FrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1732 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 24504 times:
not good news for the 350, but not real bad either.
not good news for the 748, but then there aint been much of that anyway. This would be the sort of thing that could cause LH to finally add 777s to their fleet, at the expense of ........ (don't want to even say the words, let alone get flamed!)
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
PIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 24283 times:
I know that the 777 is an amazing aircraft and it keeps getting better and better every day, but if Boeing even gets close to their goal of 15-20% we are talking about 1000-1500 miles extra on top of 8000 that the plane can fly, there is nothing that will be able to mach it in its class. We already know that the 777-300ER in its current form can beat A350-1000 in payload/range but the A350-1000 will beat it in economics. If these improvements do come forward it will make these two products from A and B that much more competitive against each other. I'm just not sure how will the airlines and the leasing companies take it, we all know what happened when A went with a worm over design instead of a clean sheet design.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31250 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 24261 times:
Yup, pretty much just repeating what Boeing have been suggesting. New wings. More composites. Improved engines.
Even without the threat of the A350XWB, Boeing and GE would continue (and have continued) to improve the 777. The A350XWB remains a moving target, however, since Airbus continues to seem to be holding their cards close to their chest. Once it actually is flying and sending back data, then Boeing will likely narrow their options down to a list that fiscally and temporally make sense.
MillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1283 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23951 times:
Whats the point of trying to do this now? Wait at least five years and see what can be done then.
Most airlines will by the time Boeing has this ready already have committed to either the 350 or the 787. Great aircraft, bad timing a bit like the new version of the 747.
Better slowly tweak the present 777 for another five years like Airbus have done with the 330 and instead put the resources into a 787 that seems to be missing every target set so far.
And a new wing, more composites and a new engine isn't cheap, requires quite abit of engineering talent and to compete it must be better than the 350. Add on that so far composites hasn't been problemfree on the 787 so perhaps its best to take it easy and make sure that all the present problems are solved before embarking on another composite project...
I reckon GE is pushing harder on this than Boeing themselves, GE has dug themselves into a hole and allowed RR to capture over 500 orders on the 350. This is a market-segment that GE has dominated with its 777 before the 350 and GE is seeing this segment being lost to a newer product and to its main rival RR.
With major European (I reckon most US airlines will go with whatever Boeing offers) orders coming the coming years the last GE wants is to loose the stronghold they have had at airlines like AF and at the moment it looks like they stand to do just that unless they get onboard the 350. GE needs a new 777 more than Boeing right now.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 23882 times:
Boeing is probably confident that the A350 will fall short of it's promises, based on Boeing's own experience with the 787 composite aircraft and the GEnx and RR engines going on it. Since the A350 was supposed to benefit from both the efficiency of composite and the efficiency of these new engines (with a 1/2 gen upgrade of some kind), if Boeing is seeing less than they expected, they are going to postulate that Airbus will run into the same issues.
At the same time, the 777 is a known quantity at Boeing, and they do know what they can do to improve it (just that it will cost a lot of money), so they may be able in a real position now to improve the 777 15%, and if the A350 doesn't reach it's "20%" targeted improvement over the 777 baseline of 3 years ago (which is already a moving target), the 777 will compete darn well, just as the A330HGW competes favorably with the deliverable performance of the 787 for many missions.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 23697 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8): Boeing is probably confident that the A350 will fall short of it's promises, based on Boeing's own experience with the 787 composite aircraft and the GEnx and RR engines going on it. Since the A350 was supposed to benefit from both the efficiency of composite and the efficiency of these new engines (with a 1/2 gen upgrade of some kind), if Boeing is seeing less than they expected, they are going to postulate that Airbus will run into the same issues.
Still, the 777 will remain to have a far heavier airframe then the A350, a new (composite?) wing and new engines won't mitigate that completely. And, if the new engines won't be as efficient as promised, it will affect a 777NG too. Unless, of course, a GTF with 90-110k thrust suddenly comes out of P&W 's hat
I'm afraid Boeing needs a new model to be able to compete in the long-term with the A350. They won't like it, but it's necessary. As you say, a 777NG may compete favorably with the early A350 models just like the A330HGW does with the early 787-8's, but only for a few years. The A350 will be at the start of its development, the 777 at the end. Not unlike the A380 vs the 748i. A 'cheap' solution doesn't cut it. That's the lesson Boeing learnt from the 748i, unfortunately.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7028 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 22828 times:
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9): I'm afraid Boeing needs a new model to be able to compete in the long-term with the A350.
