seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6592 posts, RR: 7 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10488 times:
I know we already have a bunch of Boeing threads going right now. But nearly all of them are specifically about the 737RS and Jim McNerney's comments about that one project. I want to focus on something a bit different.
My question is simple: why will customers believe Boeing has a prayer of meeting this schedule, given the schedule difficulties with the 787-8 and the 747-8? It seems to me like this is setting up Boeing for customer distrust and reluctance to order.
piaflyer From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2007, 152 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10071 times:
There are a few reasons why this schedule might be able to work out. The 787 is a totally new aircraft, everything down to the last light bulb was new innovation which required repetitious certification testing. Because of this the 787 went over schedule a bit. In the 748, yes it is a remodel of the original 747 but relatively speaking its not that delayed. Plus blame on the delayed 748 can be blamed on the resources that were routed to the 787 program. However, since the aircraft that are lined up for these future years are just "small modifications" to previous certified aircraft, it should be able to keep on time without too much of a problem.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32532 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9909 times:
The 787-10 is likely to be a simple stretch of the 787-9 aimed at the high-density regional mission market. I don't see why it could not be brought into play within two to three years of the 787-9.
The 777-300ER(X) is going to be driven by how good the A350-1000 is and how long it takes Airbus to bring it to market. Personally, I think the prudent choice is to improve the GE90 - especially if those improvements can be retrofitted via PiPs - and try and reduce weight and make it cheaper to build so as to be cheaper to sell. Putting on a new wing - Al or CFRP - strikes me as a seriously expensive step.
Quoting zeke (Reply 7): Time wil tell to see if the 787-10 will ever get launched. As it is, it is an odd ball type in terms of payload and range.
I would think it would be very popular on regional missions currently being flown by A330-300s and 777-300s. It offers more capacity than the A330-300, not too much less than the 777-300, better range than both and better economics than both.
The 787-9 isn't all that different from the -8 so once the problems with the -8 are worked out it should be pretty simple to move up to the -9
The -10 might take a little more work depending on if they need an additional gear, stronger wing, different engine, etc. otherwise I'm sure Boeing designed the 787 with a -10 stretch in mind which probably wouldn't be too difficult but I could see a delay with that one.
777-300ER: This is the only one where Boeing could hit a snag but it seems like a 777NG would be improved engines and shedding some weight, then maybe some interior mods but not like the 737NG where there was an entire new wing.
According to you, it's 2-3 years development time for each new variant, but 8-9 years for the 737RS. How comes that, so you assume it's the same team of engineers working on the 787 AND 777 variants but a complete staffed engineers team working full steam on the 737RS?? Where do they come from?
I think quite the opposite, either they concentrate on the 777NG a couple of years down the road or they start NOW working on the 737RS and lose the 777 market to the A350.
To me is clear right now, Boeing can't do anything meaningful to the 737 till mid of next decade so they're throwing sand in the eyes of potential "switchers".
Like most of life's problems, this one can be solved with bending -- Bender Unit 22
bj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 448 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9240 times:
Quoting mham001 (Reply 3): Most interesting tidbit in that article is that Boeing did not even bother to bid the Virgin America order.
That was a lost cause. It would be the same if Airbus reacted to a Northwest bid.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4): I would say it's far too late for that. I would assume customers will be *much* more vigorous about negotiating much more severe delay payments for many years to come, no matter what Boeing says.
Yes they will. Boeing will have to be very careful in what they promise customers because if they promise them the moon and a project does go belly up then the problem would be bigger than just a PR nightmare.
Quoting mbj2000 (Reply 11): I think quite the opposite, either they concentrate on the 777NG a couple of years down the road or they start NOW working on the 737RS and lose the 777 market to the A350.
I am inclined to agree with you. then again revamping the existing 777 design while beginning work on a 737RS could be an option. The development of the 737 will take longer but they won't give Airbus the keys to the 777 market.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2379 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 8526 times:
Looking at the 777 and the 737 at the same time is the only valid way to get a feeling what awaits Boeing.
Otherwise in the Y1 threads everyone praises the big-strike character of that new NB. And in the A350 threads everybody praises the nearly unlimited capability and upgradeability of the 777NG (Y3 was hyped too but the temptation colled down a bit recently).
But in reality Boeing will only be able to adress one issue seriously:
McNerney says fully replacing a 777 and 737 would not come simultaneously and calls the avoidance of such an overlap as "one of the independent variables in the equation."
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6592 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8020 times:
I suppose if the schedule tells us one thing, it's that we can't expect substantial changes to the 787. The -10 will be a simple stretch of the -9 with probably about 7000 nm range. Good enough for all TATL, West Coast-East Asia TPAC, and regional missions. Not good enough for Australia or the longer TPAC routes. There won't be a ULH variant of the -8 or the -9, either.
Even while the -10 is under development, Boeing will need to be allocating most of its resources to the 737RS, and most of the remainder to the 777.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 13): Looking at the 777 and the 737 at the same time is the only valid way to get a feeling what awaits Boeing.
I just wonder if they can pull it off. And I expect the customers wonder too.
ytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 3063 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 7211 times:
What's so ambitious about this schedule?
