20 years of revenue service. With 226 A350-900XWB sales, that means Airbus has claimed 25% of the market they expect to exist for their product over the next 15 years. So that leaves 75% currently available and I think that is a market large enough for Boeing to make a play for.

Airbus did not offer a chart on 350+ seat (777-300ER / A340-600) replacements. However, at 20 year lives, that means the ~184 77Ws already delivered will not need replacement with an A350-1000XWB until the 2024-2029 timeframe and 219 more will not need replacement until at least 2029.

I'm skeptical on Airbus' claims that the A350-1000XWB will have 25% lower block fuel and cash operating costs per seat then the 777-300ER. I also am skeptical of Airbus' comparison between the A350-900XWB and the 777-200ER. And the 777-200LR is said to have lower block fuel and cash operating costs then the 777-200ER.

Therefore, in the near-term, Boeing needs to work on reducing the MWE of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER while GE continues to improve the SFC of the GE90-11xB series. If they can also increase the MTOW to raise payload, that would help, too. In other words, they need to follow Airbus' program with the A330-200: steady improvements that, while overall still not as good as the 787-8, make a great plane even better and even more desirable.

Even if all three A350XWB models EIS on schedule and Airbus' production ramp is seamless, if traffic returns to previous levels, the 777 will de facto win orders because it will be the only model available. But the better Boeing makes it, Boeing will win more then just de facto orders.


User currently offlineEightball From Saudi Arabia, joined Oct 2007, 282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 33183 times:

The fact is that Boeing went through a lot of work in terms of designing the 777, and now they're bringing the 787 into the market.... So I think that Boeing should just continue producing the 777 and update it if necessary.

Boeing have been keeping the 747 alive for all these years, with the 748 being the latest variant. I truly think that Boeing could keep the 777 alive for many years to come, because it's an excellent design.



Follow your dream.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31254 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 32957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If the changes incorporated in the 747-8's wings lead to some solid performance improvements, does anybody know how feasible it would be to implement some or all of these changes to the 777's wings?

Also, could GE introduce some of their noise-reduction developments for the GEnx (chevrons and such) to make the 777 quieter? I understand it already meets QC1 / QC2 requirements at LHR (same as the A350XWB), but every extra bit could help with airport noise curfews.


User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32722 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
Your assumptions, and that of Mr. Shankland's of Airbus, assume the A350 suffers no delays and meets or exceeds its performance specs out of the gate. Possible, but not highly probable.

Can we afford to assume otherwise? I do not think that Boeing can afford to base their T7 replacement model on a fact that the A350 will fail on these aspects. Although airliner programs have been delayed in the past, both A and B have learned from these delays, and knows how to minimise these at all costs.

I'm not saying that there won't be a market for a new T7, on the contrary, I think it has a lot of potential. However, to say that it will be "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350 is just nonsense when the bird hasn't even flown yet! I'm just sceptical.

Let's, howeve, try to avoid a A vs. B war.


ALLARD.



ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1896 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32537 times:

I imagine Boeing is waiting to see how the 350 comes in weight wise. A lot of people are at a loss as to how Airbus can pull off their target weights. If it's a lot closer to the 777 than AB hoped, the chance of updated wings/engines for the Boeing is a lot better. If the 350 meets target weight and efficiency a refreshed 777 won't do the trick.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineHawkercamm From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 405 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 32473 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
Therefore, in the near-term, Boeing needs to work on reducing the MWE of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER while GE continues to improve the SFC of the GE90-11xB series. If they can also increase the MTOW to raise payload, that would help, too. In other words, they need to follow Airbus' program with the A330-200: steady improvements that, while overall still not as good as the 787-8, make a great plane even better and even more desirable.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Also, could GE introduce some of their noise-reduction developments for the GEnx (chevrons and such) to make the 777 quieter? I understand it already meets QC1 / QC2 requirements at LHR (same as the A350XWB), but every extra bit could help with airport noise curfews.

I agree with this. I think A and B should draw a truce with the A330-2-3/A350-8-9-10 and B787-8-9-10/B777-2-3 and concentrate on making these aircraft incrementally better. A market exists for X amount of "medium sized" airliners per year and only A and B are in that market.
From a business point of view a truce for a number of years would allow both manufactures to cream some profit before finding $15b+ for the next long haul plane.

I would take a guess that when the next long haul aircraft come along Boeing would attack the A350XWB from above with a ~400 seater (8500nm) and A would attack the B787-8 from below with a 200-250 seater 2-class (4000-5000nm) "transcontinental".


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 32251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AFKL (Reply 7):
However, to say that it will be "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350 is just nonsense when the bird hasn't even flown yet! I'm just skeptical.

To make such a statement is just incredibly arrogant. I do not see any major technological breakthrough in the next 4 years that practically would make the A350 (which will not fly at an airline before 2013!) and the B787 (which also still has not flown!) practically obsolete. This statement is absolute nonsense.

Let us wait and see what the B787 and A350 will bring to the market once they are flying. And in the meantime improve the B777 where possible, because it still is a great plane. Maybe in 4-5 years Boeing goes for the B787-10/11, and maybe Airbus goes for an A350-1100. Everything is still possible at this stage. It is highly unlikely that Boeing will build a B777 successor. If they do so, it will be a plane which will start at A350-100 size (just under the current B77W), and will go on to a "B777-400" size of plane, whatever that may be. In the process the B748i is ditched too. Also that plane has not flown yet. So to make such statements is nice to make headlines, but it does not add to the credibility of the one making such foolish statements.

