Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
McNerney Hints At New 777 Before New 737  
User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 328 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 23263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have not seen this discussed yet, but in the Seattle Times article linked in the 787 production thread:

"McNerney also gave the strongest indication yet that Boeing likely won't put a new engine on the Renton-built 737 narrow-body jet and will produce a new version of the Everett-built 777 large wide-body before it replaces the 737."

Full article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2013215262_boeing21.html

Quite interesting. I wonder if the use of "new version" is intentional or if he really means an updated (a la NG) 777. This could mean that Boeing sees the A350-1000 as a greater threat than previously admitted.


Don't sweat the little things.
170 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 23185 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it's clear the A350-1000 will be a threat. Even if it can't offer the payload performance of the 777-300ER, it's going to burn a good bit less fuel and eventually that is going to become important.

If Boeing can improve that payload performance even more and GE can reduce the SFC, it should be enough to keep the 77W a strong seller through the end of the decade and beyond.


User currently offlineTomB From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 23087 times:

I listened to Boeing's 3rd Quarter Earning Conference Call.

I understood Jim McNerney to say:

That is a consensus is building between Boeing and the airlines to offer a new Boeing 737 replacement with an Entry Into Service date around 2020.

That Boeing would probably have to address changes to the Boeing 777 before the Boeing 737 Replacement. Boeing is studying everything from a completely new airplane to modifications to the wing and the engines of the existing B-777.

In summary, Boeing is conducting a lot of studies on the B-737 and B-777 but no final decisions have been made and no final decisions are imminent.


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22969 times:

Quoting tistpaa727 (Thread starter):
Quite interesting. I wonder if the use of "new version" is intentional or if he really means an updated (a la NG) 777. This could mean that Boeing sees the A350-1000 as a greater threat than previously admitted.

The use of "new version" in the article are the reporter's words. (He's not directly quoting McNearny). I listened to the call and McNearny said they were looking at all options and listening to customers (both for the 737 and 777). My take away was that Boeing will be competitive one way or the other and disciplined in its approach.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12476 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22896 times:

I think the reality is that the 777 needs much less "surgery" to keep it competitive than the 737 does; apart from FR, it seems that most 737 operators want a completely new aircraft, not a rehashing of an existing design. Boeing also needs to consider that if it doesn't follow the "guidance" of its major customers, there are the likes of Embraer and Bombardier who are poised to move in on 737 territory; a growth version of the C-series could take it to around 150-160 seats, if not beyond that.

Emirates is known to be actively pushing for a "777NG" and no doubt it has its own ideas as to what that should entail; personally, I'm of the view that you can't do much to improve the 777, but clearly, the A350-1000 will be its major competitor. The problem for the 777 programme is that with the 787-9 having supplanted the 772ER (and probably will replace the 77L in due course), the viable 777 model range effectively consists of the 777-300ER. Can this be turned into a -300LR; what kind of technology is out there that would make it better? New materials, new technology? How much more thrust or efficiency are you going to get out of the GE90?


User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22878 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 3):
The use of "new version" in the article are the reporter's words.

I definitely understand this was editorializing but I hadn't listened to the conference call so wasn't sure if something else was said to make him use the phrase. Thanks for the clarification.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22800 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
If Boeing can improve that payload performance even more and GE can reduce the SFC, it should be enough to keep the 77W a strong seller through the end of the decade and beyond.

Plus whack some weight out of it. The 77W will be fine for the better part of this decade even without improvements that could be considered an NG. Heck, Emirates alone could almost keep the backlog healthy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion that a "777-300ERX" is going to be the current 777-300ER with a lighter structure and significantly improved GE90-115B engines.

There are plenty of new technologies GE can implement in the GE90-115B which should offer a major reduction in SFC. The more of that GE can retrofit into existing GE90-115B engines as a "PiP", the better the RoI will be, but frankly if Boeing has to write GE a nine-figure check to get them off their asses (taking a percentage of each PiP and GE90-115B engine sale in return), then that is what Boeing should do.

I don't believe we're going to see a "777NG" with a new CFRP wing and Al-Li fuselage. I think the investment in manufacturing and tooling to support such a program won't see a sufficient return over the long term.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22710 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I don't believe we're going to see a "777NG" with a new CFRP wing and Al-Li fuselage. I think the investment in manufacturing and tooling to support such a program won't see a sufficient return over the long term

I think it's definitely possible, but will not arrive, and more importantly won't be needed until at least 2016-2018 and possibly even 2020 or later.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22613 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I don't believe we're going to see a "777NG" with a new CFRP wing and Al-Li fuselage. I think the investment in manufacturing and tooling to support such a program won't see a sufficient return over the long term.

While not the plane many enthusiasts would like to see, I believe you've outlined the most likely and rational course of action in terms of enhancing shareholder value. One need only look to the 747-8 program for the pit-falls of going too far with improvements. Your point is further supported by McNerney's previous comments on wanting to be disciplined to avoid being weighed down by "mission creep." Given Boeing is always seeking ways to improve product performance, a 777-ERX will be more of a leap to a new starting point.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently onlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8566 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
and possibly even 2020 or later.