With the 748 development wrapping up, some more resources will be freed up. I could see those resources getting to work on the 777NG right now. And maybe a small team work on concept definition for the 737RS.
Keep in mind that work ebbs and flows at different stages of development for different projects. I would think of Boeing keeping two pools of engineering talent for essentially two lines of tasking. One working steadily on the 787 line to deliver the -8,-9 and -10. And another working on the 777NG and doing some preliminary groundwork on the 737RS (so 2.5 lines of tasking). And then, once the 7810 is done, we'll see all the 787 engineering resources getting poured into the 737RS program for a sprint to the finish.
I actually think that Boeing might be better off putting any serious work on the 737RS and work towards getting out that 777NG earlier (say 2014). This allows some more maturation of Y1 technologies. And allows for a larger and more dedication team for the 737RS when they get around to it (since the 777NG will be done). I don't buy that Boeing necessarily needs 9 years to develop the 737RS. They said they're aiming for 2020. That may not necessarily have to do with their development timeline. It might have more to do with the fact that won't have the resources to really work on an 737RS, for at least another 4-5 years.
It's ambitious. But not overly ambitious. And fully within Boeing's capabilities, as long as they manage their workforce well....which I'm pretty sure they can.
Well, let us wait and see the production ramp-up go smoothly and hope that the EIS of both airliners goes smoothly as well. After that we can hopefully say "pretty much done". .
But the ambition Boeing is showing is a good thing imho. They need it (as does Airbus) to keep delivering the best products to the market because their customers (as those from Airbus) are demanding it. .
BoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3666 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6316 times:
Quoting mham001 (Reply 3): Most interesting tidbit in that article is that Boeing did not even bother to bid the Virgin America order.
I can't speak for Boeing Sales. I'm not privvy to any inside information (nor would I post it anyway, if I did). But I wonder about the long-term viability of Virgin American. Are they going to be around long enough to justify making a large bid?
Aesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 7748 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6109 times:
About the 777NG, make it lighter might be tricky. We can see with the A320neo that a well developed airplane has nothing left to shed without major redesigning (new wing, etc.). The original 777 is from 1995, but there has been the 77L and 77W much more recently, they should already be close to as light as possible. And of course, what EK wants is a bigger plane, so if anything it will be heavier.
So, the question I don't see often asked and even less answered is : does GE have a better engine up its sleeve ? Because I feel that's what the 777NG needs.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
tistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 337 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6036 times:
If Jon's inside sources are correct, this is mighty impressive. One can only hope that Boeing has learned some valuable lessons these past few years and have some new processes in place that will make this schedule possible. If not, well....I prefer not to think of that.
DLdiamondboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5858 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Thread starter): My question is simple: why will customers believe Boeing has a prayer of meeting this schedule, given the schedule difficulties with the 787-8 and the 747-8? It seems to me like this is setting up Boeing for customer distrust and reluctance to order.
Management that has no experience in what it takes and how long it takes to do a project always feels that it is their moral obligation to beat up on technical experts on timelines. Let’s take for example that mgmt asks the tech guys for a project schedule to design/develop a new airplane. The tech guys come back and say it is four years. The project schedule has the appropriate recycle loops after major design milestones in case redesign and the associated testing is required. Basically a middle of the road schedule with a high confidence level of technical success, Mgmt new jerk reaction will be “there is no way it can take that long, trim the timeline by 25%”. The tech guys respond “prove to us that it will not take four years” Mgmt responds “ just do it” Thus corners get cut and things go wrong due to mgmt pushing a timeline that does not reflect reality. Better to under promise and over deliver.
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1881 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5613 times:
I think we may see more - earlier on the 773erNG project. There is a lot of orders to be had here. Not only against the 351 but also the A380 too. It is one hell of an aircraft now and as people are saying with all the Gen-x/Leap-X learnings there could be 4-5% in there.The structure could be lightened abit with AlLi and carbon parts too.
: Forgive my relative lack of knowledge on this topic, but do we have real evidence that Boeing is serious about doing a 787-10? This is where I though
: A Boeing engineer who is a member of this forum has stated that there is a good bit of weight to be removed from the 777 is Boeing is willing to spen
: But what kind of money ? In the billions ? That, I can believe. Is it worth it ? Currently, I would say that it's not. What is the benefit of contra-
: I don't think Boeing is being ambitious b/c they've had many delays and gotten off coarse already so I'm sure it'll happen in their plan for the decad
: You can get rid of a stator stage, or increase the efficiency of the compressors & turbines a little by more efficiently removing circumferential
: Most carriers understand that there is always a factor in delivery dates for which contingencies must be allowed. There are strikes, wars, God knows
: Maybe they do something new: do not accept firm orders up until the delivery date is pretty certain, then just sell it. The concept of "orders" has o
: I think this tends to confirm that Boeing has a pretty comprehensive range - four models that span the range, 737, 787, 772, 773; and don't have to hu
: Yes, I am sure WN and FR and other 737 operators will just decide they don't want to grow for four years while they wait for Y1. Only if the air carg