[Edited 2009-05-14 13:17:59]

User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 31793 times:

The 787 didn't kill the A330, which has sold in record number over the last few years. The A350 hasn't killed the 777 either, it's still the best type in current production in it's class, and the A3510 is a loooong way off.

The one plus for Airbus, is thatn their A350 development programme is a lot longer than the 787's was meant to be, so I would be surprised if it had the same delays - there's much more slack built into the timetable than the 787 programme, which was very optimistic...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31180 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
Quoting AFKL (Reply 7):
However, to say that it will be "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350 is just nonsense when the bird hasn't even flown yet! I'm just skeptical.

To make such a statement is just incredibly arrogant. I do not see any major technological breakthrough in the next 4 years that practically would make the A350 (which will not fly at an airline before 2013!) and the B787 (which also still has not flown!) practically obsolete. This statement is absolute nonsense.

On the contrary. I think that Boeing making such bold statements that a T7 replacement will be, and I quote again, "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350, is quite arrogant on Boeing's part. Although there may not be major technical breakthrough's in the next coming four years (again, a fairly bold statement, based on what?), the 787/A350 are technological break-through's compared to the T7's (just think of the extensive use of composites). Therefore, if Boeing claims they can create a T7 replacement within 4 years, based on a design that is already a generation older, that will become "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350, a new generation design, seems to be quite a task! Sure, they'll slap on some new wings and engines, sure it'll pose a threat to Airbus sales, sure they'll sell well and be competitive, etc., etc... all I'm saying is that I'm quite skeptical in Boeing creating a replacement which is "overwhelmingly superior". OK, they may use 787 technology, but how is that in any part a break-through when compared to the A350? I don't really understand your comment.

Also note my use of the word "skeptical", and "I think", these are merely my (uneducated) opinions and thoughts. I am here to learn, so if you disagree or can tell me otherwise, please do!  Smile


ALLARD.



ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1698 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31133 times:

I'll never understand civ-av's posters. When the A350 Mk.1 came out, lots of poster were saying that it was a joke and that a warmed over A330 would never be able to match the 787.
Now comes Boeing saying that a warmed over 777 can outperform the A350, and people go saying is entirely possible.


Anyway, that guy sounds a lot like Leahy during his golden years as a loudmouth.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 31100 times:



Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 11):
The 787 didn't kill the A330, which has sold in record number over the last few years.

It's more accurate to say that the 787 <i>hasn't</i> killed the A330... yet. In time, the 787 - and the A350 it sparked in reply - will certainly be the reason A330 orders dry-up. This is rarely an industry where death-blows are dealt and one product suddenly falls out of favor.

Quoting AFKL (Reply 7):
(1) Can we afford to assume otherwise? I do not think that Boeing can afford to base their T7 replacement model on a fact that the A350 will fail on these aspects. (2) Although airliner programs have been delayed in the past, both A and B have learned from these delays, and knows how to minimise these at all costs.

1. Of course they can.

2. If that were the case, then presumably Boeing and Airbus would have already known their lessons long before the A380 and 787 delays. Reality is that the next programs will have different technical challenges and today's experiences won't hold all the answers. Reality is that people come and go from these engineering teams and lessons are lost.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 30905 times:

If B is planing to make a complete new 777 it could be a huge success, it remains the question would it be profitable?

I imagine something like the step from 742/743 to 744. A complete new 777, build from CFRP, and some 787 technology integrated.

If we see a 787-10 i could think of a 777-400 and -500. The 400 as 300ER CFRP-replacement and the 500 to replace the 748i (not the freighter).

Would it be possible? Would it be economical? If the program would cost about 70% of the 787 program, how many 777NGs would be needed to reach the ROI?


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AFKL (Reply 12):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 10):
Quoting AFKL (Reply 7):
However, to say that it will be "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350 is just nonsense when the bird hasn't even flown yet! I'm just skeptical.

To make such a statement is just incredibly arrogant. I do not see any major technological breakthrough in the next 4 years that practically would make the A350 (which will not fly at an airline before 2013!) and the B787 (which also still has not flown!) practically obsolete. This statement is absolute nonsense.

On the contrary. I think that Boeing making such bold statements that a T7 replacement will be, and I quote again, "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350, is quite arrogant on Boeing's part.

I believe that is what I said as well  Wink. We are complete in agreement here.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30455 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Acheron (Reply 13):
Anyway, that guy sounds a lot like Leahy during his golden years as a loudmouth.

This comment is spot on!  Smile


User currently offlineAFKL From Netherlands, joined Feb 2008, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30425 times:



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):
I believe that is what I said as well  . We are complete in agreement here.

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you referred to my statement as being arrogant.  Wink Hence my confusion.


ALLARD.



ALLARD. First flight: KLM DC-10, LLW - AMS.
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1590 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30366 times:



Quoting AFKL (Reply 12):
On the contrary. I think that Boeing making such bold statements that a T7 replacement will be, and I quote again, "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350, is quite arrogant on Boeing's part.

What this boils down to is whether the panel design of the 350 is as good as the wound fuselage of the 787.

