Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777-8X And -9X Now In The Pipe Line  
User currently offlineMSN007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 127 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 56605 times:

Aspire Aviation reveals that Boeing has issued a request for proposal (RFP) to General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce (RR), with one of Aspire Aviation‘s sources saying Pratt & Whitney (P&W) is possibly included in the RFP, for a 100,000 lbs engine powering the 777-8X and -9X, the conceptual replacement aircraft for the ultra long-range 777-200LR and the highly popular 777-300ER, respectively.

Is more power the answer for fuel saving and more range?

Here is the full article.
http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...tion-ramp-up/#.Twx-hU_OaYE.twitter

264 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 56618 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MSN007 (Thread starter):
Is more power the answer for fuel saving and more range?

Since the B77W presently has 115,000 lbs of thrust the trend in power is downwards. Not upwards like you seem to suggest.  . The article also suggest a downgrade in power.

But this move does not come really as a surprise, though everything else we say about the B777-8X and 777-9X is still highly speculative imho.

[Edited 2012-01-10 11:34:19]

User currently offlineMSN007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 56501 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
Since the B77W presently has 115,000 lbs of thrust the trend in power is downwards. Not upwards like you seem to suggest.

I thought the 77W was in the 85,000Ibs range. I sure have it confused with may be the A380. That makes sense thanks for clarifying. One thing is sure and that is the 777 will be around for many many years to come.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 56144 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see Pratt on this program after the 4098. Rolls did develop the Trent 8104 demonstrator at 104,000 pounds and GE is working on the GE-9X.

User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 55954 times:

Why will the new 777 require smaller engines? Is it lighter requiring less thrust? Will it still fly the same speed of the current 777s?

User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 55920 times:

The 787 production ramp still has yet to prove itself to be able to digest the backlog. The demand of the 787-9 and 787-10X, which may well be the most refined and popular models of the 787 family, will only put a lot more pressure on the supply chains. Such factors will probably bury any chance of 787-11/12 to replace the 777 families in the next 10 years.

Therefore upgrading the 777 is probably the best option to leverage production infrastructures and supply chain to counter the A350, in volume delivery availability and in efficiency. In business, time to revenue is more important than time to market.

Overall, it seems Boeing has a strong roadmap towards the 767, A33x, 777 replacement market which is BIG. It does not look like Boeing can further entertain the VLA market considering the opportunity cost and Airbus will probably own the pax VLA market even though it may not be very profitable.


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2715 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55837 times:

Interesting times are ahead of us. But a 777 with a smaller fan diameter? This sounds like blasphemy to me!

User currently offlinewolbo From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 488 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55795 times:

It's still early days and we don't know too much about the 777-8X and -9X specs but it's reasonable to expect that they will be successful follow-ups to the 77W so RR must be really pleased with a chance to get on board and break GE's monopoly.

BTW, does the joint venture between RR and Pratt allow them to offer the GTF and is the GTF scaleable to this thrust level?


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55713 times:

I still don't understand the purpose of a 777-8. ULH (in a time of ever more expensive fuel)? A basis for an updated freighter (when the existing one has no competition as is)? Even with the improvements, I'd think an A350-1000 would club it like a baby seal in most missions. The 777-9 is the one that makes sense.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 4):
Why will the new 777 require smaller engines? Is it lighter requiring less thrust? Will it still fly the same speed of the current 777s?

It has a lighter MTOW and a bigger wing (which should allow it to take off and land at slower speeds).

I haven't seen any reason yet why it wouldn't cruise at the same speed as current 777s. Peak engine thrust affects takeoff performance, not optimal cruise speed, which is largely determined by aerodynamic factors.

[Edited 2012-01-10 12:27:53]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55639 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 5):
The 787 production ramp still has yet to prove itself to be able to digest the backlog. The demand of the 787-9 and 787-10X, which may well be the most refined and popular models of the 787 family, will only put a lot more pressure on the supply chains. Such factors will probably bury any chance of 787-11/12 to replace the 777 families in the next 10 years.

I think the 7810 will push the 787 to the practical limit of stretches. Beyond that you run into problems with length and design changes to accommodate additional weight. Having an extra seat in each row makes building a large capacity airliner much easier. The 787 can replace the 772; it will never replace the 773 or the 747.

Obviously the 777X will be lighter than the 77W; I'm amazed, though, that it will be enough lighter to reduce the required thrust by 15,000 lbs per engine. My rough calculations indicate that that means it will be approximately 100,000 lighter at MTOW; that is huge! Some of that will be fuel that will not be needed, but it still means a whopping amount of weight taken out of the airframe. More power to Boeing if they can do it; I'm eagerly awaiting more details.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55580 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):
Obviously the 777X will be lighter than the 77W; I'm amazed, though, that it will be enough lighter to reduce the required thrust by 15,000 lbs per engine. My rough calculations indicate that that means it will be approximately 100,000 lighter at MTOW; that is huge! Some of that will be fuel that will not be needed, but it still means a whopping amount of weight taken out of the airframe. More power to Boeing if they can do it; I'm eagerly awaiting more details.

Well, it is way too early to speculate about how much weight reduction we will see on these re-revised B777-models. Ihighly doubt it will be that spectacular.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
It has a lighter MTOW and a bigger wing (which should allow it to take off and land at slower speeds).

Indeed. I am quite sure that the bigger wing is for more then 90% responsible for the lower thrust required. Though this is of course a guess.  .


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55560 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):
I'm amazed, though, that it will be enough lighter to reduce the required thrust by 15,000 lbs per engine. My rough calculations indicate that that means it will be approximately 100,000 lighter at MTOW; that is huge!

They're only planning to reduce MTOW by 22,000 lbs (from 775,000 to 753,000). The slack will be taken up by the bigger composite wing.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55432 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 8):
I still don't understand the purpose of a 777-8. ULH (in a time of ever more expensive fuel)? A basis for an updated freighter (when the existing one has no competition as is)? Even with the improvements, I'd think an A350-1000 would club it like a baby seal in most missions. The 777-9 is the one that makes sense.

