Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Albaugh's Comments About Boeing Commercial  
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4422 times:

Spent some time listening to Mr Albaugh's comment about Boeing Commercial Aircraft. Here are the three things that I found interesting;

1. 747-8F (he didn't say I so I'm assuming F) sales in 2009 could have been higher but the company chose not sell a/c at the customer requested point. He also mentioned that other a/c sales were not closed because of low price points. From a stock market prospective, not making the sale in '09 was not seen as negative; take your beatings at the appropriate time.
2. Evaluation of the 737 re-engine, and breathing life into the 777 programs. The decision to re-engine the 737 or go with a clean sheet will come by year end. Competitive prospective, timing is excellent; Airbus announces 2nd or third quarter (driven by Qatar), and Boeing gets to assess market feedback on the Airbus decision before the year end announcement. If Albaugh's desire (as stated in his remarks) is to be Number 1 then this year is the time to strike. Going clean sheet beginning 2011, allows movement of 787 designers now and leveraging their tribal knowledge while it's fresh and ready to work. Slaps the new players in the 125-150 space while they're still in the design phase (if you don't hit China early, they have a large enough domestic market to make you hurt later), and your major competitor will be explaining their justification for not going clean sheet. As for the 777, this is a great time to announce program objectives before Airbus completes the A350-1000 definition. Taking advantage of first movers position. Makes current 777 customers think about Boeing as Airbus makes their presentation. Based on current -1000 sales the window remains open.
3. 787-8 specifically (although there were comments about the 747-8 program) has had a seccessful transition to flight test. Although some slack time has been consumed, testing is going well. Proof, a video displaying program success. Certainly would not have happened third quarter last year!!!! Dance while you can, cause somebody's going to piss on your leg and call it rain!!!!

Mr Albaugh wants to be Number 1, he is pulling his team together, and he certainly said he's putting things in place to make Number 1 happen. Mr. Albaugh has to remember that the world is changing quickly and if you don't move fast new players will consume your existing market share, so make bold moves and let the games begin!!!!!!

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2351 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

With the 787 and 748 programs coming into production, does Boeing have the resources to design a 737 and 777 at the same time?

The T-7 is about to be upstaged, and the 737 is an uncomfortable and old design. Boeing needs new designs in both segments.

[Edited 2010-03-10 15:54:57]


The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Thread starter):
1. 747-8F (he didn't say I so I'm assuming F) sales in 2009 could have been higher but the company chose not sell a/c at the customer requested point.

That is quite a vote of confidence for a plane that has not been a runaway success. Granted, for cargo the A380 is not an option and the A380 pax order books are not exactly swelling.

Quoting CFBFrame (Thread starter):
The decision to re-engine the 737 or go with a clean sheet will come by year end.

I expect a modification which would include a new powerplant, the question is what engine and how much modification. I would be surprised to see a clean sheet design, since I don't think that 787 technology can provide a large enough jump in economics to make it worthwhile at this point. The 737 has a healthy backlog, and a further refinement should keep it more than competitive until a clean sheet design can be built around 2020.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
does Boeing have the resources to design a 737 and 777 at the same time?

Maybe. Here is my stance on a 777 replacement from a while back:

Quote:
I was originally in the skip the 777NG and go straight to the Y3 camp as well, but now I really don't know enough to make that call. But the reason that they would go with a 777NG over the Y3 is that they need to stay competitive but can't dedicate all of the resources for a new plane if say, they were in the middle of building the 737 replacement. I guess that my feelings would be build the Y3 if you can and the 777NG if you must.

and

Quote:
I would prefer a two pronged replacement for the 777. A 787-10 at the end of this decade (the oldest 777s will be ~25 years old) would be a good replacement for the 777-200 variants, with the exception of the LR. This may be a pretty extensive rework, but still probably cheaper than an all new airframe. Ideally, the second prong would be the Y3 sometime later, which would utilize all of the tricks of the 787 and then some and start right around 77W size. Hopefully, there would be enough of a gain in fuel efficiency to also replace the 77L.

The catch is that right around this timeframe is when Boeing would really want to get serious about the 737RS. This is the plane that Boeing absolutely cannot afford to screw up. If that project is going on, they probably won't be able to devote the resources to develop the Y3 at the same time. If this is the case, I would advocate and 777NG, which would be a pretty major rework but less resource intensive than a new plane. Like the Y3, I would want this plane to start at the 77W size and perhaps have a further stretch (which may be difficult due to gate restrictions) to almost full cover the gap below the 748.
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
The T-7 is about to be upstaged,

Not if they have an improved version in the works. The A350 is still a while away, and it seems that Airbus hasn't done too badly selling A330s these last few years while the 787 was in development.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 1):
nd the 737 is an uncomfortable and old design.