Why? Because apart from anything to do with weight , shape or fatigue, a major attraction of the design and manufacture of the 787 fuselage, is that it can be scaled, without major redesign.
When this method of manufacture was first mooted, Boeing was saying this and I have not heard anything different.

On the other hand the large panel design of the 350, built up on an aluminium stripped CFRP frame, is not easily scaled, without a major redesign..

In practical terms it is probably more thruthfull than arrogant of Boeing to say, that if necessary, they could produce a replacement 777 within a few years. It would be a scaled 787.

Any engine which Airbus uses on the 350-1000 could if necessary be put under the wings of a new 777.

The Corporate hierachical structure of the Boeing organisation, has a long memory. I believe another implementation disaster such as the 787 has suffered is most unlikely, the next time around.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4864 posts, RR: 40
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 19):
In practical terms it is probably more thruthfull than arrogant of Boeing to say, that if necessary, they could produce a replacement 777 within a few years. It would be a scaled 787.

The B787-10/11/12 which could be matched by he A350-1100 or so? But that is not a totally new airplane really replacing the B777.

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 19):
The Corporate hierachical structure of the Boeing organisation, has a long memory. I believe another implementation disaster such as the 787 has suffered is most unlikely, the next time around.

That is true as far as I can judge it. It is also one of the reasons why Airbus planned so much less agressive their A350-development phase. They learned form the A380.  Wink


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30156 times:



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
I'm not sure Boeing is underestimating the abilities of the A350 as noted by the fact that they remain open to responding with a T7 replacement in the event that the A350 does turn out to be a T7 "killer".

The 777-200ER/LR backlog has shrunk to a few dozen.. Obviously the A330-300 / A350-900 combi silently did "kill" the 777-200 variants that were the best selling for the last 15 yrs.

I think Boeing underestimated this and had to put all its energy in the 787. I think a 787 HGW subseries could cover the segment up to 350 seats.

A 777-300 / 747-8i replacement seems inevitable if Boeing wants to remain a player in the > 350 seat segment. A dedicated 370-500 seat long hauler seems to a be a (rather big) sweetspot avoiding direct competition with Airbus. A 777-400 could be a stop gab. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVWQ5h5UOfk

But then again the 737 may need some action if Airbus puts a high BPR engine under the A320, Boeing tested the market for a "Light Twin" 757/A310/767 replacement and IDS also needs some new types..


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 30010 times:



Quoting AFKL (Reply 7):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
Your assumptions, and that of Mr. Shankland's of Airbus, assume the A350 suffers no delays and meets or exceeds its performance specs out of the gate. Possible, but not highly probable.

Can we afford to assume otherwise?

I think everyone has to assume otherwise (if I understand you correctly). Airbus' most current high-profile projects (A380, A400M) have suffered from serious delays, as has Boeing's most recent offering. To assume that the A350 program will come off without a hitch is to assume something that goes against recent history for both manufacturers. The design phase, which is all that Airbus has indulged in thus far with the A350, is the easy part (relatively speaking) so it's easy for Airbus PR to make confident statements. We saw the same happen on Boeing's end with the 787. Soon Airbus will have to deliver a tangible product, and much as Boeing found out, that will take considerable effort. Until the A350 takes flight anything anyone brags about will have to be taken with some skepticism.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 29902 times:



Quote:
Speaking in London after a Boeing financier briefing,

That says it all right there. Mr. Kostya Zolotusky (Russian?) was trying to encourage bankers to provide capital to Boeing. I think that slightly excuses his over the top hyperbole about Boeing's current and future product lines.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7497 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 29784 times:



Quoting Acheron (Reply 13):
Now comes Boeing saying that a warmed over 777 can outperform the A350, and people go saying is entirely possible.

One problem, the initial A350 model is larger than the B-787 and smaller than the B-77W which is now the only product which is carrying the sales, the LR is a niche model. For the A350 to "kill" the B-777W it will most be on economics as the current a/c will uplift more pax and can match or equal payload. Remember the A330 and B767, the A330 was larger than the B767, the A350 will not be, have to wait another few years until they go head to head.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
The 777-200ER/LR backlog has shrunk to a few dozen.. Obviously the A330-300 / A350-900 combi silently did "kill" the 777-200 variants that were the best selling for the last 15 yrs.

I note the last 15 years, I asume that the B777-300 is not included in your thoughts.