While I think it will have every bit as much range as the 77L, I think a 777-8 would be mainly geared toward a 77E replacement, which is what is needing to be replaced in the near future. That aircraft size is still very much in demand, and I see the re-engined, re-winged, enhanced aerodynamics resulting of such would make it very competitive with the A350-9 and the A350-10. And be able to fly 77E missions effectively and efficiently as well as ULH. Remember, just because it's a 777 doesn't mean it will be anywhere near current models in any way, until we know payload, weights, and ranges. So the assumption should be, Boeing knows what they are doing.

This is exciting, I still wish APB would develop some winglets for the 77E. I think that would be a great interim solution. They'd be like 13 feet tall! LOL.

UAL

[Edited 2012-01-10 12:44:52]

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55293 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 9):
I'm amazed, though, that it will be enough lighter to reduce the required thrust by 15,000 lbs per engine. My rough calculations indicate that that means it will be approximately 100,000 lighter at MTOW; that is huge!

They're only planning to reduce MTOW by 22,000 lbs (from 775,000 to 753,000). The slack will be taken up by the bigger composite wing.

OK, that makes more sense. I cannot fathom that much weight being removed without severely impacting payload and/or range, which is obviously not the goal. I did not immediately realize that a larger wing would lower the thrust requirement, but on thinking about it I see that it would.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55207 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 5):
Airbus will probably own the pax VLA market even though it may not be very profitable.

I agree the market for the A380 will be very limited, not just because of size, but because it can't carry any significant freight with PAX. The thing it has going for it right now is the low pax CASM.

However, if the 787-9x and 777x CASM go down as indicated in the article, I think these could have a lower CASMs than the A380. Since the 787/777/A350 can also carry a good load of cargo that the A380 can't, unless AB can improve the A388 pax CASM significantly, the 787/777/A350 variants will kill the A388 off, along with all other long haul aircraft offered now, including the 747-8i, IMHO.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55124 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 12):
That aircraft size is still very much in demand, and I see the re-engined, re-winged, enhanced aerodynamics resulting of such would make it very competitive with the A350-9 and the A350-10.

I just don't see how even a lightened 777 can be competitive with the A350 without a passenger capacity advantage, except for extreme ULH (beyond 7500 nm) or heavy cargo hauling missions beyond the norm. It will still be substantially heavier (probably on the order of 40 t). Its engine technology will be a few years ahead of the A350's, but not far enough ahead to make up for that kind of weight differential, and it will likely have higher maintenance costs and be more expensive to produce.

The magic ingredient that makes the 777-9 work (on paper) in spite of these disadvantages is the larger passenger and cargo capacity at comparable range. The 777-8, as far as I can see, won't have any such magic.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
However, if the 787-9x and 777x CASM go down as indicated in the article, I think these could have a lower CASMs than the A380

The chances of that happening are less than 0.0001% imho. Let us leave the A380 out of the discussion as this B777-8X/9X are so undefined yet. And the A388 (and possible A389) will not stand still until these re-revised B777's come along. The A380's will not be beaten in CASM till at least way in the late 2030's, that is just my just (educated) guess.  .


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 55081 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 15):
I just don't see how even a lightened 777 can be competitive with the A350 without a passenger capacity advantage, except for extreme ULH (beyond 7500 NM) or heavy cargo hauling missions beyond the norm. It will still be substantially heavier (probably on the order of 40 t). Its engine technology will be a few years ahead of the A350's, but not far enough ahead to make up for that kind of weight differential, and it will likely have higher maintenance costs and be more expensive to produce.

The magic ingredient that makes the 777-9 work (on paper) in spite of these disadvantages is the larger passenger and cargo capacity at comparable range. The 777-8, as far as I can see, won't have any such magic.

I totally agree on this. A post with a lot of sense of reality.  .


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 54774 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 14):
Since the 787/777/A350 can also carry a good load of cargo that the A380 can't, unless AB can improve the A388 pax CASM significantly, the 787/777/A350 variants will kill the A388 off, along with all other long haul aircraft offered now, including the 747-8i, IMHO.

All the A380 would need would be A350 engines, and, voila, the CASM king again. Increasing size is the easiest and fastest way to improve CASM, and the A380 will have no size competition for a long, long time.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 54361 times:

It's quite helpful for RR that the latest version of the A350-1000 required them to invest in an enlarged 97k version of the T-XWB as they're now the only manufacturer with a launched new engine around the 100k mark. Assuming GE will have to launch an engine for this plane, will Boeing choose 2 engine suppliers? Could GE then power the A350 after all?


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 54267 times:

I thought GE had exclusivity on all 777s over a certain weight (may have been 700klbs or 750klbs)...maybe that exclusivity clause actually dies with the 200LR / 300ER.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 53384 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 16):
The A380's will not be beaten in CASM till at least way in the late 2030's, that is just my just (educated) guess. .

Even if true, the 757 TATL experience shows that route fragmentation makes sense even with higher CASM smaller planes. As the smaller aircraft approach the CASM of the larger ones, it makes even more sense. Thus, IMHO, fragmentation will only increase as these newer smaller planes come online.

If you add up the "Total Route CASM" for certain pax traveling certain routes, not just the hub to hub CASM portions, the smaller planes can sometimes be more efficient in many circumstances, I suspect.

I think the proof is in the order numbers. How many 787/A350/777/767/A330 have been ordered for long haul use compared to the 747-8i and A380 over the same period, say past 5 years? No contest.

In addition, ignoring the freight revenue potential of different and smaller aircraft, like we often do here on A.net, is very misleading. Operators may be able t haul freight point to point on thin routes more economically with small planes that they would otherwise routing freight through freight hubs. I think this is especially true of smaller operators who don't even have a freight hub. Unlike passengers, freight does not move by itself on the ground and between planes.

Bottom line is the smaller long haul planes will dominate long haul. The 767 opened the door long ago, and there has been no looking back since. The newer more capable and efficient smaller planes will only accelerate this trend. IMHO.


User currently offlineFRAspotter From United States of America, joined May 2004, 2352 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 52230 times:

Quoting MSN007 (Thread starter):
777-8X and -9X,

Why is it the trend to jump directly from -200 or -300 models to the -800 all of a sudden or even more so with a brand new aircraft automatically starting at -8 (A380, 787, etc?) Whatever happened to the 777-4/5/6/7?