That is your opinion, and the order book seems to disagree. The A320 has a pretty healthy backlog as well. I would say that 2018 is probably the earliest we will see any clean sheet designs from either Boeing or Airbus in the segment.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4182 times:

I get the logic of waiting unitl 2018, driven by the current backlog, and potential resource constraints. The issue is not the backlog, but go forward marketshare. Re-engine will cause some shift in that backlog and the potential to lose the 737-700 is there. For Boeing that means bye to SWA, and I'm not sure that's a good thing for their single isle business plan. Component suppliers are lining up to provide engines and other parts for the upward moving entrannts, so an SWA will not be concerned with a new player. Give SWA the performance they're looking for at a price they like with parts from suppliers they know and that backlog is gone. Also, the re-engine a/c is a new config that's temporary for customers producing all the things counter to the SWA model. Why not bite the bullet and go with a totally new config from a new supplier? Both A & B need to really think about giving upward climbers any opportunity because a nibble can turn into a bite. Next thing you know the single isle business is the backyard of someone else. For Airbus playing the re-engine game is much worse because China is using the A320 as their template. And we know how much IP is respected in China.

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

GE already pubicly commited to rolling GEnX technology into the GE90 family. I'm guessing Boeing is wanting to have GE do a little more than they were planning on and to do it at the same time as a round of improvements on the frame so they have more marketing push behind what was going to happen anyway.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 3):
I get the logic of waiting unitl 2018, driven by the current backlog, and potential resource constraints.

The issue now isn't so much resources, but rather that if Boeing took all of the 787 technology and applied it to a 737 replacement, the gains probably wouldn't be big enough to the new airframe worth it. They need a few years to get some more new technology for more efficiency.

So until then, Boeing and Airbus can either offer upgraded and reengined versions of what they have, or just stand pat.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
The issue now isn't so much resources, but rather that if Boeing took all of the 787 technology and applied it to a 737 replacement, the gains probably wouldn't be big enough to the new airframe worth it. They need a few years to get some more new technology for more efficiency.

So until then, Boeing and Airbus can either offer upgraded and reengined versions of what they have, or just stand pat.

You're comfortable saying that despite China, Japan, Russia, and Bombardier pushing into the bottom of the market space? Let's say both A & B are okay with giving up the A319 and the -700 portions of the market, how can that be achieved when there is overall less share to be distributed. Breakeven will be harder for both companies to achieve so pricing and winning will become even more important, which in turn pushes breakeven further to the right.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3920 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 6):
You're comfortable saying that despite China, Japan, Russia, and Bombardier pushing into the bottom of the market space?

Yes. I think that the 737 and A320 replacements need to grow and my first inclination would be to size the smallest variant just a bit larger than the current A319 and 73G.

First, the MRJ and Sukhoi Superjet are going to have barely over 100 seats, which won't really effect the Boeing and Airbus entrants. The CSeries is the largest threat to the A320 and 737, but even there there are limits to its expandability. You will almost certainly never see a 200 seat CSeries. They will probably win a few orders here and there, but I really don't think that the CSeries is as big a threat to the traditional players as Bombardier would like us to believe.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30609 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3891 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's probably premature to write the obituary for the 777 family as she currently exists just yet. Boeing is considering reversing their decision to cut the production rate so evidently they feel some more orders are coming down the pipeline.

The various goodies Lightsaber has postulated for the GE90 (contra-rotation, new fan, IBR compressors, wide chord blade technology, etc.) should produce multiple percentage points of SFC improvement and if a number of them can be retro-fitted into existing GE90's as a PIP, that helps extend the economic life of the current 77W/77L fleets (which are quite young).

And the 737NG may be "old" and it may be "uncomfortable", but it's still mighty desirable based on orders to date. And putting new engines on it will only make it more-so.


User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
I would prefer a two pronged replacement for the 777. A 787-10 at the end of this decade (the oldest 777s will be ~25 years old) would be a good replacement for the 777-200 variants, with the exception of the LR. This may be a pretty extensive rework, but still probably cheaper than an all new airframe. Ideally, the second prong would be the Y3 sometime later, which would utilize all of the tricks of the 787 and then some and start right around 77W size. Hopefully, there would be enough of a gain in fuel efficiency to also replace the 77L.

Very much agree. From the safety of my armchair, if you're Boeing, I'd say plan on the following for the next 10 years:

- Assuming Airbus goes for A320NG rather than a new plane, counter with a 737NNG with new engines and nose gear extension to maintain parity. This should postpone the genuine 737RS well into the 2020s and allow resources to...

