Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 23105 times:
Boeing, the US aircraft maker, is planning to intensify the competitive pressure on Airbus, its European rival, in large capacity, long-haul aircraft with the eventual development of a new family of all-composite jets to replace its current 777.
Juventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 23086 times:
For heaven's sake, why does Boeing need a 777 replacement??? the most popular wide-body jet around the world, airlines happy with it, everything working out fine. Why a replacement?? where does it end?
What's next Airbus looking for a replacement for the A380?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 22965 times:
I think McNerney nowhere gives a timetable. What he says is they are waiting for A350-1000 specifications. I wonder what that means. How much do you need to know? Capasity, range and SFC are pretty clear IMO.
Mr. McNerney said, "eventually we will have an all-composite 777 replacement", but the timing would depend on the success of the rival A350-1000.
On the 777, only the 777-300ER seems to sell well lately. Only a few dozen 777-200ER/LR are left in the backlog. The 787-10 is far away.
KLM/AF, Qantas, BA, United, Qatar are looking around, despite the crises.
The A350XWB is gaining ground quickly and Boeing knows more then we.
Boeing has to act soon. Even if they have other things to take care of.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7017 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 22838 times:
Quoting Juventus (Reply 1): For heaven's sake, why does Boeing need a 777 replacement??? the most popular wide-body jet around the world, airlines happy with it, everything working out fine. Why a replacement?? where does it end?
Why did Boeing need a 707 and 727 replacement.......
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22723 times:
If the 787-10 has a much bigger MTOW than the 789, than there isn't enough room left above it to justify a complete family. So IF there is a 787 stretch beyond the 789, it must be an aircraft with prime economics and reduced range - so to say the A333 of 2015.
Profcalvin From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22722 times:
What about a 797 repacement???
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 2): Shouldn't they get their projects into the air before speculating about new ones?
On a seriouse note though, it does seem a little strange considering Boeing has had MAJOR delays on its latest project. It is not even in the air yet let alone service. I mean, the 777 is also doing pretty great so I really don't see the need for a replacement YET. It looks like Boeing might be getting a little ahead of itself...
Elite From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2006, 2777 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22677 times:
After Airbus announced the A380 project, I thought that Boeing said they wanted to focus on smaller aircraft. But a 777 replacement is good; anyone know how they are doing in terms of against the Airbus rival?
I know 748 and 787 are arriving at the end of the development , thus leaving only both the laters , but i am a little bit skeptical for this 777 replacement.
Can be a false announcement , thus avoiding airlines to order A350-1000 , especially Emirates and British Aw ?
MogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22448 times:
The way Boeing and Airbus keep slaughtering each other on the 300-seat market, they'll soon cede the 100-150 space to Bombardier and Embraer. Who knows, maybe the eventual replacement to the Atlantic Holy Grail (752) will come from our friends up north.
As low margin as the NB market is, the sheer volume of sales (think all the Southwest and Ryanairs of the world) should make a 737/320-replacement very worthwhile to pursue.
The counter-argument I hear is always "the backlog is so large, so no need to replace."
My take on this - the backlog is large only because there's a major demand *for today* in the 100-200 space and no replacement in sight, so airlines are forced to settle with whatever is currently offered.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29427 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22407 times:
The 777-200ER was already dead, so the arrival of the A350-900XWB didn't really play a role in that.
That being said, Boeing no doubt planned that 777-200ER replacements would have been 777-200LRs so the A350-900XWB is a clear and present danger to those plans.
The 787-10 is MTOW-restricted right now, but who knows, maybe Boeing will just re-design the wingbox area for the 787-9 and 787-10 to allow it to handle either a dual-axle or triple-axle undercarriage like the A350XWB. If they do that, then they can explore higher MTOWs to make it a true 777-200ER/A340-300 replacement as well as a direct competitor to the A350-900XWB. They could also explore a 787-11 stretch which could take the fight to the A350-1000XWB.
I really don't see Boeing launching a 777 replacement. They've sunk around $10 billion in the 787, 747-8 and 777 Freighter programs to date. They are not in a position to sink another $10 billion into a 777 replacement.
While it pains me to say it, Boeing needs to "go cheap" and help GE with the billion or so it will take to knock 10% off the GE90's SFC as well as lighten the OEW of the 77L and 77W a bit. Then spend the next decade selling the hell out of the 77L and 77W, pushing their payload advantage and availability just as Airbus has successfully done with the A330.
While they're doing that, they can then spend the time and money on a ≤275t TOW 787-10 / 787 Freighter and ≤300t TOW 787-11 to go wing-to-wing with the A350-900XWB and A350-1000XWB and let the 777 family fade away to join the 707, 717, 757 and 767 families in retirement.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4227 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22364 times:
Quoting Profcalvin (Reply 11): On a seriouse note though, it does seem a little strange considering Boeing has had MAJOR delays on its latest project.