"Drunks run stop signs. Stoners wait for them to turn green."
User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 592 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 51961 times:

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 22):
Why is it the trend to jump directly from -200 or -300 models to the -800 all of a sudden or even more so with a brand new aircraft automatically starting at -8 (A380, 787, etc?) Whatever happened to the 777-4/5/6/7?

A good question, although I guess the 787-3 did exist for a couple year on paper.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30992 posts, RR: 86
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 50891 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FRAspotter (Reply 22):
Whatever happened to the 777-4/5/6/7?

I expect Boeing is trying to tie the various families together:

737-7 / 737-8 / 737-9
747-8
777-8 / 777-9
787-8 / 787-9


25 timpdx : 747-8 was supposedly done because in Asian (Chinese) numerology, 8 is magical. 4 is a bad number. You see buildings in china with no 4th floor or even
26 Stitch : It's often been said this is why Boeing (and Airbus) chose the numbering they did for the 747-8 and A380-800, but let us not forget the 747 - and esp
27 SSTeve : But if the A388 numbers start getting chewed on by the twins, you'll see an A389. It's not going anywhere on lots of routes.
28 747400sp : I hope Boeing, increase the T-7 speed with the 777-8X and 9X, because both the 747-8I and 787 cruises at .85 mach at the least. The same is true for t
29 seabosdca : Bragging rights... that will get you 5 minutes on a TATL flight and 10 on a TPAC flight, at most. Much better to keep the current speed and go for ma
30 CXfirst : It wasn't speed that killed the A340, but fuel efficiency of a twin. And even the A330, which is quite a bit slower than the 777 (more so than the 77
31 Post contains images TWA772LR : I heard on this site that the 778X was going to be slightly longer than the 772 family and the 779X was going to be slightly longer than the 773 famil
32 CXB77L : I would imagine that the 777-8X would be the 77L/77F replacement. I don't think having a 777-8X as well as a 777-9X is going to cost Boeing that much
33 Post contains images Fabo : I am surprised nobody picked up on this. Maybe I hang too much in Tech/ops 777 has raked wingtips already, The fact, that they are included on Poseid
34 1337Delta764 : As for the engine, Boeing and GE have historically had a pretty strong relationship, so I'd expect GE will get this one. The only Boeing commercial ai
35 flyingclrs727 : Only the 200LR and 300ER. The 77E and the original 200 and 300 have no winglets.
36 BMI727 : It will be less power. The problem is that the only A350 the upgraded 777s will be able to counter is the -1000, and even then it won't work for near
37 Post contains images PM : Well there's a surprise... Actually, Boeing and PW have had the much stronger relationship "historically". It is only in quite recent times that GE h
38 tdscanuck : A 0.01 Mach increase causes about a 2% drag hit. Aerodynamic improvements don't matter...if you fly faster with the same aircraft you burn more gas.
39 NZ2 : Could someone post the specs of the 350 v 777, in particular the width as i seemed to recall that although Airbis called the 350 the XWB to differenti
40 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : With little competition, it would seem to only get more profitable over time, imho. Where have we heard that before? -Dave
41 dank : I'd argue that the 757 on TATL routes was a solution looking for a problem rather than the other way around. With 737s and 320s able to do almost all
42 sparky35805 : Boeing,Pratt,Hamilton Standard,and United Airlines were at one time under the same corporate umbrella.
43 boilerla : Except some are skeptical about the A35J still, including EK and QR. It's still 5 years away from EIS and has yet to have final config freeze, so a l
44 CXB77L : Fuselage width: Airbus A350: 5.96 metres Boeing 777: 6.20 metres Cabin width: Airbus A350: 5.61 metres Boeing 777: 5.89 metres 28cm difference in the
45 DocLightning : Why? Newer models tend to require less maintenance than older ones and the entire fuselage can be made on the same tooling that Boeing currently uses
46 Burkhard : If Boeing does here what they did with the 77W/77L and Airbus made with 332/333 and 358/359, to keep the differences really minimal and just put the
47 alangirvan : The idea is that the long 777 NG will have the range of the short body 777-200LR, with the better seat mile costs. EK have been "misusing" the 777-300
48 Post contains images astuteman : 10% off fuel burn (just for engines alone) saves you about 14-15 tonnes on a long sector vs the 773ER. Add in the drag reduction from the new wings,
49 BlueSky1976 : Press releases from 2011 Paris Air Show would give you pretty good idea what the 777-8X would be. Generally, the 777-9X would be slightly stretched 7
50 Post contains links rheinwaldner : 787/A350 are available so the A380 should be dead according to you already now. This is laughable. Please remember, the A380 never had negative net s
51 SEPilot : Which means that all of the 777's currently built have the wingtips. The 77E, 772 and 773 have zero sales in recent years; I believe you can still or
52 travelhound : I must admit the proposed thrust settings for the 9X are somewhat Puzzling. From what I can work out the 9X will be a size above the A350-1000, but w
53 Post contains images SEPilot : That is my thought as well. I agree with that; primarily because, unless the market changes drastically, nobody is going to build an all-new VLA for
54 seabosdca : Not quite true; there have been a trickle of new 77E sales in recent years. SU, KE, and CO have all bought small numbers of them. By then, you're tal
55 Post contains images EPA001 : That quote came out of post 15 and was not mine. . Very, very interesting. Which is impossible anyway this early in the program.
56 Stitch : If it sells planes, I expect Boeing will allow both. RR's best shot is probably "power by the hour" deals where they handle everything related to kee
57 PM : Your memory is somewhat at fault here. Aeroflot have never ordered 777-200ERs and it's more than eight years since the last Korean order. Are you per
58 BMI727 : The big reason to go with a derivative is that it's cheap and it can get out the door quickly. But now with the A350-1000 being pushed back, there is
59 SEPilot : It will be several years before Boeing will be ready to tackle another clean-sheet design, what with the 787 derivatives and the 737MAX, and the mark
60 sf260 : ANA ordered 5 77E in dec 2009, what has happened to that order? From Boeing's O&D site, none of them have been delivered so far. Does anybody kno