25 Post contains links Keesje : The A380 went pretty well until after taking flight.. No, the -300ER seems to do well for now, but the 300 seater problem isn't solved by that. Maybe
26 Ikramerica : Where is Boeing saying a warmed over 777 can outperform the A350? They said that, depending on the outcome of the A350, there are some things they co
27 JoeCanuck : It would be very interesting for me to know what the relative efficiencies are between the 787, 350 and 777 wings. I believe the 777 wing was state of
28 Keesje : The 787-9 is smaller / lighter. Maybe airlines want to cut capasity then? They are diffrent wings, teh A350 is optimized for bigger loads. I don't th
29 Stitch : Of course, hindsight is always 20-20 and makes any idiot look like a genius. We should remember that until June of 2007, Airbus did not have an answer
30 JoeCanuck : Not bigger than the 777, though. I believe the 777 was designed using computational fluid dynamics. I was wondering more how much fluid dynamics have
31 CARST : Why do you think of an up-scaled 787? Perhaps they just stay with the whole 777 design and try to make the fuselage and whole wings out of CFRP. If t
32 Stitch : The 777 was designed on computer using CATIA and other resources, so it would likely make doing a "CFRP 777" a quicker and easier process since you c
33 CARST : I know that, i was thinking more about the structural loads. Isn't the question if they have to build a complete new plane if they want to use CFRP?
34 BoeingBus : This is tactical move by Boeing to distract Airbus as the are firming up the design and sending parts for fabrication... make you think twice if you h
35 Stitch : It would be an all-new plane if they wanted to go to CFRP. It would be interesting to know the production costs, weight-savings and aerodynamic impro
36 Pnwtraveler : What Stitch is saying is backed up by a funny source. The software that designed the 777 has been modified and improved and is now being used to desi
37 JoeCanuck : I was just wondering which way Boeing would go. Since their experience with CFRP fuselages is the 787, I am curious how easy it would be to scale the
38 CFBFrame : This is a question that concerns me since both A & B have never flown a commercial CF a/c, and until the 787 flies much cannot be answered. I assume t
39 Osiris30 : I think you guys all really need to listen to the IAG podcast with the VP of the GTF from PW very carefully and then re-read this thread. (It was pos
40 Post contains images Stitch : While it is true the 787, in terms of percentage of her primary structure, is the "most CFRP" commercial airliner at the moment, both Boeing and Airb
41 Tdscanuck : "in the best case scenario [for the A350]", Boeing could "come to market within three to four years with a 777-replacement aircraft that is overwhelm
42 Ken777 : What would be interesting to know is what Boeing was working on before the problems of the 787 pulled engineers off various projects. I can remember t
43 XT6Wagon : The issues is last I checked the 777 has payload advantages over the 350. If you HAVE to have the payload/range of a 777LR the A350 just doesn't get i
44 BrightCedars : I always said there would be something like a 777-8 and a 777-9 and that's what will happen. These birds will be very nice and will provide outstandin
45 Post contains images Keesje : Well on said Ecoliner we (Henry Lam) used the 787 nose. I remain convinced >10 abreast means a double deck becomes a good idea. ) The 777 e.g. alread
46 Ikramerica : So apparently you can't read? A 777 REPLACEMENT is not a WARMED OVER 777. That's like saying the A350 is a warmed over A330, or the 787 is a warmed o
47 AFKL : I disagree. If it is, as you say, a completely new design, (just like, in your words, the A350 is for the A330), it will take Boeing a whole lot long
48 Par13del : What exactly is the T7, an a/c in the 300+ pax range, it was designed years ago and improvements have been made to it over a decade or so. Boeing has
49 Nomadd22 : "in the best case scenario [for the A350]", Boeing could "come to market within three to four years with a 777-replacement aircraft that is overwhelmi
50 CARST : I have to agree on this part of your comment... Four years is such a short time-frame, that i can only think of a warmed-up 777. But like i said earl
51 Astuteman : My own view on that is that the difference that this might make when expressed in terms of overall aircraft performance, and cost of ownership/operat
52 757GB : What I wanted to say was pretty much in line with your post. I read the article and frankly to me it means nothing more than the regular war of words
53 AFKL : Then where would Boeing's advantage be? ALLARD.
54 Jfk777 : The A330's recent success has been more because the A340 are such gas guzzlers and increased range of the A330-300 operated on long routes like Finna
55 CARST : With my comparison from a jump from 742/3 to 744 i didn't want to say the 777 is a old product, it is with all its evolutions a quite new one, but if
56 Parapente : I believe (for Boeing) the root of the problem lies with their change of strategy.The origonal Y1 -Y3 was perfect (IMHO).Whether Y3 was an Ecoliner or
57 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : Very good point. The A351 entered the market when the market was saturated by the newest and most efficient wide-body at the time, the 773ER. Again a
58 EPA001 : A very interesting post Rheinwaldner. Boeing marketing will probably see things a bit different, but from what I can read about the subject (and the
59 Stitch : We know Y3 exists, at least as a series of design studies. What we don't know is how far those design studies have advanced. I would not be surprised
60 Brendows : It's way too early to say that for certain, there are three different approaches and each one are a first of its kind. If the next few major airliner
61 Stitch : Maybe... Maybe not... Depending on how you interpret Boeing's original 7E7/787 claims, you could argue Boeing was stating 787 block fuel and operatin
62 Cosmofly : In the diagram, the ceiling of the ecoliner is lower than others. I think Boeing's best and last bet to maximize 748i is to double the size of the ov