- Develop a real 787-10 with a gross weight boost to preserve range versus the -9 and thus replace the 777-200ER. If this means going to a three-bogie MLG or a center truck (e.g. MD-11), uprated engines, and a larger wing (maybe based on the recently abandoned span extension intended for the -9), bite the bullet and do it. A 787-10"A" might have some appeal, but history has shown that carriers will pay up (in $ and lbs. of OEW) for extra capability. The A350-900 and -900R will be tough competitors, so don't leave performance on the table. Use knowledge accumulated on the -8 and -9 for weight reduction where possible and blockpoint improvements across the line - the 787 was designed from the start for this kind of modular evolution. EIS in the 2015-2016 time frame.

- Combine the -9 fuselage with the -10 wings/undercarriage to yield a -9LR with nearly antipodal range to further fragment long-range routes with much better economics than the 772LR or A345. This would help blunt appeal for the A380 by allowing carriers to bypass large hubs like DXB and SIN. It would also give Boeing the platform for a very formidable 787-8F or -9F if desired; the current models may not have enough uplift to do the job.

- Launch a clean-sheet Y3 with models around 350, 425, and 475 seats to replace the 777-300ER. This should be closer to a scaled-up 787 than a refreshed 777. The 777 will be competing with a clean-sheet A350, and by the time you add meaningfully greater composite content, probably a new wing, 787 systems, and new engines, you're probably 75% of the way to a new plane with maybe 50% of the benefits that result from a fully integrated platform. EIS late in the decade, e.g. 2018-2020.

Y3 will kill the 747-8I, but it was always going to be a tag-along to the -8F, which should continue to sell in small numbers. The biggest Y3 should also have sufficiently low CASM to seriously threaten the A380, which leaves Airbus with a number of unattractive options for a line that will probably never break even in the first place.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 9):
This should postpone the genuine 737RS well into the 2020s and allow resources to...

I think that the 2020 range is the earliest we will see a 737RS regardless of what happens with the current 737. But this is the plane that Boeing cannot afford to screw up.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 9):
If this means going to a three-bogie MLG or a center truck (e.g. MD-11), uprated engines, and a larger wing (maybe based on the recently abandoned span extension intended for the -9), bite the bullet and do it.

It will take a lot of work, but I think that it will be worthwhile, and cheaper than a whole new frame.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 9):
Combine the -9 fuselage with the -10 wings/undercarriage to yield a -9LR with nearly antipodal range to further fragment long-range routes with much better economics than the 772LR or A345.

That was a part of my plan as well, but I forgot to add it in the quote. Such a plane could do quite nicely.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
I am a proponent of a 787-10, even though it would probably involve a lot of effort. It could replace the 772 and allow either the Y3 or 777NG to be focused more towards the upper end of the size spectrum. I also like the idea of trying to get the most out of development costs by using some of the new 787-10 bits (like the wing) to make a 787-9LR, much like what happened with the 777. But I would expect this ~2020 at the earliest.
Quoting B2707SST (Reply 9):
- Launch a clean-sheet Y3 with models around 350, 425, and 475 seats to replace the 777-300ER.

That is another reason I like the idea of the 787-10. Whatever 777NG or Y3 we get can be optimized for the larger end of the spectrum. In either case, I would envision the smallest 777NG or Y3 variant being about the size of the 77W and growing from there. If we end up with a 777NG, probably only one stretch will be practical, but the 747-8 could still cover the larger size beyond that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCFBFrame From United States of America, joined May 2009, 531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 7):
First, the MRJ and Sukhoi Superjet are going to have barely over 100 seats, which won't really effect the Boeing and Airbus entrants. The CSeries is the largest threat to the A320 and 737, but even there there are limits to its expandability.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
And the 737NG may be "old" and it may be "uncomfortable", but it's still mighty desirable based on orders to date. And putting new engines on it will only make it more-so.

Okay, the C919 is a warmed over A320, which will have a captured market. I understand its China but the cut in demand fo both A & B is going to hurt the rest of the world, reducing the number of units to spread development costs. That does not concern both of you?

BMI727 (and Stich to a degree)- you didn't address the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series.

And for all you smart guys, no one answered whether the 737 and 777 theories will allow Mr. Albuagh to achieve his goal of regaining the Number 1 spot again. I think they will hold the widebody leadership, but narrowbody will be tough because of the potential fragmentation already taking place. It may be smart for Boeing to join the C program and leverage the new design. Thoughts?

As an aside, although the A380 might be an outstanding a/c for the VLA segment, if production issues are not addressed in the next 2 to 3 years the jet might be discontinued in support of the A350. If that happens what do you guys think of your 777 and 747-8 strategies then?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

I think if Boeing goes with a stretch as well as a re-wing, they can put some more space between the 777 and the 350-1000. Make it an even 80m long and that gives them room for 30 or more j seats.