61 Post contains links seabosdca : Oops, I did mean OZ. And SU certainly did order 777-200ERs... http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...aeroflot-orders-eight-boeing-777s/
62 JerseyFlyer : This sounds as though it "ought" to be right but aerodynamics plays its part too. I recall Tim Clarke (I think) saying of EK's A380s that they are mo
63 SEPilot : Each aircraft has a speed at which it is most efficient. For a given aircraft it may be more efficient to go faster, but if it was designed for a slo
64 Post contains images nimbus111 : all i know is the more 777s the better!!
65 NOTAXONROTAX : But perhaps bigger engines? Larger diameter? No Tax On Rotax
66 Post contains images Stitch : However, they subsequently converted them to 777-300ERs. So they did order them, they just never took delivery of them. It might not be. A decade fro
67 AA777223 : I USED to default to this belief. I've been fascinated by this as well. The fact that the 77W has continued to sell so well despite the offering of t
68 seabosdca : The 778 will probably be closer in capacity to the 35J, maybe a tiny bit smaller. But the 778 has the same problem as the 358, which I don't think is
69 SEPilot : I tend to agree with this. I think when specs get firmed up Boeing will find few takers for the 778, just as they did for the 783. But the market wil
70 AADC10 : We will probably not see a model -13 of anything either. Those Templars. Well "historically" Boeing literally owned P&W so they had strong ties b
71 Post contains images lightsaber : That shouldn't be forgotten. Ten minutes won't effect cost that much. Fuel is now ~40% of cost, so any fuel burn reduction is gold. I suspect they wi
72 RoseFlyer : I would hope that is not true. While it looks good financially to reduce R&D spending and earn back profits, companies like Airbus and Boeing ben
73 astuteman : I can easily see 10% reduction in SFC and a further reduction in drag. I can't even remotely buy into an airframe that is a) longer, b) has a much wi
74 BMI727 : If the 777-9 is what Boeing comes up with, the A350-1000 will be essentially unopposed for a lot of RFPs. They could probably do it quicker than that
75 Post contains images SEPilot : You mean they can't just go to a street corner and whistle up a pack of experienced aircraft engineers whenever they want them? If they can, then the
76 Post contains images EPA001 : It sounds too good to be true. Usually what follows is that it indeed is too good to be true. . No doubt a B777-8X and B777-9X will be very good airl
77 incitatus : Boeing and Airbus cannot put a decent timeline for any project together, but when it comes to feng shui and eastern numerology, they are experts!
78 Post contains images Hamlet69 : I still don't know if we'll actually see a physical lengthening of the fuselage (at least with the -9X, the -8X is much more likely to see frame addi
79 abba : Well, I guess it is because the salespeople are experts in the later and not so in the former.
80 817Dreamliiner : Not sure if this has been mentioned already but how do you guys think these proposed aircrafts will perform in hot and high conditions? I know they ha
81 Stitch : It should be better thanks to lower wing loading.
82 817Dreamliiner : thanks
83 sunrisevalley : I expect the 777-8 to pick up in range where the 787-10 leaves off. The 787-10 is expected to have a max passenger load of about 320 for a range of so
84 Post contains images lightsaber : Ahh... My number for for a) same length as the 77W. Now for b) much wider wingspan, the current 77W is heavy for a beer can wing. Boeing would replac
85 qfa787380 : I think you could be correct but if there is a stretch, it will be minimal(no more than 3 rows). I also wonder if the -8X will be required? I think i
86 JoeCanuck : Focusing just on fan size doesn't nearly give the whole story on efficiency. Even Airbus and RR agree there is more to engine efficiency than fan siz
87 tdscanuck : It's not because of the bigger fan, it's because of the higher bypass. The 777 was basically designed around the GE90 so the fan fits just fine. The
88 dfwrevolution : The GE90 and GEnx-2B are long haul engines. Airframe manufacturers are balancing very different variables in a short-haul aircraft/engine combination
89 Post contains images seabosdca : I suppose I'm being called out for my "baby seal" comment. I can accept that. But just to make sure my intent was completely clear, I was only talkin
90 rheinwaldner : True, but just selling a handful and getting the cost back does not match with the ambitions Boeing must have. They have to defend a leading market p
91 BlueSky1976 : Hell, yeah! Not if Boeing optimizes each variant the same way they optimized 737-700 and -800. 777-8X actually has a great shot at the 777-200ER repl
92 rheinwaldner : With an all-new, lighter wing, new engines and an updated body they can beat an equally new and probably lighter wing, new engines and even a new fus
93 CXB77L : Why not? We don't know what the 777X can do yet. Who says they'll only sell a 'handful', and just get the costs back? Boeing must think they have a c
94 rheinwaldner : I did not sey they are old. I said they are older than their peers. Which means they face an uphill battle and will be left out in the rain earlier.
95 Post contains images astuteman : Up to a point, I'd suggest. The story of 777-200LR vs A350-900 tells a different story. It's not JUST about capability. At least the 787-10 developme
96 Post contains images Revelation : IMHO: Next generation engines, 15 year newer airfoil, CFRP wings => doable All new 2nd gen CFRP wing, different AL for the fuse, => doable Proba
97 Post contains links and images mffoda : You have some of your numbers wrong... As does Aspire aviation Type/bypass-ratio/fansize GEnx-1B /9,6:1 /111" GEnx-2B /8,6:1 /105" GE90-94B /8:33/ 12
98 Post contains links Jambrain : are you sure? http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/file/technologygihou2/10006_1.pdf has core .. and graphs bypass at around 7:1 not 9:1 for 115B
99 Post contains links mffoda : From GE's website... "The GE90-115B engine has the world's largest fan (128 inches), composite fan blades and the highest engine bypass ratio (9:1) t
100 JoeCanuck : In the case of the MAX and NEO, their end of life cycles will probably be almost the same. Both of these upgrades will be the last versions of their
101 Revelation : I wonder if we can all agree that Boeing is not seriously contemplating an all-new 777 replacement in the short to medium term (let's say between now
102 Post contains images astuteman : Yeah, 'cos I've really gone around saying the A380-900 will have a lower OEW than the A380-800..... I think you'll find I've been completely consiste
103 Revelation : Surely not... Surely so... It seems to me you aren't tremendously confident in the 777X, which is a shame, because it seems to me that's what we're g