63 LH526 : hell, the 787 isn't even flying, the B748 hasn't even seen the final stages of production, and yet they are talking about a totally new plan that cou
64 XT6Wagon : To be fair they have done aircraft programs in less than 4 years from board approval to start to EIS. Like I said, right now I don't see it if you co
65 Rheinbote : Jeeez, Headline: "Boeing could offer all-new 777 replacement to rival A350 within four years" Body of article: "Boeing says that it could respond to a
66 Pnwtraveler : And above someone asked what Boeing engineers are working on. We know Boeing flew a Sonic Cruiser looking model not to long ago and other studies con
67 Osiris30 : 3 to 4 years of the 350 coming to market. Give me a break indeed.
68 AirNZ : Yes, it's a valid enough point, but not one that his highly improbable either despite a lot of wishes on a.net (not meaning yourself at all). It must
69 NCB : I'd like to comment on this one. Boeing needs to come up with a Y3. Since the A350XWB has been launched, only very few passenger B777 's were ordered
70 Nomadd22 : Once again the fantasy that replaceable panels are going to be any kind of factor in maintenance, the idea that they have no knowledge of how a CFRP b
71 Stitch : If people really think airlines are going to be removing CFRP panels that could measure 20m (or more) in length to repair damage on the A350XWB, well.
72 Cerecl : I am lost as to why so many people enthusiaticsally believe that Boeing/Airbus can completely trump its competitors product with a "overwhemlingly sup
73 XT6Wagon : I suspect in the end, if Boeing develops the tools for it, replacing a whole barrel would be quicker than replacing a panel since they are assembling
74 JoeCanuck : If it's anything like repairing other composite structures, they will probably just repair the bits that are broken. The panel joints will probably be
75 757GB : I'm not sure what specific system you're thinking of. What comes to mind for me is swing wing. I'm no engineer, but I understand that the swing wing
76 Panais : Why not based the Ecoliner on an 8 abreast (lower section) and 5 abreast (higher section)? Make it slightly wider than the A330 to make it more comfo
77 Ikramerica : Maybe they see a flaw in the A350 design that they feel they can exploit? I don't know. I think "overwhelmingly superior" is a tall order. The last a
78 Rheinwaldner : My point here was autoclave-free production. You won't find sources which state the use of autoclave being as future-proof. If possible you avoid the
79 Autothrust : Wait a minute. The success of the 777 was not attributed from its superior technology, its obvious you will burn less with big two engines then four.
80 StickShaker : What about the 744 replacement market ? Should be quite a few that need to be rolled over around 2015 or so - wouldn't airlines be choosing between b
81 AirbusA6 : The fuselage would still be an problem though, the A346's issues against the 77W aren't solely because it's a quad, doesn't it's extreme length when
82 Post contains images Keesje : Well damages happen al the time. I still wonder how fast a repair can be done if pieces of fuselageframes are laying on the platform. Those catering
83 Rheinwaldner : Such damages I meant. Is it acceptable to go for the ultimate solution in cases like this? XT6Wagon made us believe even replacing whole barrels is f
84 JoeCanuck : I searched but I couldn't find any EADS info about the 350 sections being cured outside an autoclave. Bonding makes for a much stronger join, which m
85 Ikramerica : Says who? Unless you know the technology of the 787 inside and out, it's speculation, and the most pessimistic speculation at that. Fine, but it's no
86 Stitch : I for one like to think the airlines I patronize do not have incompetent boobs running their maintenance groups. So if they feel confident a 787 can b
87 Ikramerica : Let's hope so.
88 Jambrain : I don't know which law of physics says 2 are more economical then 4, if all key parameters are equal:- i.e. pressure ratio, byepass ratio, turbine en
89 AutoThrust : I don't, i just refute your comment making the 77W looking much more advanced then the A346. Never said they weren't.But the 777 frame is not. Maybe
90 Ken777 : What about before then? The 788 is flying and the 789 is developing smoothly (one hopes) and the 748 is ready to fly or EIS. Boeing has the luxury of
91 Tdscanuck : News to me. What are they using, if not autoclaves? Unless Airbus has managed to keep an enourmous advance in resin technology very quiet, there's no
92 Ikramerica : And I never said it was "much more advanced". If you can quote me, I'd stand corrected. In the statement you quoted, I didn't even say it was "more a
93 JoeCanuck : I agree...it'll be a bit of both since they have to make the joint airtight anyway, they might as well make it as strong as they can...and the world
94 XT6Wagon : If the damage is so large that replacing an entire panel as used in the A350, you are looking at HUGE damage. Patching is going to be the way to go f
95 Post contains links Rheinwaldner : I must admit that I have no hard proof. I realy though this quote would apply to the A350 but it was about the A400 (from this thread http://www.airl
96 SEPilot : A couple of reasons why smaller engines are less efficient than large ones. First, a jet engine accelerates a column of air; the boundary between the
97 Stitch : Boeing released updated Payload-Range charts for the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, I am guessing to reflect the recent SFC improvements to the GE90-11xB. T
98 Ikramerica : The 77W now has roughly the same MZW range as a new build 77E, which will help put the last nail in the coffin of that aircraft in terms of sales. An
99 SunriseValley : FWIW scaling the respective load/ range charts suggests "about" 9850 and 7900nm based on the "generic" OEW's of 320K and 370K pounds, respectively.
100 Ikramerica : I doubt either of those are correct. The previous brochure value for the 77L was 9380nm, and for the 77W, 7930nm (already higher than your number). S