I think this announcement is old news, made before the latest - and most embarrassing - delay announcement on the 787. It says in the article, "This week European governments made clear they were preparing soon to agree a package of repayable launch loans to Airbus totalling about €3.5bn to help fund development of the A350". I believe that announcement re Airbus was made last week. And last week, Boeing's top management was (blindly) confident that the 787 would be taking to the skies this week.
Regardless, the fact that they are considering an all-new model reflects a concern that Airbus may indeed have a 777 killer in development. I'm sure Boeing has access to inside information at Airbus (whether real or deliberate misinformation) and they must be hearing things that are forcing them to sit up and take notice.
Daleaholic From UK - England, joined Oct 2005, 3200 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 22327 times:
I think Boeing need to get their priorities right. Rather than spending more money and valuable time looking for a 777 replacement, why don't they put that money and time into getting the freaking 787 in the air!!!
Religion is an illusion of childhood... Outgrown under proper education.
PM From India, joined Feb 2005, 6833 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 22262 times:
Quoting Juventus (Reply 1): For heaven's sake, why does Boeing need a 777 replacement??? the most popular wide-body jet around the world, airlines happy with it, everything working out fine. Why a replacement?
Because you are looking backwards and not forwards. The 777 has sold 1100 examples because it was the best plane in its class. The A350 has sold almost half that before it even flies. Times change. Go figure.
Cerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 22184 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 6): but the timing would depend on the success of the rival A350-1000.
By the time Boeing knows how good/not so good A3510 is the 777 replacement market will be all but gone. The leading 77E/77W operators will have already secured A350 delivery slots then (Unless Airbus manages an encore performance of A380/B788).
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6630 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 22185 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 19): Regardless, the fact that they are considering an all-new model reflects a concern that Airbus may indeed have a 777 killer in development. I'm sure Boeing has access to inside information at Airbus (whether real or deliberate misinformation) and they must be hearing things that are forcing them to sit up and take notice.
I think this is the case. Considering the time required for a new aircraft, if Boeing does not want to lose the 777 market completely they have to start preliminary work now. Many have used the A330's current success to imply that that success will continue once the 787 becomes available and the same will apply to the 777, but that argument is nonsense. The A330 is successful today because an airline can order one today and have a pretty good idea when they will have it on their ramp. Sales of the 787 fell off the cliff once the delays started; it is IMHO because of the uncertainty as to when the airline would get them. Airlines therefore went to the known quantity, the A330. But when the time comes that the 787 and A330 can be both had on a known timetable, the only reason one would buy the A330 over the 787 would be because it could be had sooner (which will probably be the case for the remaining life of the A330). Just look at what the A330 has done to 767 sales, even though from what I have seen the economic advantage that the A330 has over it is probably less than the 787 will have over the A330. The exact same thing will apply to the 777 vs. the A350, and Boeing knows it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2177 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 22136 times:
Quoting Juventus (Reply 1): the most popular wide-body jet around the world
To be precise regarding the number of delivered planes the 747, 767, A330/A340 are more popular.
Quoting FCKC (Reply 14): I know 748 and 787 are arriving at the end of the development , thus leaving only both the laters , but i am a little bit skeptical for this 777 replacement.
That is true. When 787 and A350 are finished Boeing faces two new clean sheet designs and Airbus one. There is no way to avoid such a constelation. Eventually Boeing has to adress the 777 and the 737 replacement while Airbus needs only to be focused on a A320 replacement blockbuster.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): While they're doing that, they can then spend the time and money on a ≤275t TOW 787-10 / 787 Freighter and ≤300t TOW 787-11 to go wing-to-wing with the A350-900XWB and A350-1000XWB and let the 777 family fade away to join the 707, 717, 757 and 767 families in retirement.
I see the temptation to grow the 787 into VLA terrain. But I predict that after the 787 saga will finally deliver what was promised at first Boeing will not wish to reuse that platform in an incarnation. Even if only the fuselage cross section would be reused the current 787 design would show some serious drawbacks:
- Too narrow, 8.5 abreast is not enough to make a genuine 9 abreast plane out of it
- Too constraint in supplier setup: the suppliers block the production scalability, they drain profit, the dependency on them is too strong
- Too constraint in technology: if in 10 years everbody starts autoclave free production you will not want to reuse that fossil technology (or the much higher production cost will largely reduce competitiveness). My personal prediction still is, that the full barrel production will see an end after the 787.
: Interesting concept. The shared cockpit should be a given to me on all new Boeing projects. Look how smart of a move it was for Airbus to offer the A
: What a misleading title, but then, considering who posted it I had to have a chuckle. This is what the article, not the OP states: "Mr. McNerney said,
: The 777-200ER has had a great run with 700 sold, the 777LR is an enhancement not a replacement. The 77W is having a great run since many 744's are co
: Really? So you are expecting the A30X to replace the A318-321 AND plug the gap between the A32X family and the A350-800? Or are you thinking they wil
: Agreed. It was a shock to everyone, QF never purchased the 777, in any of its iterations. QF could use the extra range and cargo lift of the 77W vs.