Compared to a new wing, engineering a stretch is relatively simple. I believe the GE-90 will have the power to fly a new, heavier aircraft.

I really doubt Boeing will go with an all new design in the near future. Most of the gains expected can be realised by new engines. The only way 'all new' makes any sense is if the rework for new engines ends up being more work to keep up with the 320 than the front gear stretch that has been mentioned.

If the 320's' longer legs allows a significant performance/economy lead over the 737, then they will really have no choice but to do something significant.



What the...?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5316 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series

WN loves the 737-700 for a large variety of reasons. Two of those reasons are: 1) the frame's good range, which allows it to fly any flight in the network, and 2) its excellent performance characteristics, which save time-obsessed WN a lot of time by allowing its pilots to climb over or to slip in between pokier aircraft.

Neither of those characteristics is going to be present in a super-stretch of a smaller platform like the C-Series, especially one large enough to replace a 73G without capacity shrinkage (in other words, larger than a C300).

I think it's more likely that WN will stick with a baseline derivative or even a shrink of a larger platform, to preserve the advantages the 73G gives them. And they are so large, I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing in particular sized any replacement platform precisely so the smallest variant gives WN exactly 149 seats.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30609 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3628 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
BMI727 (and Stich to a degree)- you didn't address the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
WN loves the 737-700 for a large variety of reasons. Two of those reasons are: 1) the frame's good range, which allows it to fly any flight in the network, and 2) its excellent performance characteristics, which save time-obsessed WN a lot of time by allowing its pilots to climb over or to slip in between pokier aircraft.

There is also turnaround time on the ground. A 150-seat CSeries is going to be longer than a 150-seat 737 which means it will take longer to load and unload both the passenger cabin and the cargo hold. So WN could be giving up a turn or two on some high-frequency routes and that's a potential 150-300 less seats sold per day per aircraft per city-pair.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
BMI727 (and Stich to a degree)- you didn't address the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series.

I don't expect that. There aren't many things in this business that could be called a shocker, but I think that is one. I recall seeing or hearing something about WN and AA being rather eager to see what Boeing's 737 replacement will be. Even if WN leaves the 737, it is by no means a death blow to the program.

The fact remains that the CSeries in its current forms simply cannot replace the 737. In terms of size, the CS300 is about equal to the 737-700. The smallest variant of the 737 (neglecting the all but dead 737-600) is about equal in size to the largest variant of the CSeries.

To date, 1134 737-700s (including BBJs) have been ordered. Compare that to 3051 737-800s and 296 737-900/900ERs. Basically, nearly 75% of 737NGs ordered are too large to be effectively replaced by the CSeries. Also, remember that the CSeries will have a range shortfall compared to the 737-700.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
It may be smart for Boeing to join the C program and leverage the new design.

Perhaps it might be a good idea, but it would be as a follow on to the 717 rather than a real 737 replacement. I doubt that the CSeries can be stretched to a sufficient size to replace most 737s without making serious compromises. Furthermore, it is my belief that the 737 replacement should focus on the larger end of the current 737 spectrum, with the smallest variant slightly larger than the 737-700 and the largest in the 220 seat range.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
if production issues are not addressed in the next 2 to 3 years the jet might be discontinued in support of the A350.

Why? The A380 is not really sucking up a large portion of engineering resources anymore is it? They have already spent billions on it so they might as well try and recoup their investment.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
If that happens what do you guys think of your 777 and 747-8 strategies then?

I doubt that the A380 will be discontinued this side of 2020, and if it does I don't think it changes the gameplan for Boeing that much.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3585 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
I really doubt Boeing will go with an all new design in the near future.

   As I have said before, the Y3 is the plane you want to build but the 777NG is the plane they may have to build. If the 737RS is commanding a lot of resources, the decision will probably be made for them.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
1) the frame's good range, which allows it to fly any flight in the network,

   The CSeries can't match that, but WN doesn't have too many really long flights, so they are one of the relatively few 73G operators that could possibly realistically replace their 737s with the CSeries.

So basically, the CSeries isn't big enough to really replace 3/4 of the 737NGs out there, and it can't replace some of the 737-700s out there because it doesn't have the range and/or performance. How many 737NGs are out there that the CSeries could actually replace?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
A 150-seat CSeries is going to be longer than a 150-seat 737 which means it will take longer to load and unload both the passenger cabin and the cargo hold.