Surely by 2020 Boeing will need to be working on a 777 replacement rather than a warmed up version of what will be , by then , an old design . I know that they get away with it on the 737 but I think the lukewarm response to the 747-8i shows that for long hauls where the economics are quite different there is only so much you can do with an old design before having to resort to a clean sheet .



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4990 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22385 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 9):
Your point is further supported by McNerney's previous comments on wanting to be disciplined to avoid being weighed down by "mission creep."
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I am of the opinion that a "777-300ERX" is going to be the current 777-300ER with a lighter structure and significantly improved GE90-115B engines.

All it needs is to do it's present 7500nm ESAD with 10t or better payload improvement. Not all carriers need this range but all can use the weight/ fuel savings that would be achieved irrespective of the sector lengths they are flying


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22343 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8):
I think it's definitely possible (Boeing will launch a 777NG), but will not arrive, and more importantly won't be needed until at least 2016-2018 and possibly even 2020 or later.

If you believe the figures, the cost of the 747-8 program is now at some $5 billion. A 777NG with new wings would be billions beyond that. And Boeing cocked up the 747-8, so moving to a more complex 777NG does not exactly instill me with confidence on meeting budget and EIS.



Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 10):
Surely by 2020 Boeing will need to be working on a 777 replacement rather than a warmed up version of what will be, by then, an old design.

I've never really understood why people look at the original EIS date and assume that the plane has been static since then. The 777 is the third newest airliner family in existence (after the 787 and A380) and it has been constantly upgraded every year of it's life.

I mean the A380 design is, what, 15 years old now, if you take into account her days as the A3XX? And while a few folks have written her off as "the last airliner of the 20th century", that sentiment does not appear to be shared by many.

As for the 747-8, she's just too late to the party. The A380-800, A340-600 and 777-300ER cut the legs out from under the 747-400 in the early 2000's and Boeing's ten year delay in bringing the 747-8 to service meant that a number of 747-400 operators moved on and they're not interested in moving back.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22334 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 10):
Surely by 2020 Boeing will need to be working on a 777 replacement rather than a warmed up version of what will be , by then , an old design .

I don't think that's a given considering that Boeing has mentioned that they could make the fuselage either Al-Li or CFRP. Plus you have to look at what's next. If we get to the 2016-2020 period and Boeing sees that BWBs are close, but not that close, it might make more sense to continue improving the 777 in the interim.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 22041 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If you believe the figures, the cost of the 747-8 program is now at some $5 billion. A 777NG with new wings would be billions beyond that. And Boeing cocked up the 747-8, so moving to a more complex 777NG does not exactly instill me with confidence on meeting budget and EIS.

748 program is alot more complex. Not only is the 747 farther from modern design/manufacturing/assembly methods, but they went farther than a 777 update will need. The 777 for example won't need the 777 window belt integrated into a far different airframe. It already has said windowbelt. Also helping is that the 777 is 100% cad right now, saving the money they had to spend transfering the 747 to the digital relm.

More than wieght reduction, cost reductions will be vital to this program. Boeing will have no problem contiuing to sell 777 if they can cut the purchace price down. Right now they make hefty margin on the 777 line, and while cutting that margin to keep sales up is possible, cost reductions is the best of both worlds. So if we see a new wing, I am 100% certain its not just for performance, but to simplify the design and construction to shave off cost.

Yet for all that a "re-engine" with a fresh version of the GE90 might be the way to go, minimizes costs, but will make a massive difference in performance and costs. The 772LR would stretch its already massive range, while providing huge cost benifits to operating currently possible ULH routes. 773ER could offload tons of fuel currently needed on longer missions resulting in more payload or lower costs.

The only more engineering intensive thing I think is required is the redesign of the fuselage sidewalls and interior to open up more seating room so they can get in 10Y 17.2" seats.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 22042 times:

Boeing's narrow body line is more threatned by newer a/c than their wide body line.
The 777 line stella performer and models going forward are the 777W and LR, they will continue to offer certain advantages over the A350 line, their entire operating envelope will not be obsoleted anytime soon.
The 787 / 748i are the new kids on the block, the jury is still out.
The A330 is taking the bulk of current sales in its category, however, the 767 was first to market and has sold a profitable number of copies the bulk of which are still in operation.
The 757 is cancelled and its unique features are only now being attempted by its Airbus competitior and even so not a full 100% replacement, the bulk of 757's in service will be replaced by A320's and 737's not A321's or its improved model.