104 Post contains images ferpe : A lot of your thoughts are sensible IMO but I don't agree that the 787 architecture is a failure. The 787 is a very elegant (and daring) architecture
105 BMI727 : But likely not without adding to the seat count. I hope not. At least Boeing should call it what it is and dub it the Emiratesliner. That's basically
106 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes, sums it up pretty nicely. . Well, you know this is A-net........
107 Post contains images ferpe : They will be 10 years into the program, should be no problem to increase output by then. IMO they would be very happy to as they can recover all thei
108 Post contains images astuteman : ????? Personally, I'm struggling to see how a plane with a 10t or so lower MTOW, somewhere between 10% and 15% lower fuel burn, and 30 - 40 seats mor
109 Revelation : I agree the architecture is fine. The big problem for Boeing is that the program is not out of the woods yet and will be dragging down the bottom lin
110 BMI727 : When you get much bigger than the 77W and A350-1000 ten wide is better anyway. But I think you underestimate the work necessary to make a "real" 787-
111 Stitch : I don't think so. The 767-400ER was smaller and less capable than the A330-200, which was it's competition. The 787-10 will be larger and more capabl
112 BMI727 : It won't be that bad, but I don't think it would offer enough bang for Boeing's development bucks. The 787-9 will compete well with the A350-900 as i
113 zeke : That is every aircraft in production. I did not see a single reference to CASK/CASM. I beg to differ, relative to what, over what distance ? All of t
114 LAXDESI : It seems to me that B789 could serve as a replacement for A333. It is only 3 feet shorter and will surely carry more passengers in 9-abreast configur
115 mffoda : Why is exactly? If the new product is 15% lighter then the existing product and you consider the total amount of that product used in a particular ap
116 zeke : A large part of aircraft is machined from larger billets of Al. These new materials from ALCOLA and GLARE from Cytec Engineered Materials are general
117 thegeek : Re: Al-Li What is the strength by volume as compared to Al? Is it: stronger - would cut into the 15% weight saving as you are using more than you need
118 qfa787380 : I disagree. With the 777 selling 200 net units in 2011 and looking at 100+ sales for the next few years, there is no rush for a new frame. They will
119 NZ2 : I agree. Without looking up facts and figures, I thought the 787 was lighter than the 350 so shouldn't the question be "can the 350 match it with the
120 Stitch : Indeed it will be. But for those A330-300 operators who need more capacity per frequency, I tend to believe the 787-10X might offer better operating
121 mffoda : Fair enough, but what percent (%) does the 27 skin panels made from GLARE represent in total vs. the aluminum product they replaced? How many total s
122 Post contains links JoeCanuck : Here are a couple of links to information on the 3rd gen Alcoa Al-Li alloys. They may not answer all questions but should answer some. http://www.alco
123 Post contains images astuteman : First error you have there is to assume that the entire 777 is made of Aluminium - even down to the tyres and carpets. Structure will be about 50% of
124 Post contains links mffoda : I pulled the 70% off the pie chart on the following link. The chart is located on the top of the 3rd page (numbered page 43), it says the materials a
125 travelhound : .....but I think there is more to this equation than just simply materials. If I remember correctly laser welding was an area that had potential to r
126 Post contains images rheinwaldner : That is clear. Not the whole story. But one of the most significant junks of it. See my next remark. The TrentXWB since some time seems to have case
127 CXB77L : Right, so we're talking about Airbus' theoretical response to Boeing's theoretical (but proposed) 777X. Aren't we stretching the speculation a bit to
128 rheinwaldner : No, no, deliveries are not important. Delivering something is just this nasty appendix that follows orders. And the money that comes in the moment wh
129 Post contains images EPA001 : The B777-X are not proposals yet. They are design studies regarding in which direction the development of the B777-NG-NG go. They seem (just a little
130 SEPilot : There is a difference. The talk of the 7778X and 9X has originated with Boeing; I have not heard anything about the A350-1100 from Airbus. As far as
131 BoeingVista : Nope, RR has exclusivity on the 35J
132 Post contains images astuteman : And the difference is...... timing and necessity. Airbus might well be saying nothing now. 2 years ago Boeing were saying nothing about the 777X. I d
133 Stitch : Yes, the A350-900 is Airbus' formal replacement for the A330-300 and A340-300, just as the A350-800 is the formal replacement for the A330-200 (and A
134 SEPilot : But there is a big difference; the 777X is being actively pursued by Boeing, while to the best of our knowledge the A350-1100 is not by Airbus. They
135 rheinwaldner : Maybe this can change the next round. As as similar rule seems to be adjustable for the 777X.
136 BMI727 : Making ten wide the standard is how Boeing would increase their seat count, since the A350 and 777 are almost exactly the same length. Boeing will ne
137 Stitch : Chances are there will be airlines who can. If I was Boeing, I'd make the 777-8 the 777-300ERX - same length and payload as the 777-300ER with the em
138 BMI727 : There will be some, Emirates alone will make it worth their while. But, the 77W pretty well demonstrated where most of the market is for widest appea
139 ferpe : Read the latest statements from our 2 favorite framers, where people bought 737-700, A319, 777-200 yesterday they buy -800, 321, 777-300ER today. Thi
140 Stitch : Agreed, which is why I believe the 777-8 should be the same size as the 777-300ER, just with better range / payload over range, and not something lik
141 sunrisevalley : But this going to leave a gap between the 787-10 at 320 seats and the 777-8 as you propose it at 365 seats. Right now EK is getting about a 30t paylo
142 Post contains images Stitch : With a 45t payload, EK's 77Ls can tank 134t of fuel, which gives them an endurance of about 15 hours. With a 60t payload, EK's 77Ws can tank 111t of
143 BMI727 : How will they manage to match the A350's efficiency without adding seats then? Then how much more growth potential would the 777 have? And we already
144 Stitch : They probably won't, but they may not have to in order to continue to sell decently. The 777-300ER is a known entity already welcome in the fleets of
145 BMI727 : If all they want is to sell decently Boeing doesn't have to do anything more than standard incremental improvements for the rest of the decade. Betti
