Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates And The 777NG  
User currently offlineaeropiggot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 284 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10365 times:

From this article it seems like Tim Clark and Emirates wants Boeing to developed the 777 replacement airplane along side the 737MAX. He needs a 777 with about 7500 nautical mile range that can carry about 60 tons (54.4 Metric tons), and operate all year round.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...vements-to-777-jet.html?cmpid=yhoo


A scientist discovers that which exists, an engineer creates that which never was.
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10225 times:

Mr Clark has been on about this for a while now. I don't think Boeing are prepared to do anything with the 777 until Airbus fully reveales their hand with the 350-1000. They don't have to do anything at this stage and they need to milk the 777 as much as they can. The 777 is still very competitive, selling well and earning lots of profit for Boeing. That will change if/once the 350-1000 hits its targets.
On top of that, they have the 787 ramp up and the 789 to develop, along with a likely 787-10X EIS around 2016 and the 737Max also around 2016/17. They might be "maxxed" out to get a 777NG to EK by 2018. I think 2021+ might be more realistic.
2018 is obviously when EK would like to start replacing their earlier 77Ws. Something is obviously cooking and EK are heavily involved, but I still doubt whether Boeing will be ready for a 2018 EIS. They may be if they skip the 787-10X, however. But from all reports I have seen, the 787-10X does look very likely to be launched in the next 12 months.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Let us also not forget that Tim Clark banged on for years that he felt Boeing needed to develop the original, shorter, 747-8 because he wanted that extra 300nm of range. But he never committed to an order and eventually formally dismissed EK ever purchasing the passenger model (they purchased the freighter and will operate at least 10 on a sale-and-lease-back basis).

So more airlines will need to express "serious" interest before Boeing considers committing. EK alone isn't enough, unless Mr. Clark backs his few billion words with a few billion dollars.  


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9407 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):

Agreed. Boeing has too much to deal with at the moment, and unless Mr. Clark is willing to back up his words with cold, hard cash (as well as fronting the bill for the resources required to begin that work) Boeing may as well tell him to pound sand.

And in addition, what is TC going to do with those A350s he's now "apparently" not happy with? Is he signalling to Airbus that he'll order the 777NG and dump the A350? I seriously don't think he'll do that, but he has THAT plane to worry about rather than a hoped-for 777NG.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5591 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9296 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 3):
And in addition, what is TC going to do with those A350s he's now "apparently" not happy with?

Fly them on his DXB-Europe and DXB-South Asia routes, using slightly more fuel than anticipated, and scowl a lot.   

He doesn't have a lot of other options if he wants to keep acquiring airplanes so quickly...


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6951 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9283 times:

Quoting aeropiggot (Thread starter):
He needs a 777 with about 7500 nautical mile range that can carry about 60 tons (54.4 Metric tons), and operate all year round.

And I want a 777 that I can buy on my salary and that I can fly with my PPL and land it at my local airport (5400 foot runway.)   



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15778 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9163 times:

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 1):
I think 2021+ might be more realistic.

If they can't get the 777NG in the air by 2018 or so there's not much point in doing one.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6951 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9087 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
If they can't get the 777NG in the air by 2018 or so there's not much point in doing one.

I wouldn't agree. If they don't the A3510 will gain traction, but as soon as Boeing comes up with something that tops it (and the easiest way to do that is go larger) they will regain market share. I see it as increasingly difficult for both manufacturers to remain competitive in all segments; they have to match each other in the narrowbody market, but in widebodies I see each having an advantage in a given segment. Airbus is not going to have a direct competitor to the 788 anytime soon; the A359 will eat the 772 for lunch while the A3510 will give the 77W a run for its money, and the A380 will have no real competition for a long time (the 748i's role will be to keep Airbus honest, and will win a few orders.) Boeing's top priority after the 787 HAS to be the 737MAX, and after the 789 is under control they can tackle the 777. But it is better for the 777NG to be late than to have a similar situation to trying to do the 787 and 748 simultaneously.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5053 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8944 times:

The news article talks 60 tons LAX-DXB . I assume this is a reporting error and should be DXB-LAX. If the report is correct Mr Clark has upped the barrier . He used to say that a 5 to 8% improvement would do it. Going from the present about 36t (tonne) to 54t is a huge jump in my view . But Mr Clark admits he will probably not get all that he wants.
Perhaps the most useful part of the article is Mr Clark's statement that Boeing have " a full team" working on it, apparently under Lars Andersen and are making progress , and also that one of the issues is propulsion. Clearly this project is on the front burner. I disagree that the 789 and 737MAX will take away from the 777NG. The 789 is defined , they know what they have to do , their experience with the 788 has told them this. Probably the biggest job they have in front of them are production issues like getting the Charleston plant up to quality and speed. The 737MAX is as I understand it primarily a re-engining project which should call for much less engineering resources.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10106 posts, RR: 97
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8865 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 8):
I disagree that the 789 and 737MAX will take away from the 777NG