The A320 appears to be more adaptable to a new engine over the 737 - taking the low undercarriage line - if true the cost of adding a new engine to the A320 line may be lower than the equivalent on the 737 line. The current 737 is holding it's own against the current A320, how will it fair against the next upgrade. I really don't care how old the original design is, Boeing has proven that it can be upgraded to remain relevant and offer afvantages - lower weight - over its more modern date of design competitor.
Boeing should commence the replacement for the 737 in increments, an initial version to finally replace all the capabilities of the 757 is probably the place to start, additional variants could be added over time.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
I think the reality is that the 777 needs much less "surgery" to keep it competitive than the 737 does;

Until Airbus announces their A320 intentions the 737 is holding its own, the 777 already has a new competitior announced and is taking orders.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
it seems that most 737 operators want a completely new aircraft, not a rehashing of an existing design.

Well that is not hurting the A320 in their re-engine quest based on articles read, so that may be their preference but their history is that they will continue to buy either a/c.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
The problem for the 777 programme is that with the 787-9 having supplanted the 772ER (and probably will replace the 77L in due course), the viable 777 model range effectively consists of the 777-300ER.

I think Boeing has already accepted that the only model likely to obtain new customers are the 777W and the 777LR, orders for any other variant are most likely "top up" orders.

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 10):
Surely by 2020 Boeing will need to be working on a 777 replacement rather than a warmed up version of what will be , by then , an old design . I know that they get away with it on the 737 but I think the lukewarm response to the 747-8i shows that for long hauls where the economics are quite different there is only so much you can do with an old design before having to resort to a clean sheet .

Well Airbus is not doing bad with the existing A330, even if the 787 delays are thrown in, the number of a/c ordered would mandate that customers would look elsewhere simply based on time from order to receipt. I am among those who believe that the initial version of the A350 would have been a good stop gap a/c allowing Airbus to focus resources on getting the A380 sorted out.
The A346 is still being sold and used in spite of the performance of the 777, airlines will find ways to use and justify the existence of an a/c in their fleet, warmed over or not, at least that's what history seems to show  


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15745 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21952 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 15):
The 787 / 748i are the new kids on the block, the jury is still out.

You could make a case that the jury is still out on the 748i (though I think it isn't) but with 800 orders, it seems pretty clear what the market thinks of the 787.

Quoting par13del (Reply 15):
Well that is not hurting the A320 in their re-engine quest based on articles read, so that may be their preference but their history is that they will continue to buy either a/c

Good feelings about re-engined models are far from universal among customers. They'll probably buy it because that's what offered, but airlines pretty clearly want a new plane more than a re-engined one. I think the biggest difference is that airlines know that Airbus is unlikely to give it to them.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14):
The 772LR would stretch its already massive range, while providing huge cost benifits to operating currently possible ULH routes. 773ER could offload tons of fuel currently needed on longer missions resulting in more payload or lower costs.

I think that it is at least as likely that an improved 77W would render the 77L unnecessary. But if Boeing is still building freighters, the 77L could probably get the same improvements for next to nothing.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7229 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21886 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
You could make a case that the jury is still out on the 748i (though I think it isn't) but with 800 orders, it seems pretty clear what the market thinks of the 787.

Should have clarified my point, I meant in terms of a Boeing product now coming to market that will not need to be replaced in the immediate future, post was looking at their entire product lineup.

From a sales perspective, the development cost difference's between the 748i and 748F "could probably" be wrriten off if the i does not sell many copies, no source for such a comment, just opinion. 


User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 21777 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
I think the reality is that the 777 needs much less "surgery" to keep it competitive than the 737 does;

I think that's why they're actively looking at an update to the 777. They could go anywhere from simply reengining the plane up to where the 748 evolved. Maybe a new wing and new engines would be enough, especially keeping a common cockpit could make the 777NG very attractive to airlines like UA EK BA etc who already have a lot of 777s


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 21651 times:

I don't understand why Boeing isn't attempting to leadfrog the A350 and Airbus's likely in house replacement for it. You don't win by equalling your competitor. You win be jumping so far beyond what he's doing and is likely to do that you leave him gasping for breath and wondering how on earth he can even equal you, much less beat you.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 21533 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 19):
You win be jumping so far beyond what he's doing and is likely to do that you leave him gasping for breath and wondering how on earth he can even equal you, much less beat you.

Three-Four Years ago you could have said Boeing was doing exactly that with the 787. Had it come in on time or even slight behind schedule/budget, Boeing would now be in a position to think bolder. As we know, both the 787 and the 747-8 have strained Boeing beyond expectations in terms of time and money.

One need only listen to the financial analysts on the Boeing earnings call yesterday. Many of their questions were attempts to put a number on R&D because that has a direct impact on cashflow which in turns drives stock valuation. It led me to believe that the market wants to see Boeing's R&D recover before it saddles up for another full blown development program again.

"Equaling" the A350 with the 777ERX bides time and money so that Y3 can be launched (after Y1) with sufficient resources and technological advancements to be a real game changer. If it comes in circa 2025, it will still be hitting the A350 "mid-life" and deliver a bigger blow. In short, such a course stands to maximize shareholder value....the real end game for McNerney.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12564 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 21376 times:

Quoting TomB (Reply 2):
That a consensus is building between Boeing and the airlines to offer a new Boeing 737 replacement with an Entry Into Service date around 2020.