'The only reason to go with a new model is if they go composite fuselage. Any other changes can be done much more cheaply by improving the existing one. Aluminum fuselage design is a pretty mature technology; unless you want to change the cross section (and I see no need for that on the 777) you don't need to change it. Look at what Boeing did with the 737NG, and that was with a design dating from the 60's. The only changes to the 777 fuselage that would improve efficiency are perhaps the nose design, and that can be changed without starting over. This idea that massive improvements can always be achieved with a clean sheet design is a myth. Obviously they know of improvements they can make on the wing and engines; therefore they are pursuing those. The decision on whether or not to launch a new model will depend on how well they resolve the 787 issues, and what their financial state is at the time. If the 787 fails to deliver on its promises and it's decided that composite fuselages are not worthwhile (which I do not believe will happen) then the 777 will likely continue on with periodic improvements for decades. Assuming that the bugs do get worked out of the 787 (both operational and production) then it is just a question of when the 777RS gets launched. That will depend on Boeing's financial position and market conditions, and how well the A350-1000 does. It will also depend on whether market conditions force the 737RS. Since everyone seems to be in agreement that composite fuselage construction will yield less on this size this will depend on engine choices, and whether or not the next generation of engines will fit the 737. If they don't Boeing will be pretty much forced to address that before the 777RS.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
OK, but the 777 is not exactly an airplane from the 60's, it's already considered economical. Engine makers have made progress since then, but only a few percent if I'm not mistaken.
And the wings cannot be so bad that one can gain more than 15% by a redesign ...
Or it means that a redesigned wing for the A320 could lead to the same gain.
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 20358 times:
Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 3): Targeting for 15% and getting 15% are two totally different things. I'll believe it when i see it.
I think what we are all forgetting is exactly how incredible the 777 was when it was introduced. I know as a child it was a much anticipated aircraft for me.
I think here lies the rub. We have made a great number of advancements since then. It's no "great feat" to take an already great airplane and improve on it over the years. We do it with computers, cars and the like. I think the 15% is conservative and we could see as much as a 25% increase.
It means the 748i is slated to be a great airplane simply because they have put all their know-how into its refurbishment. The article states that they will take what they have learned from the 748 and 787 and use it on the 777. If anything it's a testament to how efficient the 748 will be....you'll see!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31250 posts, RR: 85
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 20104 times:
Quoting Cosmofly (Reply 6): Could Boeing have been holding back in releasing the improvement numbers to give 748i more runway?
I doubt it, since they're having to scale back 777 production due to slowing sales. If they had something that could sell hundreds of more frames, they'd have shown their hand.
Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 7): I reckon GE is pushing harder on this than Boeing themselves, GE has dug themselves into a hole and allowed RR to capture over 500 orders on the 350. This is a market-segment that GE has dominated with its 777 before the 350 and GE is seeing this segment being lost to a newer product and to its main rival RR.
But GE went in with eyes wide open. They demand a minimum RoI on a program which is why they demanded the first two years of A350 production before they committed to powering that plane. When Airbus scrapped it and went to the A350XWB, GE could have powered it with the GE90 family since GE is not precluded from providing GE90 power on any other platform, but Airbus demanded GE spend billions and develop an all-new engine.
There are senior managers within GE who feel that the only A350XWB model with traction is the -900XWB. They feel the A350-800XWB is going to turn out to be a dud (so those existing orders will evaporate) and that the -1000XWB will not be competitive against the 77W on deep B-market missions, They may be wrong. They may be crazy. But they feel that they can't make that minimum RoI they need to commit to a project, so they have yet to do so.
Quoting Frigatebird (Reply 9): Still, the 777 will remain to have a far heavier airframe then the A350...