I tend to agree with you. I am of the opinion that one (maybe not the only) reason Boeing eventually jumped off the fence and landed on the 737 re-engine side was in order to free up the engineering and cash resources to have more scope on the 777NG

Rgds


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5053 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8334 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
I tend to agree with you. I am of the opinion that one (maybe not the only) reason Boeing eventually jumped off the fence and landed on the 737 re-engine side was in order to free up the engineering and cash resources to have more scope on the 777NG

So true, at this time they need to do no more than keep the 737 about competitive with the A32X NEO. Neither A or B can fill this market by themselves . They are always going to share it. In my view the next big market segment to be addressed is an aircraft that can haul about 40t payload over about a 5750 to 6000nm range.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6951 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 9):
I tend to agree with you. I am of the opinion that one (maybe not the only) reason Boeing eventually jumped off the fence and landed on the 737 re-engine side was in order to free up the engineering and cash resources to have more scope on the 777NG

I think it was a combination of this plus the fact that the customers would have been unwilling to endure any major delays in the 797 program, and Boeing wasn't confident enough that they would be able to avoid it. At the very best the A320NEO would have beaten the 797 to market by five to six years. That might have been tolerable, but a large delay would not have been.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5591 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7270 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 10):
In my view the next big market segment to be addressed is an aircraft that can haul about 40t payload over about a 5750 to 6000nm range.

That sounds an awful lot like a 787-8...


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5053 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6854 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 12):
That sounds an awful lot like a 787-8...

I am thinking more at the edges, say a max passenger load of about 320 ( 30t) plus 5- 96x120 pallets for about 40t or about 180-passengers and 10 pallets for about 38t.


User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5591 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6124 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13):
320 ( 30t) plus 5- 96x120 pallets for about 40t

That sounds like a 787-9 or 787-10 (depending on configuration density) without a full cargo load. Would you address that market through something resembling a shorter-range 787-9?

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 13):
180-passengers and 10 pallets for about 38t.

787-7? We've had a few threads discussing such a beast.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5053 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5552 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 14):
That sounds like a 787-9 or 787-10

I was thinking of a -10 to get the number of 96x120 pallet positions and about 310 seats. The - 8 has 8 plus 2- LD3, the -9 has 11 and I would expect the -10 to have 13 .
Widebodyphotog had a version a few years ago at about 255t MTOW ,max design payload 58.6t at a range of 5400nm. My view is that based on typical belly cargo density, according to a recent survey now said to be 180kg/m^3 the max payload could be 6 to 8t less. This would fill the available volume and allow for an increase in the OEW which at 123t is probably too low; and/or provide something towards the DOW .


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5182 times:

Most of the work needed on the MAX is being done by CFM...and that's the beauty of Boeing's minimalist approach to the upgrade.

Most of the heavy lifting on the 789 and -10 will be done by the 788 and most of the 748 improvements have to be made by GE.

As well, GE will be crucial to any 777NG.

So Boeing should, in the next year or so, have plenty of resources to throw at the 777NG.

It's GE that will have the constrained resources...and they better get this stuff right. By the time Boeing needs the engine, RR or even Pratt might have options in that size.



What the...?
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13250 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5103 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

From the OP link, I agree with Boeing in not doing more than one plane at a time. I *used* to have a different opinion.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So more airlines will need to express "serious" interest before Boeing considers committing. EK alone isn't enough, unless Mr. Clark backs his few billion words with a few billion dollars.

Agreed. But as the largest 777 customer, Boeing must at least be polite and hear his request.   

The problem with the 748I is the 77W has been that good and the A380 has lower CASM. Clark is only asking for 430nm more range. I suspect new engine turbine coatings and 'lessons learned' with the GEnX low turbine will be incorporated in the GE-90 anyway. So 150nm or more of that range will be there by 2018. If he doesn't ask, he'll never receive. If Boeing comes back and says the cost is $X, then negotiations can begin.

EK will have 77W leases expiring starting on 2017. This is simply a reminder that Tim Clark will be out shopping for a replacement and that Boeing should offer more. That is just negotiation 101. Force the other partner to offer more before seriously starting negotiations.   