Good news for RR, less so for PW.

Quoting TomB (Reply 2):

That Boeing would probably have to address changes to the Boeing 777 before the Boeing 737 Replacement. Boeing is studying everything from a completely new airplane to modifications to the wing and the engines of the existing B-777.
Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
I think the reality is that the 777 needs much less "surgery" to keep it competitive than the 737 does
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
I am of the opinion that a "777-300ERX" is going to be the current 777-300ER with a lighter structure and significantly improved GE90-115B engines.

In another thread I said I'd expect to see an all-new Boeing NB before an all-new Boeing WB, and I still feel that way.

Having a 777NG keeps that prediction alive.

And tinkering with it means they don't have to "eat thier young" because an all-new 777 would probably bracket the existing -300 in size and stomp all over the 747-8.

But I do wonder about market timing: it would seem to me that a lot of the MD-XXs will need to be replaced before 2020, whereas I wonder how many large orders are going to be had in the 777-300ERX class, with so many already having been sold.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 20):
t led me to believe that the market wants to see Boeing's R&D recover before it saddles up for another full blown development program again.

Yep, I raised this point in the earlier thread: the market can't be too willing to see Boeing take on another $10B+ program any time soon.

I can imagine they want to see all those 787s at PAE with concrete blocks hanging where the engines should be move on to their owners and the 787 get a good cash flow going before they would even support a 777NG never mind Y1 or Y3.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4990 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19533 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 21):
the market can't be too willing to see Boeing take on another $10B+ program any time soon.

They can like it or sell their shares. They always have that option. If Boeing was to listen to the analysts they would get nothing done. It all depends on the "backbone" of the Boeing Board.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31003 posts, RR: 86
Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 19341 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 777-200LR tends to sell more for her payload-range performance than her pure range performance. And the A350-900 is highly unlikely to be able to match the 777-200LRs payload-range curve at any point except maybe taxi at maximum ramp weight.  

So I see any MEW / OEW reduction for the 777-200LR purely there to just make a lighter frame to improve fuel efficiency and not because the plane needs extra payload range. Coupled with a significantly more fuel efficient GE90-110B engine and a slightly wider interior cabin width to allow a more comfortable 10-abreast in Economy and 8-abreast in (staggered) Business Class, the 77L could see her fortunes (and orders) rebound by a not insignificant bit.


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18548 times:

I'm sure Tim and Lars are designing something nice.  
But I am quite certain the model will be a 777 variant - not a new model. Probably 777-300LR or 777-400.
It will involve less testing and time needed for certification, and will make the required 2013-16 time window possible.