146 astuteman : When the subject matter is Airbus's potential responses to the 777X? *shrug* Rgds
147 zeke : I mentioned previously in the thread if Boeing changes the 777 so much it has little in common with the existing fleet, it is effectively a new type
148 Stitch : It certainly isn't, which is why I don't consider such a scenario happening in my own views on the matter. I assume that the A350 proceeds perfectly
149 SEPilot : Only when we are discussing a variant that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been hinted at by Airbus. I put discussions of the 787-11 & 12
150 ikramerica : This RFP is easy for Boeing because the same engine would be used on any 777 replacement should Boeing decide to go that route. So they can call for e
151 mffoda : A-man, I'm inclined to believe you that it is in fact structural weight, not overall weight. I searched a bit more and found a number of sites that s
152 JoeCanuck : What's good for one engine family, is probably good for another. One fan size to efficiently cover a 15% difference in thrust is probably possible fo
153 BMI727 : That's nice but there are a few things that are different. 1. There were no step changes in technology between the 737 and A320 so the 737 matched (o
154 Post contains images astuteman : It wll be. There are a few of us on this site who went in search of a bit more "truth" when the 787's gains from CFRP turned out to be what they are.
155 NCFC99 : Won't EK have 380's on the LAX/SFO routes by the time a 777X is available. Will an 2020 380 be able to do DXB-LAX with a full passenger load and some
156 JoeCanuck : That's getting a bit too cynical, I think. I haven't seen any 380 bashing, en masse, forever in here. That parrot is pretty much dead. Consensus seem
157 sweair : Not that it will happen but, how much weight might a bleedless system save in a large aircraft like A380 or 777? This is one area where others will fo
158 Post contains images astuteman : So there IS 16t - 17t up for grabs on the A380 then, should Airbus want to apply the latest generation alloys? For what it's worth I don't think ther
159 Post contains images EPA001 : The reality is always a lot, lot more difficult and usually not as "shiny" as the theoretical models applied here. .
160 SEPilot : There is no doubt that whatever improvements in materials are applied to the 777 can be applied to the A380; they are of essentially the same generat
161 Stitch : Well if it's not good enough, airlines won't order it, Boeing won't launch it, and we'll see the 777 line trend like the 767 line did - slowly windin
162 BMI727 : That's exactly what I think Boeing should do, just don't wait a decade. Have a replacement enter service in the 2022-2024 timeframe so it's only 5-7
163 astuteman : Yes, they should. I suspect it's more a case of they haven't got the A380's spare, to be honest, rather than the demand. The one's in the fleet today
164 Daysleeper : Just trying to get my head around why everyone is so quick to assume Airbus would need to produce another variant to compete with the 77X. As far as I
165 CXB77L : Boeing doesn't need to match the A350-1000. Today's 77W already surpasses the A350-1000 in one key area: payload. It doesn't need to match the A350-1
166 Stitch : At sea level in standard temps, the A340-600HGW can lift 5t more payload than the 777-300ER (though the 777-300ER can fly farther). As altitude and t
167 Post contains images EPA001 : Only just it surpasses the A350-1000 in that department as we know today, and it's design is still being pushed. And the about 25% lower fuel burn of
168 Stitch : The 777X may very well end up being Boeing's version of the original A350, but let us not forget the original A350 did win orders, including a larger
169 flipdewaf : Only if the extra revenue can be gained, remember its just like the extra pax revenue that can be generated on the A380, it doesn't help unless you c
170 Daysleeper : I must be missing something here, but considering (as they stand now) both aircraft are identical in size and will more than likely have very similar
171 ncfc99 : As Stitch confirms, I thought the 346 could carry more payload. That just makes my point a bit better, the plane that can carry less payload but carr
172 Stitch : I guess we'll see how strong the 777 sells in the coming years, after setting a record in 2011. I still believe Boeing's best bet is to get the "777-3
173 SEPilot : Ultimately, Boeing will have to determine if they can do enough improvements to the 777 at a reasonable cost to keep it competitive with the A3510. Th
174 travelhound : On flights above 6500nm for every tonne of payload you require 3-4 tone of fuel. As stitch mentioned above a 10% improvement in SFC equates to a payl
175 JoeCanuck : If you care to notice, I have never stated exactly how much weight can be saved by Al-Li...for any plane...other than stating some can. Every plane i
176 Daysleeper : Hmm, so Boeing should build the 77X with new composite wings, then transplant those wings to a, new or re-engineered 787 fuselage. It really begs the
177 JoeCanuck : I didn't say they should...I said they could. What is easiest to do will be for them to decide but if starting fresh was the easiest, they probably w
178 sunrisevalley : Based on flight plans I have seen, the fuel burn spread for a 77L over a 16hr flight , with a 18t spread between TOW's ( 329t and 347t ) was ~ 6.45t.
179 RoseFlyer : I read this comment and just want to comment on a statement. All 3 credit raters rank Boeing above EADS for credit, so it is easier for Boeing to obt
180 sunrisevalley : As I alluded to in another thread, EK need a way to serve the SFO/LAX cargo market. This why I see a 77L on DXB-LAX daily for the foreseeable future
181 Post contains links CXB77L : I'm happy to stand corrected and take your word on that, Stitch, but this chart from Boeing appears to show the 77W as having an advantage: http://ww
182 Stitch : I'm not sure why Airbus has omitted the specifications of the A340-500 and A340-600 in their latest ACAP, but from earlier ones, the Maximum Structur
183 CXB77L : How far back was that? I have the A345/A346 ACAP dated January 2011 which also shows the A346 as having a MSP of around 65t.
184 Stitch : That is the one I am looking at, and it gives the following figures for "Estimated Maximum Payload RR Trent 500" in Section 2-1-1: WV000 - 65 636 kg
185 CXB77L : Hmm. I guess you're right then, that (only) the HGW version of the A346 could lift more than the 77W. Looking at the chart on Section 3-2-1, however,
186 Daysleeper : That chart shows a 3t advantage to the 77W until you reach 6300nm-6500nm where the A35J overtakes the 77W to a point where at the upper end of the ra
187 seabosdca : Of all the 77W/potential 35J missions in the world, how many are in the range of 4000-6000 nm, and how many are 8000 nm? The 77W has a very real payl