Its been more than a year since Clark has ordered 777s. He must be going into withdrawl.    Seriously, I think EK ordering more A380s in 2010 than 777s was a very Juan Tripp like message to Boeing (27 DC-8 orders vs. 20 Boeing 707 orders made Boeing redesign the 707 to PanAm's specifications). There is no question that EK will order more aircraft... it is a question of when.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4974 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
Clark is only asking for 430nm more range. I

...and a bunch more payload.



What the...?
User currently offline3rdGen From Bahrain, joined Jul 2011, 238 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4314 times:

OK, here's what I don't get. Why build a next gen 777 (an update on a 16 year old plane) when you have a brand new vehicle, the 787, which you can stretch to just the same size?

Why not just stretch it a little further and release a -11, with necessary aerodynamic changes. Here's a plane built in the 21st Century with the latest materials, why update a 16 year old plane,it is essentially just going to be updated to include most of the features the 787 already has.

Why not, in all seriousness, just have one general outline (the 787) and just stretch it or shrink it to meet the various sizes customers are asking for. What is the reason for sticking with the 777? Its old technology, no?

Is it just about timing, I'm guessing they would be able to release a 777NG before a -10 or a -11. I'm sure the guys at Boeing are taking a hard look at the future of the 777 program.

If they're not careful they'll start shooting themselves in the foot, as they'll be killing their own plane with an even better one.


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15778 posts, RR: 27
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4179 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
If they don't the A3510 will gain traction, but as soon as Boeing comes up with something that tops it (and the easiest way to do that is go larger) they will regain market share.

If they go bigger they will make themselves less appealing to a lot of the market anyway. If a 777NG could be done relatively soon, that's one thing. But if they are talking 2020 or even later, they might as well keep selling what they can (it can pack more seats after all) and have a new plane arrive not that much later.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 16):

Most of the work needed on the MAX is being done by CFM...and that's the beauty of Boeing's minimalist approach to the upgrade.

It won't look so hot if CFM screws up. Boeing put all their eggs in one basket. And even if it does do what it's supposed to, the other basket might be that much better.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):

OK, here's what I don't get. Why build a next gen 777 (an update on a 16 year old plane) when you have a brand new vehicle, the 787, which you can stretch to just the same size?

Why not just stretch it a little further and release a -11, with necessary aerodynamic changes. Here's a plane built in the 21st Century with the latest materials, why update a 16 year old plane,it is essentially just going to be updated to include most of the features the 787 already has.

Why not, in all seriousness, just have one general outline (the 787) and just stretch it or shrink it to meet the various sizes customers are asking for. What is the reason for sticking with the 777? Its old technology, no?

The 787 is only capable of doing so much, and competing effectively with a powerful new A350 and acting as a replacement for the existing 77W is just out its reach without really major updates. What you're suggesting would have been the same as Airbus taking the A330 and trying to make it compete with the 77W 5 years ago (though I appreciate the technological advances with the 777 vs 787). With each stretch you are going to lose some capability in the aircraft, and it would be far too expensive and intensive for Boeing to use 787 as the basis for an aircraft in this market. 16 years really isn't that long a time in aircraft years -- the 744 update came 20 years after the original 747, and was the most successful member of that family because it was able to take modern technologies and innovations and use the older frame as a vessel for them.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1149 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3978 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):
OK, here's what I don't get. Why build a next gen 777 (an update on a 16 year old plane) when you have a brand new vehicle, the 787, which you can stretch to just the same size?

I'm going to guess that it's because airplanes aren't balloons.  

Seriously ... it's one thing to do a lengthwise stretch to add a few rows. It's another and (I suspect) much more difficult thing to do a width stretch to allow more seats per row. (If you try to fly a 10-abreast 787, you're not going to have too many standard adult Americans aboard! and I woudn't bet on standard Euro adults fitting either -- never mind the drink carts fitting in the aisles!)

Every airframe has a limit beyond which stretching impacts the fundamental design, perhaps in non-obvious ways: landing gear loading, or fuselage width, or whatever. I may be wrong, but I don't think that you can equate a stretched 787 and a next-gen 773+ very easily; they are too far apart in too many dimensions.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Considering the diameter of the 787 and 350 are only, (I believe), 5 inches apart, if Boeing was willing to do it, they could stretch the 787 to match any length of 350.

To match it in load and range, they would have to do a lot more work...with a larger, stronger wing, (or a larger beefier version of their current wing), bigger engines, triple trucks and who knows what else.