Maybe. Maybe not. The 787 was widely expected to be lighter than the A330-200 and A330-300, but the final design freeze had OEWs higher than both and the first tranche of production planes will be even worse.
Airbus claimed that the A350-900XWB would be 11t lighter than the A340-300 and 22t lighter than the 777-200ER. That OEW then rose 3t about the time they reached Design Gate M5, but they're still tweaking the design and have been silent on OEW since.
RIX From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19223 times:
Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 4): we all know what happened when A went with a warm over design instead of a clean sheet design.
- it didn't do any bad, with quite fast 100 orders - even more, it doesn't do bad today, with all 330 improvements.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): back lock of hundreds of A330-300's and A350-900s.
- how many of them are 330s and how many 350s?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): -1000XWB will not be competitive against the 77W on deep B-market missions,
- with 777 still being larger than 35A (well, there can always be 35B, but not any soon), and 777NG possibly getting base for some more stretch, and today's "composites? not so fast..." environment, radical upgrade without going for new design sounds very reasonable. Before composites truly mature, and both 787 and 350 show how it all really works, and time comes to eventually replace 777 (and 330) - it may be way too early for Y3 to finally succeed both 777 and 747.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19125 times:
As much as I'd like to be excited for this, if Boeing decides to improve the 777 rather than a clean sheet, will the airlines simply react the same way that they did with Airbus's A350 mk1?? Would a CFRP wing/wingbox and improved engines realize 15% better operating costs over the current 777? And would these improvements be applied to the 77E as well?
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
Does not say much at all, it just refers to operating cost. To me it is "targeting a 15 percent to 20 percent improvement in operating costs" is more of a trow away line for free publicity. They would need to more specific, i.e. direct operating cost, indirect operating cost (which In my view would either remain the same or increase), or total operating costs.
A similar scenario has been looked at before, consider what was possible with the A350OG (new wing and engine and A330 fuselage), a 5-10% improvement was possible, and this was largely due to the new engine. The GE-90115B being where it is not with TSFC, and already being very high bypass, I do not see large leaps in TSFC in the next 5 years, 1-2% would be more likely.
It is not possible with a new wing and new engines for the 777-300ER to have a 15-20% improvement on total fuel burn, the 787 does not even achieve that over the A330 with a new airframe/wing/engine combination.
I suspect the ways these figures have been fudged would come back to a cost per seat basis, and someone has used a 9 across vs a 10 or 11 across config, and in that case they would be talking about a reduction in range, not an increase to account for the additional number of passengers carried.
Cosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 18844 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 19): It means the 748i is slated to be a great airplane simply because they have put all their know-how into its refurbishment. The article states that they will take what they have learned from the 748 and 787 and use it on the 777. If anything it's a testament to how efficient the 748 will be....you'll see!
413x3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 18784 times:
the 748 always was more marketed towards cargo companies. I think Boeing knew for various reasons a 4 engine passenger airplane was starting to become a thing of the past except for a few select airlines.
: If true, that would make their decision to launch it suspect, but then a number of Boeing management decisions have been suspect, so what's one more,
: Well if it's a 25% improvement in Cash Operating Costs per seat, that would match Airbus' claims for the A350-900XWB vs. the 777-200ER and the A350-1
: I think the decision to launch the freighter was sound. The decision to launch the pax version may be less so, but it's too early to tell. If in fact
: He also said "Our goal is to get to 90% in October, which is better than planned,", the original schedule had the 748i EIS next year, I cannot see ho
: After several hints about re-enginening the 737NG as weel as the 777NG makes me believe that Boeing might co develop these programs. They might lack
: With the 737NG, the 748, this possible 777NG and the 787 fiasco, it seems to me that Boeing feels more and more comfortable building new generations o
: At the time of the 744, the 747 was about the same relative age, as a platform, as the 777 will be by the time this revision would arrive. 25 years o
: My understanding from reading this forum and from other sources is that the 737NG fuse is still the same cross section and still is made with Al, but
: I know that many forum members here do not like 4 holers. So just my favorite thought again (I mentioned some time before). As engine development is d