  



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineB2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1369 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3577 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
And for all you smart guys, no one answered whether the 737 and 777 theories will allow Mr. Albuagh to achieve his goal of regaining the Number 1 spot again. I think they will hold the widebody leadership, but narrowbody will be tough because of the potential fragmentation already taking place. It may be smart for Boeing to join the C program and leverage the new design. Thoughts?

Personally, I think the notion that A&B are in danger of losing the narrowbody market is overblown. As some on this board love to point out, the CSeries has been for sale for over half a decade and only has one large order. I doubt any major customer is going to commit to a first-generation "indigenous" Chinese design, and the Russians have been unable to sell their planes outside the former Soviet Union. Embraer is just now starting to talk about an incremental stretch of the E195, which is a long way from a whole new narrowbody family.

Given this, Airbus and Boeing are a known quantity and have such large user bases that I think most airlines will be willing to wait for new 737s and A320s rather than roll the dice with a new model. Are the 736 and A318 toast? Certainly, and the 73G/A319 may have some new competition in the medium term, but the real bread and butter over the next 20 years will be in the 738/739/752 size range going forward, and it's hard to see much of a challenge here. Plus, the narrowbody market is so large that even losing a Southwest or an EasyJet is not going to break any program Airbus or Boeing choose to pursue.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
As an aside, although the A380 might be an outstanding a/c for the VLA segment, if production issues are not addressed in the next 2 to 3 years the jet might be discontinued in support of the A350. If that happens what do you guys think of your 777 and 747-8 strategies then?

The poor sales of the A380, and the 747-8I for that matter, speak for themselves. Neither has sold in sufficient quantity to be a driver of long-term strategy for Boeing; Airbus has already made its choice, but any additional investment in the A380 looks like throwing good money after bad at this point. The fact that Y3 will probably be the final stake in the heart for the A380 is a nice side benefit, not the main objective.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 12):
Compared to a new wing, engineering a stretch is relatively simple. I believe the GE-90 will have the power to fly a new, heavier aircraft.

From a structural perspective, yes, a simple stretch is not all that difficult. But the 773ER is at the limit in a lot of ways. There is not a great deal of rotation margin left to allow for a stretch, as the 773ER already has several special features (semi-levered landing gear, automatic tailstrike prevention, tailskid, etc.) to improve field performance. The 773ER's wing loading is among the highest of any aircraft. The same is true for pavement loading on the gear. There is no more room in the airframe for additional fuel to preserve the 773ER's range capability even if you could boost the MTOW; the 772LR had to go to cargo bay tanks, which few airlines have ordered. The GE90 is probably good for another 10,000 lbs. or so, but that's the least of the problems.

Add these up and it looks hard for the 777, even with major modifications, to compete with a brand-new A350. Better to replace the 772ER with a 787-10ER (as opposed to the "simple stretch" 787-10A), then replace the 773ER with a Y3 and build in a stretch or two to allow for growth.

Also, as 787 development costs have been paid for out of current cash flow (mostly from from the 737 and 777), once R&D expenses start to decline and the pace of 787 deliveries rises toward 10 a month (which will happen sooner or later), the effect on free cash flow will be enormous. The main constraint to Boeing's development schedule will be manpower rather than money, and with McNerney mentioning that they need to put engineers back at the center of their corporate culture, hopefully they will make some progress on this front in the next 10 years or so.

--B2707SST



Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
BMI727 (and Stich to a degree)- you didn't address the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series

I think it is much more likely that WN would switch to the 738 than the CSeries. WS did the switch and FR is doing fine with the -800. If a new and improved 738 brings the operating costs down, the scenario becomes even more likely.



What the...?
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30609 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3533 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
And for all you smart guys, no one answered whether the 737 and 777 theories will allow Mr. Albuagh to achieve his goal of regaining the Number 1 spot again. I think they will hold the widebody leadership, but narrowbody will be tough because of the potential fragmentation already taking place. It may be smart for Boeing to join the C program and leverage the new design. Thoughts?

The trick is, I don't see the 737NG and A320 backlogs being significantly impacted by the new players. The MD-8x, MD-9x and 717 all couldn't bust open the 737/A320 duopoly even though they were all lighter and more fuel efficient, as well.

And that's been the crux of my argument. Not that the CSeries or MRJ or ERJ-X or C919 are all "pieces of crap", but that they are not as revolutionary and game-changing as their proponents proclaim they are.

Fuel burn is important, but it's not the only thing airlines take into account. If it was, the 767 and 747 would be outselling the A330 and A380 because they burn less fuel. Fuel burn is just one variable airlines factor into their fleet purchasing decisions and that variable is weighted differently depending on the airline or the mission within an airline.