188 Daysleeper : I agree in that ULR isn't as relevant, but its around the 6000nm mark where they are equal, until the 77W is overtaken by the A35J, I also wouldn't c
189 SEPilot : But fuel costs will be much higher, which will render the 77W just as undesirable against the A3510 as the A346 was against the 77W.
190 seabosdca : 3 t is just about enough to make the economy cabin 10Y instead of 9Y in a typical configuration while carrying the same weight of cargo. I'd call tha
191 SEPilot : Exactly. But there still are people on this forum that think that the 77W can survive as is against the A3510. It can't.
192 trex8 : how much would the extra weight of those seats in 10Y config eat into that 3 ton?
193 Post contains images CXB77L : Which means that the 77W has a roughly 3t payload advantage over most of the missions that the 77W/A35J will be on. Note that the chart refers to the
194 Post contains images lightsaber : I see the A359 as the largest threat to the 777. Partially as I'm a huge believe in fragmentation (With a small number thrown in for frequency). Per
195 Ruscoe : At this stage there is no engine for 35J to develop into. Improvement in payload/range will have to come from wt decrease and aerodynamic improvement
196 BoeingVista : You probably need to update yourself with the noises coming out of RR vis the TXWB they have declared 97k easy enough with no SFC increase over 93k a
197 SEPilot : I doubt very much that history has all that much to do with it. If GE comes up with what Boeing feels will be a better engine, Boeing will go for it.
198 Post contains images astuteman : At this stage there is no engine for the 777X "to develop into".. (hence the RFP's) There obviously will be when the need arises. As we're talking ab
199 BoeingVista : OK, my point was its unlikely that the GE90x will be better than a TXWB because for one thing they are 15 years apart in conception, Boeing has accep
200 SEPilot : It is both history and current events. But Boeing's relationship with RR, while not as close as with GE due to the exclusivity agreement on the 777NG
201 Post contains images Stitch : I'm not sure payload - at least payload weight - is going to have any impact on the 77W's competitiveness against the A35J. The A346 carried more payl
202 rheinwaldner : The failure of the A346 (and the A350V1) is prime case study why the 777X needs good luck to suceed. I simply can't see why the 777X should fare bett
203 BoeingVista : It would be a supreme irony if having refused to build a new large engine for airbus for the A350J (and hence passed on the whole program) GE is forc
204 SeJoWa : 777-400ER could have quite a lot of potential. Just as the A380-800 sits at the bottom of an open-ended niche size-wise, a potential 777-400ER could
205 Post contains images SEPilot : Amen to that. I totally agree with your analysis.
206 SeJoWa : That's a very interesting nugget of information.
207 Daysleeper : I really don’t understand these exclusivity agreements, but is it possible that Airbus could restrict RR to selling certain versions of their engin
208 SEPilot : It also makes the spectacular success of the 77W even more remarkable, having been achieved with such a handicap.
209 ncfc99 : To use an argument often thrown at another large aircraft, you have to fill that 3t. A load factor of less than 90% makes that 3t worthless. Is that
210 Post contains images astuteman : In a recent article regarding their A380's Tim Clark said that they were increasingly typically opertating on 12 year operating leases now, hence his
211 SeJoWa : That would seem illogical to me too. But maybe the delta refers to the sum total of airplane weight loss utilizing new materials? There must be some
212 SEPilot : The way I read it (and I share the skepticism that Boeing would have had that much weight just laying around) is that, due to the wing being heavier
213 Post contains images CXB77L : Nor do I see why you (and some others) think that it cannot compete, before its design has even been finalised, let alone flown ... If, after studyin
214 SEPilot : And Boeing is well aware of what happened with the A350 Mk 1 and the A346, and do not want to be on the receiving end of such a situation. They are a
215 Revelation : One of IBM's first president's quotes was "It all starts with the order". We don't see Sonic Cruisers flying around these days because the orders nev
216 Post contains images ferpe : Before this discussion there is an even more fundamental one, can you load the 70t MSP into the aircraft for an MSP limited leg (ie below say 5500nm)
217 SEPilot : I suspect Boeing, having gotten such a bloody nose on the 787, will be very careful about when they launch their next clean sheet design. My suspicio
218 nomadd22 : Hiccup? "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
219 SEPilot : That would imply the RR engine was a complete failure and had to be withdrawn. I would say the uncontained failure, while unfortunate, was in fact ju
220 BMI727 : That's a fine idea, but don't make it a major development program like the MAX and 747-8. Just drop the weights and fuel burn incrementally between n
221 ncfc99 : I was wondering how much it could carry before it was maxed out for volume, thanks for the info. How acheivable do you think that target is?
222 sunrisevalley : In real life operating conditions Ferpe has identified the crux of the matter in my view. One or two minor disagreements, it is generally considered
223 Stitch : That would probably work if Boeing can get Y3 into service by 2021 or 2022. Between the 77F and 77L+77W top-up orders that should be a minimum of 2-3
224 BoeingVista : As I recall the failure was determined to due to the engine being operated outside of its envelope. It had no effect on the 787 program delays. But t
225 Stitch : In no small part because the 787 had a serious impact on the 747-8. The original downtime was planned to be significantly less.
226 Post contains images CXB77L : That would be the 777X that I would like to see as well. Commonality with the 777 is a big selling point, and if Boeing can substantially reduce weig
227 BoeingVista : Agreed, but this was always a risk and if not considered a risk then it was a failure of risk management. Would Boeing be willing to do this again wi
228 astuteman : That souds exactly like the changes Airbus proposed for the final iteration of the original A350 vs the A330 it was based on..... Rgds
229 Revelation : The 748 "merely" had a re-lofted wing, not changed to CFRP, and new engines.
230 BMI727 : First, Boeing has all the way until 2017 now to sell 777s by the boatload. After that, sales will slow without a doubt, but the line should be able t
231 abba : Has Boeing already converted the 747 line for the Y3?
232 JoeCanuck : In my opinion, what killed the first 350 was not its material makeup or performance, but the 8 abreast cross section. That's why Airbus made such a b