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
25 davs5032 : If they simply stretched the 777, I think it would present two problems which could be devastating IMO. 1. As has been said with the 787-10 stretch,
26 BMI727 : What market? Obviously, Boeing would have to take the idea to customers, but I think that a stretched 777 would fare better than the 748i. And it isn
27 OyKIE : Redesignig and streghtening the 787 wing should not be ruled out as a new wing for the 777. They planned to use the 777 wing on the 747 at one point,
28 KFlyer : IMHO, Boeing will not go for a clean sheet design. 777 is just 15 yrs old. It is too young to be replaced. Even if you will keep offering 77W, why add
29 StressedOut : One part of the equation that isn't brought up very often when discussing whether Boeing will do a clean sheet 777 replacement or not is manufacturing
30 Schweigend : Whatever new 777 iteration Boeing is thinking of, I doubt it will include a change in fuselage width. The current one is just fine, save for, as other
31 Post contains images parapente : Stitch wrote. I am of the opinion that a "777-300ERX" is going to be the current 777-300ER with a lighter structure and significantly improved GE90-11
32 scbriml : It's just marketing BS. As is 'Dreamliner'. While Airbus press releases refer to the generic 'A350 XWB family', any reference to a specific model sim
33 328JET : I see four versions: - 200F NG - 200L NG - 300ER NG - 400 NG No new CFRP fuselage, but maybe a CFRP wing. Updated GE engines and systems plus weight s
34 Stitch : Actually, a 777-300ERX might not slit the 747-8's throat, though it will have an impact. If Boeing does not increase maximum structural payload, the 7
35 328JET : Exactly my impression what Boeing is intending to do.
36 PlanesNTrains : Not hard to kill something that's half dead anyhow. Almost like shooting a mouse with a shotgun. -Dave
37 328JET : Agreed! But Boeing should have shot some years ago already...
38 PlanesNTrains : I'm glad they didn't. Nonetheless, the 748i is not causing a buzz by any stretch, and if it garners a couple dozen more orders from 3-4 carriers, I'd
39 davs5032 : If a NG is going to be that "highly involved", then that is even more reason to just go for a clean sheet. If you're going to simply make mods to the
40 Stitch : Exactly. Which is why I use the "777-300ERX" moniker as it ties into the proposed 767-400ERX: New engines and some updates to the 767-400ER to make i
41 seabosdca : Not this again... regardless of the success or not of the -8I, they will sell enough -8F frames to make the program worth it. Since the development m
42 BMI727 : Boeing could still put a new wing on it for probably about half the cost of a new plane. Right, so there isn't really any need to do much more than i
43 Post contains images YVRLTN : And Im pretty sure you can add AF/KL to the list. And yes - BA/IB... those customers alone should be more than enough to justify the progamme. As pos
44 rheinwaldner : I do agree about that. You just described what Airbus is currently doing. The cost of such an endeavour however are the factor that limits Airbus and
45 JoeCanuck : Actually, the cases aren't really the same at all. The 787 and the original 350 were direct competitors. Regardless what the 350 can do, it will alwa
46 Post contains links and images keesje : The 777-300ER backlog will be gone in a few years. After that the A350-1000 starts rolling off the production line. I have no doubt Boeing can upgrade
47 Post contains images astuteman : I tend to agree. I think you might find some wing re-profiling and wing end treatment perhaps By my calcs, the Trent XWB should have 6% or 7% better
48 rheinwaldner : In "some respects" the A346 is better than 77W, 744 is better than 77W, A330 is better than 787, 748 is better than A380. But each time the market ul
49 JoeCanuck : If your revenue stream includes maximum cargo and passengers, then the 777 is actually very good. It exceeds the 350 in that respect. Actually, we re
50 keesje : And future A380s. In a few months Airbus will test fly the Trent XWB on a A380. Perfect opportunity to compare it to the Trent 900s and GP7200s. Lowe
51 Revelation : Proof? Correlation is not causation. I could just as easily say the fact that the A350-1000 has only 75 orders out of 500+ is "proof" that it's not c
52 Post contains images keesje : Apart from being good aircraft, a strong current selling point of the 777W is availability, (like the A330) you can have some next year and all withi
53 CXB77L : I don't follow. CX ordered the A350-900, not the A350-1000. It is envisaged that the A350-900 will replace 777-200, A340-300 and early A330-300s. The
54 keesje : The 777-200 and A359 are 300+ seat aircraft. Like 787-8 -> 787-9 some carriers will upgrade to A351. I think for CX short term availability was a
55 rheinwaldner : No, the A351 is so far away that the much earlier availability of the 77W is more decisive than any other factor. And this without spending any sort
56 Revelation : Still not "proof", just opinion. My opinion is closer to CXB77L's, namely:
57 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Boeing fans once were quite convinced that weaker economics would kill an aircraft despite much better payload/range capabilities. How absurd that ar
58 Post contains images Stitch : And Airbus fans (and Airbus themselves) have been arguing for years that the greater payload weight capability of the A330-200 would keep it relevant
59 Revelation : Still doesn't prove your point that the main reason 777-300ER is still selling is due to lack of A350-1000 availability.
60 keesje : if you need capasity to benefit from the expected economic upturn of the next 5 years, the 777-300ER seems a more logical choice then the A350-1000. C
61 odwyerpw : the current backlog of 77W will only disappear by 2014 if Boeing doesn't make any more sales...period...not a single one...beginning today... won't ha
62 BMI727 : And fly it further than the A350 will today, let alone whatever incremental improvements the 77W gets. The 787-8 should have a superior range right o