The 737NG and A320 both have advantages that help counter their higher fuel burn, and when the CFM56 Evolution, CFM LEAP-X and IAE/P&W/RR GTFs become available, that's going to less the weight of the fuel burn variable, increasing the weight the other benefits the 737NG and A320 offer in the final equation.



Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
As an aside, although the A380 might be an outstanding a/c for the VLA segment, if production issues are not addressed in the next 2 to 3 years the jet might be discontinued in support of the A350. If that happens what do you guys think of your 777 and 747-8 strategies then?

Pretty much the only way I can see the A380 program discontinued is when it's backlog is depleted and new orders are so few that Airbus cannot sustain a production rate of more than one per month. At that point, it's probably not worth keeping the line open.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6123 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3502 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
I think that the 2020 range is the earliest we will see a 737RS regardless of what happens with the current 737. But this is the plane that Boeing cannot afford to screw up.

If the 737NG is re-engined, I think that ~2025 is a real possibility. As you infer, they will get only one kick at the NB replacement... and they can't afford to screw it up.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
BMI727 (and Stich to a degree)- you didn't address the SWA argument and the potential of a switch to the C series.

It is not realistic. SWA has 543 737s, 90 on order and 19 options.

Quoting CFBFrame (Reply 11):
It may be smart for Boeing to join the C program and leverage the new design. Thoughts?

There is really no "leveraging" the new design.... as Stitch says below...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
And that's been the crux of my argument. Not that the CSeries or MRJ or ERJ-X or C919 are all "pieces of crap", but that they are not as revolutionary and game-changing as their proponents proclaim they are.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 838 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

I was watching “Building of a 21st Century Jet” for the umpteenth time earlier. For anyone which hasn't seen it - It follows the development, building and certification of the 777. What are interesting and perhaps relevant here are the interviews with the Boeing management and their comments about the market at that time, and their relationships with their customers and their competition.

You certainly get the impression that Boeing felt as if they were caught napping. By their own admission they ignored customer requests, let development stagnate by re-hashing old designs over and over, and rejected new technology. They viewed 777 was the start of a new chapter for them, a clean sheet, a new clean “leaner” Boeing and a more progressive approach to technology.

For me the 787 is the personification of this. It’s full of industry firsts and has taken Boeing from playing catch up in regards to technology into leading it. In fact the very reason it exists is a great example of how well the new Boeing is working, the original concept of the Sonic Cruiser was put to the airlines which rejected it, so Boeing set about designing something that the customers actually wanted, and I guess the order book is testament to how well that approach works.

The problem I see now is how badly they got burnt with the 787, I think as a company it had been so long since they had the technological lead that they had forgotten how hard it is. When there is no precedent set and no one to copy, then it’s inevitable that there are going to be problems and lessons to be learnt. My own view, looking from the outside in, is that they did an incredible job averting a complete catastrophe and recovering the project to where it stands today – however I suspect the attitude maybe very different internally at Boeing.

I sincerely hope that this doesn’t result in a return to the old cautious Boeing of old. I’m not sure if its Boeing which is weaker or Airbus which is stronger, but they no longer have a “free ride” - every sale is a fight now, I think Airbus in terms of products is the most competitive they have ever been.

So Boeing need to keep on fighting, the 737 is a great aircraft, but it’s ancient. As many have already said its replacement is something that they cannot get wrong, and the way to get it right in my view is to have time too. I can’t see the advantage in waiting, they know the A320NG is on its way, they know that for at least the next decade CFRP is going to be the material of choice and they know “tubes” are here to stay...

They should keep the initiative and let Airbus play catch up for a while.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5405 posts, RR: 30
Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3493 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17):
Personally, I think the notion that A&B are in danger of losing the narrowbody market is overblown.

I don't think any reasonable person is seriously thinking that A&B is in danger of losing the narrowbody market. After all, the only plane out there even close to competing in any part of their market is the CS300...and that's just at the lowest end of their market...and it's a market segment that they aren't exactly concentrating on anyway. Most customers are choosing the 738 and 320 over their smaller siblings.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17):
From a structural perspective, yes, a simple stretch is not all that difficult. But the 773ER is at the limit in a lot of ways. There is not a great deal of rotation margin left to allow for a stretch,

Only half of a 6m stretch would be behind the wing.

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17):
The 773ER's wing loading is among the highest of any aircraft. The same is true for pavement loading on the gear. There is no more room in the airframe for additional fuel to preserve the 773ER's range capability even if you could boost the MTOW;

An all new wing might have increased surface area, lowering wing loading. An all new wing would require an all new wing box, which could contain an extra set of bogies. The extra larger wing and longer fuse could be used to haul more fuel. A new wing gives them a lot of options for improvement.

A new wing for the 777 can also be a test bed for a Y3 wing. The knowledge gleaned from the 787 will go a long way to aiding in developing new wings.