233 ferpe : Well Boeing and me are not that far of to each other cause they count 1.3 bags per pax at 40lb per bag. I count baggage per pax at 30kg, this is some
234 astuteman : For what it's worth, I think the old A350 would have prospered quite happily at 8-across, and the evidence I offer is sales of the A330 since 2004. W
235 rheinwaldner : Why do you think that it can compete if it has not flown yet? Exactly. And I simply apply some lessons learnt to this scenario to state one of the li
236 Stitch : The 777X would be the only major program Boeing would have in the pipeline at that time (since the 787-9, 787-10X and 737 MAX would all be in service
237 seabosdca : Those A330 sales did not arise because the A330 could compete with the 787 on capability. They came about because Airbus was outcompeting Boeing on a
238 Post contains images sunrisevalley : My impression is that new builds are getting lighter. I know for sure that the DOW of a major Asian fleet at 300-seats is 172t. Insiders on this list
239 Post contains images ferpe : IIRC there was a local TV station showing the weight hunting team for the 777 recently, they were very proud for having found some 700kg since EIS of
240 JoeCanuck : It was the market place which decided it needed 9 abreast. The 330 proved itself before and after the 787 program started but buyers didn't want a wa
241 ikramerica : Yep, good marketing by Boeing, and too much hubris by Leahy. For all the good sales efforts his team have done, his public attitude during the origin
242 BoeingVista : A direct analogy would be between the A320NEO and NSA, Airbus killed NSA (for now) by weight of sales and getting the press and airlines to publicly
243 ikramerica : Yep, a corollary in reverse there, as BECAUSE Boeing was wrong on the 787 (not as efficient as claimed, not as light, not delivered on time, not real
244 JoeCanuck : Eventually, though, the 787 will make spec in weight and sfc, and be the plane they promised...just not when they promised. The NEO, (and on the othe
245 ikramerica : If you say so. I was a 787 fan, but Boeing has bunged it up badly. Maybe the 789 will get close, but I doubt the 788 ever will. And either way, what
246 BoeingVista : I'm not sure that Airbus has the resources; a compromise may be to outsource it to the engine companies, ie pay them to up the technology on current
247 trex8 : Huh? When A offered the A333 with GE -80E1-A4 engines (when A333s with A3 and A2 already existed ) and the -A4 was already certified on the A332 they
248 BoeingVista : Ok, minimal certification.
249 thegeek : I agree with this in retrospect, and even at the time it seemed pretty odd that they backed down from their own plans, which you have to presume that
250 tdscanuck : There's a ton of recertification...unless the engine has exactly the same thrust and acceleration curves, you need to redo all the performance data.
251 CXB77L : You're kidding, right? It is precisely because it has not flown yet (it hasn't even left the drawing boards) that there is every chance that the 777X
252 Post contains images ncfc99 : This implies you have seen or heard some numbers that ANA are getting from the 787's, any chance you could share with us if you have. [Edited 2012-01
253 ncfc99 : A couple of questions based on the quote above- How much will the 330 need to improve to be competative with the 787 on CASM from say 787 LN150 onwar
254 Daysleeper : I actually quite like Leahy, well as much as you can like a salesman. What caused me to loose so much respect for Boeing over the last few years have
255 poLOT : Boeing never said that there was no future in the VLA category, their forecasts acknowledged that planes would be sold in their category. They disagr
256 packsonflight : And the fact that everybody especially the airlines believed that Boeing would deliver the dream to the original specs, and compared to that the 350
257 ikramerica : Yes, it seemed that Airbus didn't have the resources to do the correct thing: Launch a 777 competitor/replacement and still offer the A330RE. They wa
258 Post contains images EPA001 : But at the high time of the A350-MK1 about 90% of the armchair CEO's here were saying why Airbus was bringing such a disappointing product to the mar
259 ikramerica : I think the LAST A330 revamped was a disappointing product, because they were reshaping the fuselage at that point. Once it got there, it was a mess.
260 RoseFlyer : I think if they had kept with the A330 lite or simple change, then they would not be in as good of a position and this thread would not be happening.
261 chrisco1204 : I agree. Those two HUGE high-bypass turbofans are pretty awesome.
262 astuteman : The two aren't mutually exclusive though. They could have done the old A350, and still launched a bigger plane than the current A350XWB for entry int
263 jetlag73 : Amen to that, Ikramerica ! Is it too late for A to : - launch 330RE ? - ditch 358 ? I ask you specs geeks, as I'm more into the marketing side. Thank
264 Post contains links wilco737 : This thread will be closed now as it has too many replies. Please continue in part 2: Boeing 777-8X And -9X Now In The Pipe Line Part 2 (by wilco737 J
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...
Planes And City Icons In The Same Pic. posted Thu Aug 26 2010 09:09:16 by bongo
What Determines Where UPS And FedEx Fly In The US? posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:28:52 by FalconBird
Delta And UA Now In Merger Talks posted Wed Nov 14 2007 11:31:56 by Flydl2atl
Condition Of Pan Am And TWA 747 In The 80's posted Fri May 4 2007 22:32:06 by 747400sp
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
EY To JFK Now In The Schedules posted Tue Jul 4 2006 02:13:16 by Flyguy1
Translift And DC8 Charters In The 90s posted Fri Feb 17 2006 13:45:02 by Orion737
Recent And Developing Trends In The Airline Indust posted Sun May 29 2005 21:51:11 by 777STL
How Will Rp And Zw Fare In The HP/US Deal? posted Sat Apr 23 2005 19:39:50 by Jdwfloyd
WN And HP Routes In The West Question posted Thu Apr 21 2005 01:11:55 by PanAm747
What Determines Where UPS And FedEx Fly In The US? posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:28:52 by FalconBird
Delta And UA Now In Merger Talks posted Wed Nov 14 2007 11:31:56 by Flydl2atl
Condition Of Pan Am And TWA 747 In The 80's posted Fri May 4 2007 22:32:06 by 747400sp
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
EY To JFK Now In The Schedules posted Tue Jul 4 2006 02:13:16 by Flyguy1
Translift And DC8 Charters In The 90s posted Fri Feb 17 2006 13:45:02 by Orion737
Recent And Developing Trends In The Airline Indust posted Sun May 29 2005 21:51:11 by 777STL
How Will Rp And Zw Fare In The HP/US Deal? posted Sat Apr 23 2005 19:39:50 by Jdwfloyd
WN And HP Routes In The West Question posted Thu Apr 21 2005 01:11:55 by PanAm747