: Maybe, maybe not See what I mean.... Joking aside, I agree with you completely. The manufacturers will always be able to say "they are working on a r
: As I said in a thread recently and in response to the above that listed the aircraft in development, Boeing is also working on a number of Military ap
: This is a thing Boeing should work very hard on, the airlines are screaming for it. Still, Airbus and Boeing look like keeping on their old models, k
: I think this is the Y3 being put through fruition as the 777 is finding itself obsolete with the strong demand for the A350 aircraft. The new design c
: Well - not exactly, A332/A333 (+ A33F) has sold better than ever before since.
: Stretching a plane further and further is not very economical. The 787 diameter is simply to small in order to be an acceptable 777 replacement. Weigh
: Wait a minute, wan't Boeing recently musing publicly about just slapping a new wing on the T7 to keep it alive? Sounds like they're grasping at straws
: There currently is no strong demand for the 77W or 350-1000. For all the talk about the A350-1000 killing the 77W, there are only 75 orders. It's pro
: From the article: Boeing to Step Up Long-Haul Jet Battle 25-Jun-2009 Boeing, the US aircraft maker, is planning to intensify the competitive pressure
: As I said: Im pretty sure that they are, in one way or another, the fact remains they cant do much until the A350-1000 gathers momentum of its own (i
: Would it be possible for Boeing to re wing the 777 with CFRP and then use the same wings on the new 777 -- or is than just insanely simplisitc?
: So, while you think they definitely are, you condemn someone for actually stating it? Interesting viewpoint that. I see nothing whatever misleading a
: The differences in fuse diameter between the 350 and 787 are structurally negligible. Any stretch one can do, the other can copy. What changes a stre
: Either that or it proves we here on A.net are making a big deal out of something that isn't. The airlines understand the 787 will be a great airplane
: instead of only making the 787 longer, why don't we also make it wider. It seems like you could run into the same problem as the A340-600 by making th
: To be most effective, it would need to be as wide as the 777 so it could handle 10-abreast seating. As much as pundits call the 787 an "8.5-abreast"
: Maybe, yet the insider talk surrounds the 77L, also that it will be fuel prices that will justify the 77W and the retirement of 744's.
: Of course Boeing is looking into a 777 replacement, as well as studying a re-wing/enhanced 777. That is the prudent thing to do. Talking about it is a
: Boeing is very likely studying both a complete replacement and a 777 with new wing and more composites. For example, composite wings, a new composite
: Nope, I think they're trying to stave off losing business to A350. Maybe UA's upcoming order has them thinking about what to do next after the 787 is
: Qantas has little need for the 777. It can probably just manage with the A330 aircraft it has, and survive with the 747/A380 - with no need to spend
: LOL - I havent condemned anyone. Astuteman was smart enough to understand my point. I dont recall saying that it did.
: This is something I would not write off by all means. You answered by yourself. I counted clean sheet designs you mention a "refresh". In the categor
: And if it is a clean sheet development, I doubt that $10 billion will do. It is more likely $15 billion and that might even be optimistic.
: Well if the 748i wasn't dead before this announcement -it is now! Who on earth would buy it with a replacement now announced? (Mind you they weren't b
: People seem to forget that the 787 and 350XWB are not as large as the current 777W which is the best selling model right now, nor do they lift as muc
: There is actually a thread on that alleged weight saving in TechOps here: How Can The 777 Replacement Be 25% Lighter? (by Faro Jun 19 2009 in Tech Op
: The 748. I can not see immediately what's wrong with it. It should sell well. Only if the current market share persists (and there is no reason why t
: Nice video, Keesje! It´s a damn good looking aircraft! Rgds, Joao[Edited 2009-06-26 06:31:09]
: Smaller market in terms of absolute numbers, fan bias that it is old technology and the current downturn in the economy. If the VLA markets picks up
: Anyone who needs a replacement aircraft in that size before the 777 replacement comes out. Given current resourcing and capacity, I can't see a repla
: The bottom line is seat count. What if Boeing can put more seats without changing the structural design? Make full use of the crown space, such as mo
: As it turns out, I agree. The 350-1000 can only be considered a true 77W replacement when it can cover all the bases. Sure, Air Asia X will cram 10 a
: True, but a lot of the orders were placed before the current hellacious market conditions, meaning that the carriers may defer orders.
: But it will not be flying before the situation has changed again in a few years time. In that sense, the timing of the delay of the 787 cound'nt be b
: Why the discussion? Well, for one, it does help add a small amount of distraction regarding the 787 issues, for two, most obviously, the discussions t
: I agree. If there was ever a good time to have delays, now is that time. I'm not so sure how or where Boeing would even place so many 787s.
: Nice sentence, but for the one inaccuracy..... Warning.. You only have to consider that the structure is (probably less than) half of the OEW of an a
: Would it save Boeing some time to take the 787 wing, stretch it bit and then strengthen it? That would seem like a low risk approach. I remember the 7