If they are going to do something to the 777, they might as well do something significant.



What the...?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5316 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3464 times:

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 17):
From a structural perspective, yes, a simple stretch is not all that difficult. But the 773ER is at the limit in a lot of ways. There is not a great deal of rotation margin left to allow for a stretch, as the 773ER already has several special features (semi-levered landing gear, automatic tailstrike prevention, tailskid, etc.) to improve field performance. The 773ER's wing loading is among the highest of any aircraft. The same is true for pavement loading on the gear. There is no more room in the airframe for additional fuel to preserve the 773ER's range capability even if you could boost the MTOW; the 772LR had to go to cargo bay tanks, which few airlines have ordered. The GE90 is probably good for another 10,000 lbs. or so, but that's the least of the problems.

This all suggests that the way forward for the 777 depends completely on two things: how much empty weight Boeing can pull out, and how much GE can improve GE90 SFC. I'm sure Boeing has teams of number-crunchers beavering away trying to figure out whether a major investment in those items or an all-new frame larger than a 787 would represent a more profitable use of capital. Given the existing 77W's continued strong sales in the face of the A350-1000, I'm not sure the idea of 777 improvements is as hopeless as you think; they would ameliorate the 77W's fuel burn disadvantage and add to what is already a sizable payload/range advantage against the A350.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3407 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
I think it is much more likely that WN would switch to the 738 than the CSeries. WS did the switch and FR is doing fine with the -800. If a new and improved 738 brings the operating costs down, the scenario becomes even more likely.

Not to mention that it has been said that the -800 offers a disproportionately large increase in size compared to the additional trip costs. I don't know if WN will add them though.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
The trick is, I don't see the 737NG and A320 backlogs being significantly impacted by the new players.

Nor do I.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
The MD-8x, MD-9x and 717 all couldn't bust open the 737/A320 duopoly even though they were all lighter and more fuel efficient, as well.

The MD-80 did pretty well, and the MD-90 certainly had a lot of potential before the Boeing merger cut it off for the most part. The 717 was a bit different, specializing in the shorter range flights and was quite successful there despite the Boeing merger. The CSeries is certainly more of a larger E-Jet or a longer ranged 717 than a 737 replacement.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 20):
If the 737NG is re-engined, I think that ~2025 is a real possibility.

2020 is probably about right if they don't reengine the 737, but if they do a 737NNG the 737RS could certainly be pushed back several years.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 21):
let development stagnate by re-hashing old designs over and over, and rejected new technology.

But there is the definite cost vs. return calculation, both for Boeing and the airlines. Boeing could start tomorrow investing billions in a 737 replacement with all the bells and whistles of the 787, but it probably would not provide the returns to the airlines to make it worthwhile. This is a case where I think that Boeing needs to lay off a borderline pitch and look for a better one.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 21):
As many have already said its replacement is something that they cannot get wrong, and the way to get it right in my view is to have time too.

It isn't as though Boeing is not looking at how they will replace the 737. They are, and the conclusion (as of now) is that current technology cannot provide the leaps and bounds in performance that the customers want. The return on a large investment is not where it should be. So, they can make no investment and keep on going more or less as they have been, subject to A320 improvements, or they can make a moderate investment to keep up and get moderate returns.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 21):
I can’t see the advantage in waiting,

The advantage in waiting is the ability to use even newer technology. I don't know what exactly, but as far as I can tell, that is the score. A Boeing employee on this board alluded to the fact that the 787-9 will have a lot of improvements that will have to be rolled back into the -8.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 23):
I'm sure Boeing has teams of number-crunchers beavering away trying to figure out whether a major investment in those items or an all-new frame larger than a 787 would represent a more profitable use of capital.