63 keesje : Still McNerney hints at new 777 before new 737. Are we missing something?
64 JoeCanuck : Yes. Hints does not mean 'decided upon', or 'will produce' or 'offers for sale' or 'commits to'. Hints mean absolutely nothing in the real world.[Edi
65 BMI727 : Yeah. Any improved 737 is seemingly becoming less and less necessary with airlines continued lukewarm response to re-engined offerings, Airbus' conti
66 Stitch : Perhaps that airlines are not nearly as enthralled with the A350-1000 as you believe them to be? CX is the second 777-300ER operator to be very posit
67 rheinwaldner : Relevant is relative. But that factor will not allow the A330 to get a market share larger than 10..20% (once there will be free 787 delivery positio
68 Post contains images astuteman : Yes, "we" are, Keejse. But for what its worth, Boeing isn't If I can suggest keeping the testosterone levels a bit in check, Guys. The A350-1000 is a
69 XT6Wagon : I think it needs to have its specifications set a little bit more in stone before we can say if its going to do well or not. The 789 also had its yea
70 rheinwaldner : Because they were better than the planes that sold well before (A332 vs. 767, A333 vs. DC-10, 77W vs. 744)? The same applies to 787 and A350. It is o
71 speedygonzales : My feeling is that the situation wil be similar to A330-300 vs. 777-200LR today.
72 Lutfi : Cathay has rights to switch to A350-1000. They like it (A351) for EU routes, but think B773ER will still have ULR niche to East Coast USA etc so are
73 CXB77L : If anything, that just says to me that the 773ER is the better aircraft for ULH routes because it can carry more and carry it further. EU routes don'
74 astuteman : It's hard to think of another sensible reason why the 787 has been comprehensively outsold by every other widebody this year. It certainly isn't beca
75 JoeCanuck : I can think of a few logical reasons. Airlines that want the 787 already have the 787 on order. The expense of adding another sub type to a fleet mig
76 SEPilot : It makes total sense to me. You order an A330 or a 777 today, you have high confidence of when you will get it. You order a 787 or A350 today, you ge
77 Post contains images keesje : I agree with McNerney on this. I think the ones trying to talk the A350-1000 into a medium, regional range optimized aircraft are kiddig themselves t
78 BMI727 : Where did I say that the A350 was DOA? In fact, I've been the one saying that it will be an excellent plane whenever people bring up the lack of orde
79 Post contains images astuteman : We don't know what the A350-1000 is, but we do know there's no way it will come close to the 773ER Every other widebody of any note is selling well,
80 JoeCanuck : Your chart isn't quite right. Airbus shows an 8000nm range for the -1000, not 8500ish, which is only 70nm more than the 77W. Airbus still isn't publi
81 JoeCanuck : We do know that it won't carry as many people or haul as much cargo, so in that respect, yes. It is common for the 777 to be configured with 10 abrea
82 rheinwaldner : Answer this question if you think that additional payload&range are very important: Why does the relation between 748 sales and 77W sales not unde
83 JoeCanuck : It's not important to me. What I am saying is that it may be important to SOME airlines. Some airlines will want the extra seats and payload...some wi
84 pnwtraveler : That is exactly opposite to AC's experience. One of the major reasons they are loving the 777 is for the cargo lift. The bellies are full to China an
85 Post contains images Stitch : Which is why none of my arguments have refered to a bog-standard 777-300ER vs. the A350-1000, but instead a "777-300ERX" with a not-insignificant red
86 Post contains images astuteman : I don't disagree I won't disagree with you there. That said, it's not exclusive, and won't necessarily appeal to every operator of the 773ER. The ope
87 Revelation : I think the stuff in #2 is more correct: Indeed, that's why the word 'proof' should be avoided.
88 BMI727 : No, and there is nothing wrong with being an almost completely long range aircraft. Between performance at long ranges and higher capacity (should th
89 Post contains links keesje : Different markets. 250 seaters like the A330 are often used to open up new long haul routes. http://www.google.nl/search?q=new+de...redir_esc=&ei
90 PPVRA : This isn't quite right. Since the plane will fly the route with belly full or empty, you get to ignore a lot of costs. You're only stuck with variabl
91 BMI727 : And furthermore, if every 77W Boeing doesn't sell becomes a 77F that they do sell, where is the problem?
92 SEPilot : What I think all of this discussion boils down to is that if the A3510 does fulfill expectations and offers better CASM than the 77W, it will signific
93 Post contains images par13del : Sort of like the B-757 and the A321, if the more things change the more they remain the same we can expect your premise to come true, Boeing then clo
94 Stitch : The 77W offers better range than a number of 250-seaters on the market along with better CASM, so it is no real surprise some customers are launching
95 SEPilot : The difference is that the airlines that need more capacity can go to the A380; if they need more range they can go to the 787 or A358/9. Just as wit
96 BMI727 : Considering that one of the 77W's best customers said that the A350 won't work for them and it shares a line with the 77F, I don't think that is nece
97 PVG : What I get from this discussion is that for a 15 year old design, the 773ER must be a fantastic feat of engineering. Airbus can only just match/slight
98 BMI727 : Not exactly. While he 777-300ER did exceed a lot of expectations, the A350 is aimed at a slightly different market. For many flights the A350 will be
99 Stitch : Well they were trying to cover not just the 777-200 and 777-300 markets in terms of capacity, but also the "777-100".
100 BMI727 : That's precisely what I was referring to when I mentioned the disadvantages of the one family strategy. Airbus is going to have a hell of a time tryi