101 SeaBosDca : Imagine what would have happened at Airbus HQ around 2002 if someone had informed them that the 77W would turn out to be an 8000+ nm aircraft.
102 Stitch : Sorry, I do not. Boeing does not include a line at pax+bags in their charts like Airbus does.
103 Ikramerica : If they had known earlier than that (early enough in 2000), I believe they would have delayed (for redesign) or canceled the A346 and A345, and used
104 Baroque : But would that not have meant a heavier wing to add to the beefed up fuse to allow the length at that diameter????
105 Ikramerica : Absolutely. It would have required a very modified wing with a greater span and possibly greater dihedral to get a GE-90 sized engine on the wing. Bu
106 Baroque : All true, but if I understand what I have been told on these threads, the fuselage diameter for the A346 would have made the resulting plane too heav
107 SunriseValley : Has anyone ever summarised the "upgrades" that might be possible to the 77L and 77W to reduce weight. It appears from the most recent updates to the l
108 Stitch : Boeing was working with airline interior suppliers to develop new, lighter-weight seats and cabin fixtures to lighten the empty weight of the 777-200L
109 EA772LR : Stitch (been a long time since I posted on here!) I was wondering if these numbers are correct, and I don't doubt you, or Ikramerica, but this furthe
110 Stitch : I did muff the payload figure at full tanks - it's 40,000 lbs, not the 90,000 I stated in Reply 97 (I mistakenly subtracted the 777-200LR's OEW, not
111 Post contains links NCB : Variable sweep is just one form of variable geometry. There is variable area, variable camber, variable chord, angle of attack, etc... A variable geo
112 EA772LR : This seems like a bold statement considering the 787 hasn't even flown yet, let alone entered service. I still fail to see why Boeing would take such
113 Ikramerica : I guess we should just take your word for it, that the methodology Boeing is using to build CFRP is a brittle, fragile, easily damaged and hard to re
114 Stitch : Well excuse me for actually taking Airbus' statements and graphics showing skin panels of 13m, 16m and 18m for the A350-900XWB at face value. And I s
115 JoeCanuck : I haven't seen any Airbus literature regarding whole panel replacement. Perhaps you could link to where they mention it. I'd also be interested in sp
116 Post contains images AutoThrust : Pardon my ignorance but won't that need lots of fasteners which add a lot of weight and complexity + drag penalty with the whole fuselage made of pan
117 SEPilot : So you know more about it then all of the Boeing engineers who, when debating the panels vs. barrels approach ended up with NONE of them favoring pan
118 SeaBosDca : Boeing's barrels can be patched just like an aluminum fuselage. I suppose this is technically true, since they'll be 16. In any case, for minor damag
119 Post contains links NCB : Of course, but the issue is that the CFRP being fragile to impact forces and repair so time-consuming that swapping panels will become common practic
120 SEPilot : The reason (from what I've been able to gather) that Airbus did not go for barrels was that they were playing catch-up with Boeing and did not feel t
121 JoeCanuck : I'm still curious about where you got this information. I did a quite extensive search and I couldn't find any specific information regarding the Air
122 Tdscanuck : No, they're not. A day-to-cay repair cannot involve replacement of a panel or barrel, so the comparison is totally moot. Yes, it can. A barrel is a s
123 SeaBosDca : Thank you for a very careful and informative post.
124 Stressedout : Further to Tom's excellent post: This is incorrect. For day to day repairs there will be little difference between repairing the two systems. This is
125 Ikramerica : You quoted each and every quote incorrectly, as EA772LR nor I wrote any of those things you quoted.
126 Rheinwaldner : You go further than I would. Though I am quite sure that the barrel apporach IS overrated some of your accusations seem exaggerated. Primary reason f
127 SEPilot : There were statements by Airbus officials that were on this forum to that effect; I cannot find them at this point. But you are correct, it is mostly
128 Rheinwaldner : True, but only from the supportement standpoint. Separating the fuselage in pieces means disconnecting a lot more than would be required if a panel (
129 EA772LR : Thank you for pointing that out Ikramerica Rheinwaldner, I agree with the first part of your post, but I cannot see how you can make the accusation y
130 Stitch : No airline is going to buy a plane that cannot be repaired or is so fragile it will spend the majority of its operating life in a hangar being repair
131 Brendows : Ah, I'm sorry, I thought you meant panels/shells vs. barrels. And yes, I agree that autoclaves should be avoided if possible. I haven't seen any pres
132 SEPilot : I disagree. I think replacing a panel will be every much as difficult as replacing a barrel. As others have stated, it is highly likely to be a WO in
133 Post contains links and images Rheinwaldner : That can easily be the case. I don't know. If replacement is not feasible at all and each case would a WO then we will probably see more frequent wri
134 EA772LR : Hmmm It can't be both ways, so is Airbus planning to use autoclaves for A350 CFRP or not?? Back on topic, Boeing doesn't need to do anything yet with
135 SEPilot : I will dispute you on this; I believe it will actually be easier to replace a barrel, and I speak as one who has been repairing machines all my life,
136 Stitch : You do not need to have a PhD in Materials Science to understand that two things made of the same material can have different properties. A soda can a
137 XT6Wagon : You miss the point of barrel replacement. IF its more economical to replace a barrel than write off the plane, you will have a barrel prestuffed with
138 Ikramerica : You also have to look at the size of the 787 autoclaves, and that the A350 autoclaves would need to be even larger. Adding an autoclave of this size
