astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9612 posts, RR: 97 Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11213 times:
Quoting rjpieces (Thread starter): Does any variety of the 787 or A-350 come close to replacing the 777-300 E.R?
The A350-1000 is within 3% of the size of the 777-300ER, and has the same range
Quoting rjpieces (Thread starter): I was just wondering if it makes sense for airlines to order new 777s these days with new models on the horizon...
According to EK, the A350-1000 carries less payload at the extremities than the 777-300ER (about 6t IIRC), but that comment was made some time ago, and the OEW, MTOW and MZFW have changed by 2t, 3t, and 5t respectively since then.
The 777-300ER is a much easier (if still not easy) 10-across.
The 777-300ER is available much sooner.
So on a Net Present Value basis, just like we've seen with the A330, the 777-300ER may well make a superb choice for airlines needing capacity now.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10502 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 11118 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 1): The 777-300ER is a much easier (if still not easy) 10-across.
The 777-300ER is available much sooner.
Why think of a replacement for such a fantastic aircraft?
I don't see why they would be taken out of service at least for the next coming years.
I don't see any reason for it. The A350 is still in the making. Wait and see!
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Because in this business you always have to be coming up with the next big thing and development cycles are pretty long. Boeing and Airbus have to decide what is going to work in the next decade, which is not easy to do.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 2): I don't see why they would be taken out of service at least for the next coming years.
No, but you can bet that Airbus is working hard to supersede it with the A350 and Boeing isn't resting on their laurels.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1404 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 10717 times:
This question is exactly the same as saying."Does it make any sense in buying car model "X" when I know - for certain that it will be replaced in 3,4,5 years"? Answer no, not if you don't intend to drive over the period in question. If you do however you will need a car ,now- won't you? Do you think it's any different for commercial airlines,who make a living out of transport?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4735 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 10180 times:
Quoting rjpieces (Thread starter): Does any variety of the 787 or A-350 come close to replacing the 777-300 E.R? Which models of the 787 and A-350 come closest to replacing the 777-200 E.R.?
Astuteman covered it pretty well with the A350-1000 as a 777-300ER replacement.
The A350-900 is designed to be a "drop-in" 777-200ER replacement, except with less OEW and much lower fuel consumption.
The 787-9 is a bit smaller than the 777-200ER -- it's more like a "drop-in" A340-300 replacement -- but it may well take some of that market.
If there is a 787-10, it will probably be similarly sized to the 777-200ER but offer a bit less range.
Boeing has a big strategic decision coming up on 777 replacement. It may choose any of the following, in the near term:
1) Do nothing except the 787-10, assuming this market has already been ceded to Airbus for a little while
2) Develop a higher-weight variant of the 787, which could result in "787-10ER" and 787-11 variants, with size and capabilities to replace the 777s
3) Improve the 777-300ER by dropping weight and adding a new wing. In this scenario the improvements are unlikely to make it back to the 777-200, so a 787-10 might be necessary to fill the gap.
4) Make more extensive changes to the 777, including a stretch and different landing gear, following Tim Clark's blueprint of a "777-250NG" and a "777-400NG."
5) Develop an all-new aircraft sized above the 777.
We have argued much around here about which of these options is the best...
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28626 posts, RR: 84 Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9955 times:
Quoting timboflier215 (Reply 7): Do we have any idea yet how much more fuel efficient the A350 will be (assuming, of course, that Boeing does not try to make the 77W still more efficient)?
Airbus claimed at program launch in June 2006 it would be 25% more fuel efficient per block seat and EK have said in March 2008 that using their mission rules, they expect the A350-1000 to burn 11% less fuel per seat (and 21% less fuel per trip) than the 77W (while carrying 6-8t less payload). The A350-1000 would be seating 317 and the 777-300ER would be seating 354.
WarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 575 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3387 times:
On the Boeing earnings call today, Jim McNerney suggested that the use of CFRP and new engines on both the 777-200ER and -300ER could allow it to take on the role of the "old" 787-10. By implication, this would mean a NexGen 777-200 competing with the A350-900 and a NexGen 777-300 taking on the A350-1000.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28626 posts, RR: 84 Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3312 times:
It's probably the best option in terms of costs and availability.
Four years ago, airlines were convinced CFRP was the only way to go, but with the 787 so late and the A350 starting to encounter delays, they might be more warm to a "refresh 777" then they were five years ago to a "refresh A330".
One advantage of updating the 777-200ER would be that GE could perform significant updates to the lower-thrust GE90s that might make it palatable to Airbus (and customers) to hang off the A350. And it would give Rolls a new market for the most powerful model of the Trent XWB.