Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Dilemma: 777 Or 737 Development?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1985 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Boeing can't decide between 737 or 777 developments.
Apparently the only thing they already decided is not going with two programs simultaneously ( like now with the 748 and the 787 ).
I really hope they will made a wise decision and the market follow the direction they expect ( and bet for ).

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...7-development-priority-boeing.html


Rgds.

G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5086 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Like the 737, the 777 also need new engines, so I suppose a major driver of the 777 replacement is how quickly GE can develop a new variant of the GE90 with contra-rotation, a new fan, IBR compressors, wide chord blade technology and other updates.

The cost will also be somewhere south of $500 million and GE seems to be very RoI-driven when it comes to making any updates. And with LEAP-X not exactly seeing customers beating down the door for it at the moment, I wonder if GE will be willing to invest hundreds of millions in a new GE90 update. We might see a reverse of 1998 where it's Boeing that picks up a good portion of the tab to bring the new GE90 to market.


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
We might see a reverse of 1998 where it's Boeing that picks up a good portion of the tab to bring the new GE90 to market.

im sure boeing would ask PW or RR first, and i doubt one of those companies would let that opertunity go



Boiler Up!
User currently offlinesurfdog75 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

They should reopen the 757 line. The best aircraft they've produced IMO. Add NEO upgrades and buy some time to work a clean sheet new aircraft. The 737 won't pencil out as a competitor to the 320 NEO.

User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4947 times:

That sounds like Airbus did a good job with the latest change of the A350-1000...
Boeing has to invest more in the B777 to stay competitive.


I really hope they will start new versions sooner than later.

I still dream of a B777-400 and -300F.


 


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4697 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 2):
im sure boeing would ask PW or RR first, and i doubt one of those companies would let that opertunity go

Pratt has nothing ready and Rolls would need more than a 98k XWB.

Plus if GE can make much of the upgrade able to be retrofitted via a PiP on existing engines, that brings in more revenue and makes existing LR777 frames more valuable (and worth holding on to longer).


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15731 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4680 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Apparently the only thing they already decided is not going with two programs simultaneously

I'm not sure that's a good idea, but they may not have a choice depending on what Wall Street is telling them. They should learn their lessons, but it isn't good if they become gun shy.

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 3):
They should reopen the 757 line.

No. There are many reasons why which have been detailed several hundred times in various threads.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
That sounds like Airbus did a good job with the latest change of the A350-1000...

Or did they? First, Airbus' first concern is making money, and I'm not convinced increasing the weights is the best move to sell the most planes the quickest. Furthermore, with the delay, Boeing has another year or so to keep on selling 77Ws with no changes at all.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
I still dream of a B777-400 and -300F.

I think now with more time and less performance gap, they might as well just jump to the Y3.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
I think now with more time and less performance gap, they might as well just jump to the Y3

This is very unlikely in the moment.

Boeing still has not certified the two B747-8 versions and the B787-8 and also the B787-9 is on the horizon.
They are under pressure from Bombardier and Airbus with the CS and A32x Neo.


I would guess a complete new designed widebody is not priority number one.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8329 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing should develop new 777 since that market requires efficient planes more then a 737 New NG or 797. A shorl haul plane is not worth it until it saves 20% compared to planes now. A 77W NG would help the Emiratres and Cathay's of teh world fly further or more on their current flights.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9596 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4098 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
I still dream of a B777-400 and -300F.

There's no point to a 300F. Freighters are mostly weight limited and not volume limited. A 300F might actually be a bad move since it would increase the airplane's empty weight, but the 200F has almost the same MTOW as the 300ER.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4016 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 4):
That sounds like Airbus did a good job with the latest change of the A350-1000...
Boeing has to invest more in the B777 to stay competitive.

My thoughts exactly. The revised higher MTOW A350-10 should close the cargo payload deficit on 6,000nm + routes, and still offer substantially lower fuel burn. So any work to make 77W(NG) competitive would involve a lot more resources, and I still don't see the 77W(NG) beating a likely A350-11 response from Airbus.

I believe the efficiency dividing line between 9 and 10-abreast aircraft, of equivalent technology, is around 370-380 seats(3 class). 77W(NG) is unlikely to be equivalent technology as A350.

IMO, Boeing should develop a new 787 family(787-10 and 787-11) which should cost less than an all new 10-abreast 777RS(Y3). The larger market is around 350 seats, so 789/787-10 makes more economic sense and it is less expensive to develop than Y3.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3925 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The first 777-300ERs are arguably not due for replacement until the end of this decade, so the real sales opportunities are for deliveries starting around 2020.

I can't help but feel that the best course for Boeing and GE is to drop a billion or two and remove 10 tons of MEW from the 777-300ER structure and reduce the SFC of the GE90-115b by 10%.

Such a plane is not going to offer the fuel efficiency per trip or per seat of the A350-1000, but it should at least halve it. And I feel that such a plane would sell well to current 777-300ER operators looking for replacements because they already have the planes in their fleets.

And the more of those engines upgrade GE can incorporate as a PiP, the better for them and for Boeing because it makes existing 777-300ERs more efficient. This could result in current operators holding onto their planes longer, which means more ancillary sales to both Boeing and GE. And when combined with the large base of spares, training, crews and such, I think this could make a used 777-300ER a strong contender with airlines looking to add a large-capacity twin to their fleet.