I think their plan, (such as it is), is a good way to cover most of the bases using the least resources. The current -10 as a straight stretch of the -9, (sacrificing range for payload), gives airlines a choice at the same MTOW.

The 777 is already the heavy lifter and has a desirable, (to airlines if not to passengers), 10 abreast capability and Boeing has hinted they can squeeze another few inches of width out of the interior.

There are definitely ways to make it lighter and burn less fuel but will it be enough to properly compete with the -1000? There are lots of ways that seem to make sense but we have no data that they can actually make it work...or how.

That's the trick many are very interested in hearing.



What the...?
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):

OK, here's what I don't get. Why build a next gen 777 (an update on a 16 year old plane) when you have a brand new vehicle, the 787, which you can stretch to just the same size?

Because a 787 stretched up to 777 size loses much of the economic advantages that make the idea look appealing in the first place.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):
Why not, in all seriousness, just have one general outline (the 787) and just stretch it or shrink it to meet the various sizes customers are asking for.

Because as you move away from the optimum design point (and every aircraft has one) efficiency drops off. Stretching or shrinking too far kills your performance relative to another airframe that was designed closer to that mission. This is why the A318 and 737-600 sell terribly.

A 787 stretched up to 777 capacity will lose much of what makes the 787 appealing and may not be competitive against a 777NG.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):
What is the reason for sticking with the 777?

Proven design, proven supply chain, proven production system, most of the capital and development costs already paid for. Starting over costs *billions* more...you need to get enough of a revenue hike to cover up the extra cost.

Quoting 3rdGen (Reply 19):
Its old technology, no?

Sort of...old is a relative term in aviation. There are still thousands of 737 Classics flying around and they're way older than the 777. Technology for technology's sake means nothing, airlines only care about technology as it affects cost. The 777 is still extremely efficient and profitable for airlines.

Tom.


25 Newark727 : Who else would Boeing have to look at if they wanted to sell a 777NG? If you were designing an airplane around a single customer, EK might be a good p
26 seabosdca : If a 777-9X sells well, it will be because it has a payload-range advantage (principally a payload advantage) over the A350-1000, with a low enough g
27 qf002 : I agree -- add virtually any existing 777 operator who hasn't already massively committed themselves to the A350 (ie already has 1 for 1 replacement
28 3rdGen : Thanks for the answers. What features would/could a new 777NG incorporate from either the 787 project or other. New Cockpit? (787 style, its already b
29 JoeCanuck : The fewer things you have to change, the better the commonality not just for airlines but for production and suppliers and the less the expense of upg
30 Post contains images lightsaber : Agree highly with these two, but my earlier point is it could be possible to meet the demands with more beer can than CFRP. As you note, the less you
31 SunriseValley : The present engine must be one of the most reliable ever. Can an engine as young as the GEnX series expect to be anywhere near as reliable out of the
32 seabosdca : Curious why you pick 747-8 over 787 despite the 787's greater fan size... is it just because of the non-bleedless architecture, or are there deeper f
33 JoeCanuck : Indeed...Airbus created a very sophisticated tin wing for the 380...though I imagine they will choose composites for the wing...possibly an upscaled
34 XT6Wagon : 787 would only work if you do a new wingbox and landing gear. I don't know if you would want to do new wings, or simply attach the current wings to n
35 tdscanuck : Not much to be gained there, other than happy pilots (which doesn't phase airliner purchasers very much). That would be too much systems redesign...y
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...
"Emirates And The Dot" - Article Source? posted Tue Aug 5 2003 01:39:54 by 747-600X
Emirates And The A3XX posted Sat Apr 22 2000 21:38:14 by Avion
Emirates And Continental In The UK posted Thu Nov 22 2007 07:53:11 by Britannia25
Etihad And Emirates To The US Of A posted Fri Aug 25 2006 21:10:35 by AirxLiban
And The Next Emirates Destination Will Be.....! posted Mon Aug 9 2004 10:25:16 by FlyingKangaroo
Cargolux And The 748f posted Fri Sep 2 2011 07:52:48 by cc2314
Berlin's New Airport And The Nordic Countries posted Sat Aug 27 2011 02:53:20 by Tobias2702
Eastern And The MCI Hub? posted Wed Aug 24 2011 19:50:03 by ABQopsHP
Hurricane Irene And The North East posted Wed Aug 24 2011 13:25:44 by n92r03
Ryanair, London European And The One-Eleven posted Tue Dec 21 2010 08:40:56 by skipness1E