139 Stressedout : and I sincerely apologize to you both. I meant to quote NCB each and every time in my Reply # 124. I guess that's what happens when one replies at 11
140 Ikramerica : No problem. It happens to the best of us, but usually, at least one quote is right...
141 EA772LR : No worries, I knew it was just a glitch.
142 Tdscanuck : Let me appologize to NCB, and everyone else on the thread, for my Reply 122. Although I stand by the technical side of it, the tone is unacceptable.
143 EA772LR : Wow Tom, thank you for the very informative post. I feel that I have just taken a crash course on CFRP (no pun intended). It ought to be interesting
144 EPA001 : I can only agree with this comment. Tom's post is very, very informative on the matter. Such posts are a joy to read.
145 NorCal : A CEO might not know all the details but airlines have engineering and maintenance departments filled with very bright people who analyze and give th
146 NCB : The only thing I can tell you is that airline CEOs tend to talk only to maintenance supervisors who work mostly in offices. How many airlines have mx
147 JoeCanuck : With maintenance such a huge expense to an airline and considering that both Boeing and Airbus are forecasting huge mx savings, I rather doubt that an
148 Stitch : Well maybe Boeing will organize a "Ramp Rash Derby" with ZA997 and ZA998 when they've completed all their certification testing to see just how tough
149 SEPilot : Again, what is your authority? How many airline CEO's do you know? And where do you get such intimate knowledge on how CEO's do or do not get the spe
150 Ikramerica : And I'm pretty sure major capital investments need to be approved by the BOD in most companies. CEO doesn't have the power to commit $5 billion on hi
151 Post contains images NCB : Actually MX savings on foreign airliners are very contradictory. There will be savings thanks to maintenance-friendly designed airplanes, very true.
152 NCB : A little edit: Dunno why that "foreign" appeared on the first line of previous post, can't edit anymore
153 JoeCanuck : That really isn't proof...it's presumption. So far there is no proof that the bleedless system will have increased mx costs. That proof, if your pres
154 FRNT787 : I agree with you completely on this. I think due to delays in the A380 and 787 people are assuming this will translate into similar delays in future
155 Tdscanuck : It's "simple" in the sense that the maintenance procedures themselves are relatively easy. It's not "simple" in the sense of taking little work...pne
156 XT6Wagon : A HUGE benifit will be diagnostics. Fixing a problem in a pnuematic system is a slice of hell starting with diagnostics. A good electrical system wil
157 Post contains links NCB : Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. CFRP is very weak towards impact damage. Here's some litterature for you: http://www.flightglobal
158 Post contains links JoeCanuck : If you notice in your quote, he said it he found CFRP unsuitable for them because of the expense, not the suitability. Here's an experiment you can tr
159 XT6Wagon : " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html Before you attack another person, perhaps you should get your facts correct. He is in CY
160 VirginFlyer : I'm not trying to be rude here, but do you reckon you might be able to qualify with what authority you are making that statement, other than the cite
161 JoeCanuck : Actually, they stand up to a high speed smack into a wall quite well. In fact, the roll bar and cockpit tub are made of CFRP precisely because of its
162 XT6Wagon : much of what you see on a modern CRFP racecar that breaks or colapses was designed to do so. Now sometimes it doesn't work that way and drivers have
163 Post contains links Rwessel : To expand on that a bit - F1 demonstrates the flexibility of composites a fair bit. While the tub is intended to stay intact under all reasonable con
164 SEPilot : Oh, really? Those posters on this forum who have actually maintained airliners don't seem to think so. I suppose you are one of them? What exactly ar
165 NCB : If you read well, it says that CFRP needs Titanium reinforcements because it can't cope with impact load on its own. Titanium is expensive. Have you
166 SEPilot : What about "modern" electrical systems? As others have pointed out, modern electrical systems are much more capable of self diagnosis than any other
167 Rheinwaldner : But compared to joining fuselage barrels it surely is not as difficult. I believe Airbus went for panels because it is the future. True, there is no
168 SEPilot : No, it will be MORE difficult, because the barrel construction means that when disconnected the fuselage parts of the barrel construction will retain
169 EPA001 : Indeed this is propaganda. Calling a newer plane 2nd best just because it uses different production techniques, which by itself are only a small fact
170 Aerodog : Very true and many of the comments made on this thread should be prefaced by two very important words, "In theory, ........."
171 Post contains links Tdscanuck : There's simply no way to put this that you'll accept, I understand, but no, it's not. Otherwise, they wouldn't use it for body armour specifically de
172 SEPilot : One aspect of the damage issue has not really been addressed, and that is the fact that when you damage an aluminum structure there can be hidden dist
173 Post contains links and images VirginFlyer : I believe when I raised the parallel with F1 cars, I specifically stated I wasn't talking about crash-resistance, but about the effect of gravel bein
174 XT6Wagon : Sorry but if you wish to attack the messenger use something valid instead of crying that I might somehow be slandering your almighty airbus. From a t
175 Ikramerica : I think NCB is having a good time arguing silly points that he knows aren't valid to see how much he can bait everyone. Maybe it's time to stop humori
176 SEPilot : Quite true; however I personally am convinced that the overwhelming factor was the time. Airbus needed to get a response to the 787 to market as soon
177 SeaBosDca : I'm all for it as long as it results in more great posts from Tom. I've learned a ton about materials from this thread. Having had my own debate with