101 PVG : Thanks!
102 astuteman : That sounds like a fair summary of this thread, PVG. Airbus are creating a plane in the A350-1000 that across the performance envelope is likely to t
103 BMI727 : If there is an exception to have, EK is the one you want. But for what it's worth, I think that a 777NG is more or less a target of opportunity for B
104 JoeCanuck : Actually, if we use AF seating charts as an example, the 77W carries over 10% more passengers than the -1000 will, if you compare 10 abreast Y, (EK,
105 328JET : The smaller A350-1000 could be a threat to the B77W. By the way, the studied -1100x will match or exceed the seating capacity of the B77W! The -1000 c
106 keesje : FWIW EK placed a huge A350 order, including -1000s.
107 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Poor explanation why the 787 from a hotseller became the back marker on the sales scorelist for years now! Some keep neutral if there are no data. Be
108 Post contains images par13del : As usual I think most Americans miss the point and Europeans either do as well or simply do not state the obvious, better to hide in plain sight. Air
109 Post contains images astuteman : 10-across seating is by definition limited to the "cheap seats" only of course. Going to 9-across in an A350.... The seating reduction in AF's 2-clas
110 Post contains links and images keesje : I wonder how feasible this 10 abreast option is for the payload-weight restricted flights where the 777-300ER has a advantage.. I guess in pratice se
111 Revelation : Doing a little googling, it seems McNerney is all over the map. Last year he said they weren't considering a 777 refresh/replacement at all. Early thi
112 Post contains images SEPilot : Yes; just look at the 737NG, which pretty well matched the much younger A320. Designs don't know their ages; all that matters is how well they do the
113 rheinwaldner : I don't give Airbus credit that they can keep the A330 on par with 787. And nobody else with a sound mind will. Keeping on par regarding "Inservice t
114 Stitch : Which I believe are meant to replace the 777-200ERs and 777-300s, not 777-300ERs.
115 keesje : Who can tell 6 years in advance? anyway Phase-out of the airline’s 777-300ERs begins in 2017.
116 Post contains images BMI727 : Why don't you go back and read the rest of that sentence. Because it really doesn't need to. The 767 and A330 are basically the same segment, and the
117 Post contains images Stitch : EK fleet planners? Which I expect will likely be replaced with more 777-300ERs or the 777-300ERX, if it is available by that time.
118 Post contains images keesje : Yes, god forbid they replace a Boeing 777-300ER with a new A350-1000...
119 Stitch : Not at all. It just depends on if it can perform all of the missions EK needs it to do. For regional missions currently being handled by the 427/447-
120 Heavierthanair : G'day Mc Donnell Douglas at the time was in discussions with Airbus Industrie about fitting the proposed A 340 wing to the proposed MD 11 fuselage. At
121 Stitch : MD was planning a supercritical wing for the MD-XX LR and MD-XX Stretch that could have significantly improved performance.
122 Post contains links keesje : I find it hard to follow why the 777W is such an excellent 744 replacement, the 787-9 the new 777-200ER, the 737-900ER the logical 757 successor, but
123 BMI727 : Well, that seems to be the message from Emirates. Especially considering that EK goes 10 wide in coach. There are cases where it won't be, but there
124 JoeCanuck : Because airline manufacturers have given me no reason at all to take them at their word. They have a history of misleading statements made to boost s
125 keesje : OEW for the 777-200ER is about 138t, OEW for the A350-900 is about 118t. That gives a good indication. OEW for the 772LR is 145t, OEW for the 773ER i
126 SEPilot : If this is true, considering that everyone says that there is weight that can be removed from the 77W and it will carry more payload farther than the
127 Post contains images Stitch : Well we have at least two large 777-300ER operators who are also A350 customers who have publically pushed Boeing to improve the SFC and reduce the O
128 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Where did you find this info? I couldn't find it on the Airbus site. On their website, neither MEW or OEW are given by Airbus in their specification
129 Stitch : Airbus made a public statement in June 2008 that MEW for the A350-900 had increased from 114t to 116.2t. Subsequently, it was reported by Flight Inte
130 rheinwaldner : Good remarks. I can even agree on 2025 EIS for Y3. Heck, Airbus is able to launch and complete 3 clean sheet designs in a time span of 15 years. If t
131 Revelation : Which then begs the questions: Will Boeing decide to not spend any money improving the 777W and keep 30% +/- 10% of the market? Will it make sense fo
132 SEPilot : I do believe that Boeing is capable of a new aircraft simultaneous with an upgrade; the question becomes whether the cost of upgrading the 77W will b
133 Revelation : Indeed, that's what's been happening with 787 and 747-8. I'm hoping that Boeing has learned from both the good and the bad experiences these programs
134 BMI727 : No I don't think it does. Look at the 787 family and look at the A350. The "corresponding" A350 is generally a little bigger and a little longer rang
135 SEPilot : The problem is that nobody can predict what can be done 5 or 10 years from now. If we could we could do it now. People may believe that new advances
136 JoeCanuck : I already gave you two; the 787 and the A400. Perhaps they will eventually get up to spec but they won't be upon EIS. I find in disingenuous to try t
137 Post contains links keesje : It's not on topic but I feel if thoughts are repeated 3 or 4 times here on a.net they tend to become a fact for others. Last I heard (Flightglobal) t
138 Post contains images N14AZ : Yes, CEO Enders could tell you a story about the A 400M not meeting Airbus' financial targets, although maybe you meant the technical targets, didn't