Money is just one factor. I don't know if Boeing has enough engineering resources that they can have two all new airframes being developed at the same time.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 Daysleeper : If the numbers aren’t there now then I don’t think they are going to be in ten years. I really can’t see what is going to change in terms of fr
26 BMI727 : You would be surprised at what can be accomplished. The large things probably won't be that much different. I think that it is safe to say that the 7
27 planemaker : Though there are ~550 orders for the "smaller siblings". The current backlog of A319s and 73Gs will be all but delivered by the time of CS300 EIS. Th
28 XT6Wagon : Boy if I had a dollar for everytime someone mentioned open rotor engines as the next big thing... Lets just say I'd be commuting with an aston as my
29 planemaker : Yes, they suck so much that all the engine manufacturers are throwing away millions on open rotor R&D.
30 XT6Wagon : If by all you mean one... then... er... ok.
31 Post contains links planemaker : Not one... read this thread... http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/258685/
32 CFBFrame : Flightblogger posted an article tonight stating that the re-engine programs are proposing 10-15% performance improvements. Not that I doubt that numbe
33 XT6Wagon : I'm betting that its less of a concern compared to longhaul. Sure a reduction in the cost and frequency of MX related to cycles will be nice, it rema
34 JoeCanuck : How many orders for the larger siblings?
35 BMI727 : I got those numbers from b737.org. I don't know how up to date they are, but I think the picture is pretty clear.
36 BoeEngr : This seems to come up a lot on here. Why some people think the 737 cannot be upgraded is beyond me. I assure you, it can, and I believe, it will. I t
37 Daysleeper : I think everyone knows it’s possible to update, as it would have been possible to update any frame, I think what many people – myself included ha
38 BoeEngr : And with this point I disagree. It's not getting easier to modify, I'll give you that. But it's not uneconomical to upgrade either. What is the weigh
39 Daysleeper : I persumed cables/pullys weighed more than FBW systems - Maybe I'm wrong?
40 Post contains images Stitch : I think people tend to get hung up on the 737 family having first entered service in the mid-1960s and therefore tend to think of the 737NG as fundame
41 DfwRevolution : They do, but overall the 737NG models are lighter than their respective A320 counterparts. The 737NG also has higher dispatch reliability. So in two
42 Daysleeper : I wasn’t comparing it to the A320, I said it had a weight penalty because of the older control system – which it appears it does. If it had FBW t
43 BoeEngr : When the 737NG was designed, I quite wish it was given a different name so we could avoid this confusion. My point is simply that the 737 control sys
44 Post contains images Daysleeper : If it’s essentially a new aircraft then why didn’t they address things like the limited under-wing space? Or even give it the 777s FBW system? I
45 BMI727 : They didn't have to. There is your answer. There are no prizes for going above and beyond. Every improvement is a cost benefit analysis, and it appea
46 BoeEngr : I didn't work on it personally (was still in college at the time), but my guess would be that underwing space wasn't an issue. They were able to fit
47 Post contains images BoeEngr : We were posting at the same time, and we agree...
48 Daysleeper : I thought it was a struggle with the 400 to get the engines under the wings, hence the odd shaped nacelles - I would have thought that if the NG was
49 BMI727 : If you can fit the engines you want under the wings as they are, why raise them? They could have raised the 737NG, but there would be costs involved
50 Stitch : Considering the number of wins the A320 secured amongst 737 Classic operators in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it appears operators found the A320'
51 DfwRevolution : FWIW, Boeing did raise the 737NG landing gear a few inches. This allows the CFM56-7B to have a nearly circular intake whereas the -3B on the 737 Clas
52 planemaker : Most of the discussion has been about fuel economy but equally important will be CO2 reduction. There will be regulation to cut emmisions and that wil
53 tdscanuck : What do you mean address it? Boeing markets that as an *advantage*...you don't need any special equipment to do basic engine maintenance, it's all at
54 Post contains images Daysleeper : What edge? Since the first flight of the NG in 1997 Boeing have had 4838 orders for 737, compared to 5744 orders Airbus received for the A320 during
55 Post contains links DfwRevolution : You do not listen, do you? The 737NG was already lighter than the A320 series. FBW would not have made the 737NG better. Customers didn't want it. In
56 tdscanuck : Except they do have room to fit larger fans...Boeing has said this repeatedly, and it's been discussed ad naseum on this forum. 787 I'm not sure abou
57 BMI727 : Except that they can raise the plane. Nothing is stopping Boeing from doing whatever modifications they feel they can justify economically. If Boeing
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...
Amusing Comments About Planes posted Sat Jul 18 2009 15:16:55 by Kennyone
Andy ROONEY'S Comments About Air Travel 60 Minutes posted Tue May 19 2009 10:46:53 by Jmbweeboy
Boeing Commercial Cuts 4500 Jobs posted Fri Jan 9 2009 10:32:19 by Stitch
Data About Boeing 2707-200 posted Fri May 18 2007 17:53:19 by Flagon
Is Boeing Commercial Hiring At All? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 21:37:03 by Flybyguy
Boeing Commercial Vs. Boeing Military posted Mon Apr 10 2006 07:32:19 by AviationAddict
Boeing's Commercial Business Looking Up posted Mon Mar 13 2006 00:09:58 by Thebry
The Truth About Boeing And Airbus Aid. posted Sat Sep 17 2005 16:41:04 by Ibhayi
Boeing Commercial Aircraft Strategy posted Wed May 4 2005 04:53:00 by Monteycarlos
Has Seattle Forgotten About Boeing? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 08:53:59 by United777