178 Zvezda : I'm not at all convinced that we'll ever see a panel or barrel replaced on an A350 or 787, respectively. Anything that can't be patched is probably a
179 Ikramerica : Me too. It was valuable for a while. But I think all the information has been given out at this point, and now it's just a CaptainX type debate. "Pla
180 Post contains images Keesje : I think the Airbus is more then just panels unlike Boeing and therefore inferior. Maybe the loads on the lower side and upperside and window areas of
181 SEPilot : I tend to agree with you. About the only scenario that I can envision is a ground collision causing massive but localized damage. I cannot recall any
182 Stitch : Boeing could have entered into exclusive licensing agreements with those patent-holders, however. It would have been a forward-looking thing for Boei
183 NCB : " target=_blank>http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t.htm Let's be clear, let's talk about apples and apples. I have mentionned that CFRP shatters
184 Post contains images Keesje : That maybe possible. On the otherside the patent holders might be more interested to license to as many users as possible. Or be even forbidden to so
185 XT6Wagon : I'm 99% sure that I've read they did just that for some of the key parts of thier barrel winding method. No reason for the patent holder not to. They
186 PITIngres : I'll dispute it. You are talking nonsense. "Shatter" assumes a low resistance to crack propagation, and composite as it is used in modern airliners i
187 Ikramerica : Well, it's about his ego, I guess. Because the "most advanced" is not always "the best" in the real world anyway. The market place has different prio
188 Zvezda : I dispute that. The impact required to shatter the CFRP fuselage structures used by Airbus and Boeing would require an impact more powerful than typi
189 Stitch : CFRP does indeed shatter on impact. So does Aluminum. Even Titanium will shatter under impact. However, none of them shatters at any impact, just at c
190 SEPilot : At the time Airbus decided which way to go on the A350XWB it was not known that the 787 would have so many problems. If Airbus had known that they mi
191 Stitch : I attended the Formula One race in Monaco last weekend as a guest of one of the teams. And I've been to many F1 races as the guest of many F1 teams ov
192 SEPilot : Excellent summation. It should be the end of the story.
193 JayinKitsap : A minor correction - CFRP materials usually do not have a yield point, it should be "when it fails". In my structural design business I design in woo
194 Post contains links NCB : Check the following out, about aviation grade CFRP, by researchers. Written by: http://www.scientific.net/KEM.261-263.295 PS: shattering is delaminat
195 JoeCanuck : As it turns out, both Boeing and Airbus are specialists in composite technology, which is why they've chosen to extensively use these materials over
196 Ikramerica : I know I said that I would stop arguing with you, but because you are now using scientific studies to spread propoganda, it must be countered. You ar
197 EPA001 : I am very sorry that such a limited view on judiging an aircraft design (which is not even completely finalized yet) can actually exist. But since yo
198 EPA001 : Such a bold ans also unfounded point of view was never posted by me. Please do not suggest that I said so and keep your preference as much as possibl
199 PlanesNTrains : Brilliant. I have tears of happiness. -Dave
200 Stitch : It seems clear that トロール do not understand materials science, do you not agree? Fortunately, we have members here who do and I think our audi
201 NCB : Read it well, (and not just the title). It's a study of a sandwichpanel structure with Aluminum and CFRP compared to a regular laminate CFRP structur
202 WithaK : I'm confused about shattering and delamination being the same thing. Shattering would imply that pieces of the structure detach from the rest of the
203 Tdscanuck : They don't complain about it now, and we've got CFRP running around all over the place in ramp-rash prone areas (nacelles, fixed and moveable leading
204 NCB : LH had setup LH Technics Tulsa which is specialised in composite part repairs mentionned by you because it's a very lucrative business. Not surprisin
205 SEPilot : I have a little more confidence in Boeing than that. They have seen first hand how one plane with a questionable reputation (the DC-10) can ruin a ma
206 PlanesNTrains : It's starting to feel like one of those threads where you are baited into making statements that are then twisted into being anti-Airbus or pro-Boeing
207 NZdsgnr : I'm sorry guys but rather than arguing with NCB, you should be bowing and worshipping this absolute goddess of knowledge, no matter whether she disclo
208 NCB : Cracks propagate through CFRP under both static and dynamic loads. How could it otherwise reach structural failure? If only that were true, it was en
209 Stitch : Considering Japanese suppliers (Toray Industries) are providing the composites to the 787 subs, I am surprised you are so convinced that the plane wi
210 Srbmod : This thread is beginning to stray into Airbus v. Boeing territory, and as a result, it is now locked.
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: 787 First Flight "Within 3-5 Weeks." posted Wed Apr 1 2009 00:37:44 by DocLightning
Unions Always Say The Offer Is "insulting" Why? posted Thu Aug 25 2005 16:10:49 by Clickhappy
CUN Could Become An "Air Preclearance" Airport! posted Wed Jun 15 2005 00:14:17 by SFOMEX
SNA Could Be Named "the OC" posted Thu Jun 10 2004 02:49:11 by United777
Ryanair Offer + Their "thoughts" On Easyjet posted Fri Jun 13 2003 22:07:33 by KM732
Aeroflot "Could Have Been" posted Sun May 27 2001 03:24:05 by RayChuang
Speea Seeks Rejection Of Boeing Wichita Offer posted Tue Feb 24 2009 21:59:58 by Tugger
Press Questions Airbus / Boeing Could Expect Soon. posted Fri Jan 2 2009 05:18:07 by Keesje
What Could Be A Dc-9 Replacement For NWA? posted Sun Sep 14 2008 16:28:30 by AndyDTWnwa7
Boeing Might Put 777 Replacement Ahead Of 737 posted Fri Apr 25 2008 08:36:08 by Nycbjr