139 Stitch : For the record, Boeing have publicly stated that all customer 787-8s, starting with ZA007 for NH, will meet the performance guarantees as written into
140 par13del : Think we are splitting hairs if you can state the answer to your question then ask for an answer, if the a/c missed it's promised weight by a few hun
141 WarpSpeed : Seems a bit unrealistic for such a complex piece of machinery be it the A400M or the B787-8 - (each of which are tremendous airplanes, IMHO). Adherin
142 Post contains links JoeCanuck : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-a400m-heads-for-berlin-debut.html
143 BMI727 : That sounds like the Luftwaffe trying to make up for the previous delayys rather than a major shortfall with the plane itself.
144 N14AZ : I am afraid to say that this is not a correct example. As written above, it was agreed upon to abondon some features, for example the terrain-followi
145 scbriml : EK have already said it can't. EK is a special case though, and there will be plenty of airlines willing to downguage from a 77W to a slightly smalle
146 rheinwaldner : Exactly! These are the question. Boeing can and has to find the rigth answer. We can only guess. With a questionable ROI IMO. Once the 777 no longer
147 Stitch : Agreed. But if Boeing can halve that through MEW reductions, aerodynamic tweaks and an upgraded GE90-115B, it's probably going to help. 10% higher fu
148 SEPilot : The difference is that airlines continuing to operate 744's are not buying any more of them. If the 77W is indeed 10% or more less efficient than the
149 Stitch : The A340-600 was a smaller plane, though. It seated two less per row in Economy and one less per row in Business Class. But if the A350 will indeed k
150 SEPilot : I think this will be their wisest strategy; we all know that they want to do Y1 and Y3, and any fiddling around they do with upgrades that don't sell
151 WarpSpeed : I'm with you in spirit here, but other than delays to EIS, how can you say such as thing if the 787 is going to meet its other contractual obligation
152 Stitch : My sources say BA was ready to buy the 747-8 before Airbus and Rolls-Royce made a "final and best offer" that was at least financially better. Howeve
153 bmacleod : Would the new 777 possibly have more composite materials? This would lighten the weight and increase fuel efficiency.
154 SEPilot : You cannot simply substitute composites for metal; it involves considerable engineering work and requires recertification. Optimal use of composites
155 BMI727 : It is a very involved process, but I believe Boeing said that going to composites or an Al-Li fuselage was an option on the table for a 777NG, which
156 travelhound : I thought a few years back Boeing conducted a trade study on the 77LR to reduce its weight. (If I remember correctly) They came up with a 7.0 t weigh
157 SEPilot : I thought the 777 already had composite floor beams; one of the things they did to the 777F was change them to metal.
158 Post contains images travelhound : Whatever it has, the 7.0 t number came up. The weight reduction was included in a proposal to QF on the 772LR. At a guess that proposal for weight re
159 Stitch : Yes, the 777 passenger models have composite floor beams (and this apparently makes the pax to freight conversion hideously expensive and time-consumi
160 328JET : 2 less seats in Eco...? 1 less seat in business...? That is strongly airline driven as the cabin of the B777 is only 58cm wider on floor level. (only
161 parapente : Boeing (after the failure of the 340-600) have this market to themselves at present.They will know and understand that life will change after the 351
162 zvezda : I have maintained since Airbus introduced the XWB A350s that the 777-300ER would not be competitive in its current form once the availability advantag
163 WarpSpeed : Pardon my naivete, but for all the talk about how a 777ERX could put down a challenge by the A351, how sure are we of the A351's specs. and predicted
164 Post contains images SEPilot : I essentially agree with all of this, except for perhaps how much they have to do. I suspect that if they can reduce weight per seat to match the A35
165 Stitch : We're not. Airbus have mumbled that the A350-1000 will have more optimization than a pure stretch / MTOW boost would entail. But while their launch c
166 SEPilot : Which is why they are still ambiguous about what they'll do with the 777. I expect Boeing has their sources, and has a better idea than any of us wha
167 rheinwaldner : Those 744's were not yet deprecated. I meant specific sales campaigns (time and time again) that were lost spectacularly, e.g. QF. I meant delays. Th
168 parapente : I agree with replies 164/162.But Boeing did not try and give the 757 a major overhaul.Also the greater "legs" of the 757 allowed it to adapt to differ
169 Stitch : In the end, Boeing would rather not sell a 747-8 and do sell a 777-300ERX than not sell a 747-8 and have Airbus sell an A350-1000. I've always believ
170 SEPilot : Whether or not they're depreciated is less important than the fact that it probably costs less to fly them than it would to replace them. I don't kno
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...
McNerney: Boeing Working On New 777 Replacement posted Thu Jun 25 2009 05:52:33 by Keesje
RFD Leader Hints At New Routes posted Sat Aug 26 2006 14:04:41 by KarlB737
Brand New Skymark 737-700 At Las Vegas Now posted Mon Jan 30 2006 18:30:55 by RobK
AA Expansion At LAX: 10 New Destinations posted Wed Oct 20 2010 08:09:39 by DFWEagle
New 320/737 Engines Explained posted Mon Mar 8 2010 08:14:35 by parapente
New Alaska 737-900 Disneyland Plane posted Fri Dec 18 2009 22:39:09 by AAL151Heavy
Mouse Grounds Plane At New York's JFK posted Wed Oct 21 2009 15:36:17 by Tony Lu
US Airways Terminal At New York La Guardia posted Tue Mar 10 2009 20:48:31 by United777ORD
2 "new" 737-700s For Sun Country? posted Sat Feb 14 2009 21:35:59 by Falcon flyer
BA 777 New Club World Roll-out Schedule posted Wed Dec 10 2008 12:19:52 by LX64A332