I could see current 777-300ER lessors jumping all over this PiP because it may result in lease extensions with existing customers and it would improve the desirability of it to new customers when they come off-lease with the current customer.



Jumping to a new 787-10 or 787-11 strikes me as committing the same "mistake" many believe Boeing would do if they launch the 797 to compete with the A320neo. The 787-10 would slot in-between the A350-900 and A350-1000 and the 787-11 would slot in between the A350-1000 and the conceptual A350-1100.

Such a plane would have to follow the A345/A346 model, with a new wing and new engines and new undercarriage, all of which is going to result in reduced commonality with the 787-8 and 787-9. Such a plane would also cost billions more to develop and enter service years after the A350 family, allowing the A350 to continue to build it's order book and pushing the sales window for such a plane deeper into the next decade.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3874 times:

The A350-1000 is still way too far off in the future. Boeing has more than sufficient time to do 777-300ER-neo.

Also, price is low enough and that would be sufficient reason to prevent massive exodus.

Once 787 actually starts to deliver, Boeing should do a full Y1 instead of half-baked 737neo if they want a real chance to fight A320neo.

Make Y1 from 140-240 seats, and make a LR version that's a true TATL 752 replacement.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10002 posts, RR: 96
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
First, Airbus' first concern is making money, and I'm not convinced increasing the weights is the best move to sell the most planes the quickest

I can't think of any other driver that Airbus would have had for the changes to the A350-1000 than making more money more quickly.
Why else would they do this?
If the decision didn't have a likely positive ROI, they wouldn't have made it   

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I can't help but feel that the best course for Boeing and GE is to drop a billion or two and remove 10 tons of MEW from the 777-300ER structure and reduce the SFC of the GE90-115b by 10%.

I'm pretty sure 8% or even more from the GE90-115 is doable. I'd be astonished if there's 10t in the airframe personally.

But no matter. I suspect that given the 777-300ER's underlying superiority in lift and range, 8%-10% off fuel burn and a couple of tonnes off OEW (or a couple of tonnes traded off against bigger span wings maybe) would make the 777 an attractive proposition vs even the "improved" A350-1000.

Rgds


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I can't help but feel that the best course for Boeing and GE is to drop a billion or two and remove 10 tons of MEW from the 777-300ER structure and reduce the SFC of the GE90-115b by 10%.

10 tons would be about 6% of the current MEW, and along with 10% reduction in engine SFC, would translate to about 15% drop in trip fuel burn. If it can be done for $2 billion, it is a low risk investment that could make the B77W(NG, 10 abreast-390 seats) competitive on long and dense routes. I would expect Airbus to respond with a A350-11.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
The 787-10 would slot in-between the A350-900 and A350-1000 and the 787-11 would slot in between the A350-1000 and the conceptual A350-1100.

If one accepts the premise that 350 seat is where the larger market is, Boeing could offer a 787-10 that is around 330 seats, and 787-11 that is around 370 seats.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30892 posts, RR: 87
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
I'm pretty sure 8% or even more from the GE90-115 is doable. I'd be astonished if there's 10t in the airframe personally.

I seem to recall a 777 engineer on this forum noting they could knock 20 tons out of the frame if they went really radical on the 777-300ERX.   

With Boeing increasing the production rate to 8.3 a month / 100 a year, I don't think they are going to be able to introduce radically new production processes like laser welding or new materials like CFRP. But it is possible that Boeing could incorporate new, lighter Al alloys and/or composites like GLARE to reduce the structural weight of the airframe while still allowing the current production processes to remain to allow quick assembly.


User currently onlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 13):
But no matter. I suspect that given the 777-300ER's underlying superiority in lift and range, 8%-10% off fuel burn and a couple of tonnes off OEW (or a couple of tonnes traded off against bigger span wings maybe) would make the 777 an attractive proposition vs even the "improved" A350-1000.

My thoughts are where is Lars Anderson in all this. I have not read anywhere that he has gone back into retirement , if not he has been on the job close to a year certainly plenty of time to have defined a number of future options for the variant. If he is still on the job, this suggests to me that Boeing have serious plans, ableit undisclosed, for the 77W. Perhaps the recent AirBus initiative will get some response from them.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 7):
I would guess a complete new designed widebody is not priority number one.



Not with the current developement of the 787, and I believe that it is a widebody.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
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...
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
GE Capital Confirms Order For Boeing 777 And 737 posted Thu Oct 5 2000 05:51:17 by Boeing747-400
Boeing To Produce 42 737 Pr Month In 2014 posted Wed Jun 15 2011 07:11:44 by oykie
Southwest Pushes Boeing Harder For Reengining 737 posted Wed Dec 15 2010 16:07:52 by keesje
Boeing Not Re-engining 737, But "737NG+" posted Thu Sep 9 2010 08:09:56 by keesje
Speculation On How Boeing Will Replace The 737 posted Fri Sep 3 2010 19:08:58 by 2175301
Boeing Y1, A Fourth Generation 737? posted Wed Aug 11 2010 17:33:32 by 2707200X
Emirates/Boeing And A 777-300ER Replacement posted Sat Jul 31 2010 22:58:28 by united777
Boeing 787/777/Y3 Strategy Against Bigger A350s. posted Mon Apr 26 2010 04:31:40 by keesje
The Boeing 787-3, Gone Or Winter Sleep? posted Fri Jan 8 2010 03:39:49 by Keesje