Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If 787 And A350 Kill The 777? (Part 1)  
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10655 posts, RR: 9
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 27927 times:

Boeing might plan to built a 777 NG, but its not decided yet and a long time away. Only by the end of this decade such plane could fly. By then the 787 will likely see its first major upgrades and it´ll become even more efficient. The A350 will have been established in the market. Airbus will surely not accept that Boeing revamps its old 777 to become a serious A350 competitor and will likely be fast with p-i-ps. Imho this could signal the end of the 777 and raise the chance for Boeing to built a joint 747/777 successor.

297 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 27897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Thread starter):
Imho this could signal the end of the 777 and raise the chance for Boeing to built a joint 747/777 successor.


The famous Y3.  

But seriously, it is way too early to tell. Boeing is studying very hard on an improved B777, and all indices are pointing to that. But the outcome of the studies might be that they better go all new. But that moment is still quite a long time away.

It would be interesting to see if all new will take on the A350-1000, or also will go below that. Then the B787-10 and the smallest Y3 would certainly see overlap in passenger capacity. But that is all speculation, but I guess that is what this thread is meant to be.  .

Regarding the topic title, it is more than thinkable imho that the B787 and A350 will make the current B777 obsolete. If they will do the same for a revamped B777 is doubtful imho.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8882 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27804 times:

No new aircraft kills another. Accountants kill aircraft programs.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27793 times:

Is the 787 even in the same league as the 777? I can't fathom even a stretched 787 being able to compare with the 773, though it appears the A350 is designed to compete directly with the 773. Just my two cents worth.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8290 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing needs the 777NG, the plane needs updating and the world needs such a plane. The A350-900 sounds great but is a 772ER not a 777-300ER type plane.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27761 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Thread starter):
Airbus will surely not accept that Boeing revamps its old 777 to become a serious A350 competitor

Old ...  

The 777 is still a very young and very advanced airframe.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
it is way too early to tell.

  

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 1):
If they will do the same for a revamped B777 is doubtful imho.

     

The 777X, aside from having a metal fuselage, will be every bit as advanced as the A350. It'll have new generation wings and engines, and possibly a new tail ... and that's just the beginning. I'd imagine that there'd be extensive flight systems upgrades as well. The 777X will be a serious contender to the A350, of that I am certain. If it wasn't, Boeing wouldn't be embarking on the project. As it is, every signal indicates that Boeing will finalise its 777X design within the next year or so, for EIS by the end of the decade. Hopefully, that'll see the 777 family through another decade or two, and hopefully the 777 will be the first twin-aisle widebody aircraft to sell 2000 copies ... but I digress.

[Edited 2012-02-22 03:49:48]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27615 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
and hopefully the 777 will be the first twin-aisle widebody aircraft to sell 2000 copies ...

Agreed, CXB77L - even with over 1,000 sales already, the 777 still appears to be on the up and up. And it's important to remember that the 788, which is much smaller than the 773, is only just 'trickling' into service. In future years I can see the larger 787s, and the larger A350s when they arrive, eventually 'obsoleting' the 772. But the 773 looks like occupying its unique 'long range/large capacity twin' slot for a very long time to come, on all available indications.

The fact that Boeing are spending out on further 777 design development more or less proves that they currently see things the same way.

[Edited 2012-02-22 04:11:43]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30641 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 27523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
No new aircraft kills another. Accountants kill aircraft programs.

  



Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 3):
Is the 787 even in the same league as the 777?

Depending on the seating arrangement, the 787-9 can be a direct replacement for the 777-200ER as they offer near-identical cabin lengths.


As to the long-term fate of the 777, it will eventually be closed and replaced with a new program. But as we have seen with the A300, the A340, the 747 and the 767, a family can still find relevance and revenue for a good long time even with significant competition arrayed against it.


User currently offlineautothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1592 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 27320 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777X, aside from having a metal fuselage, will be every bit as advanced as the A350.

Rubbish, the A350 will feature the largest all-composite wings ever made, the most advanced avionics, will get A380 technologies like power by wire, Brake to Vacate, NSS, 5,000 psi variable camber wing technology (like the 787) etc..

http://atwonline.com/aircraftengines...nts/article/raising-power-bar-0309



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 27198 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777X, aside from having a metal fuselage, will be every bit as advanced as the A350. It'll have new generation wings and engines, and possibly a new tail ... and that's just the beginning. I'd imagine that there'd be extensive flight systems upgrades as well. The 777X will be a serious contender to the A350, of that I am certain

Sounds a very similar project to the 747-8i

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
If it wasn't, Boeing wouldn't be embarking on the project.

Hmm, see above.


The 77X has been discussed at length in other threads and it essentially comes down to weight, as things stand the A351 is going to be near enough the exact same size as the 773 but a lot lighter hence is able to use less powerful, more fuel efficient engines. This leaves Boeing with a couple of options, they can stretch and hope the extra space will allow it to compete, or they stick at the same size and try to reduce the weight allowing them also to use smaller engines. The evidence so far seems to be favouring the later of the two options, and despite what some on here will say, I don’t personally believe Boeing will be able match or even come close to the A351’s weight which is going to give the A350 an advantage.

There are always going to be compromises when upgrading an existing airframe, if not then everyone would still be flying re-hashed 60's designs    . IMHO Boeing would be far better ditching both the 747 and 777 and then launching the Y3 to replace both.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 27040 times:

Found an interesting tabulation of the (as currently envisaged) competitive position of all the aeroplanes in the sector under discussion.

I have no idea at all as to the 'provenance' of the figures in the tabulation; and, equally, no idea as how far the two main competitors will manage to 'hit their targets' with the various existing and planned designs/revisions. But I hope it's of interest and promotes lively debate, anyway:-

http://www.thaitechnics.com/aircraft/compare_A350_B787_B777.html



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4387 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26923 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777 is still a very young and very advanced airframe.

To be precise, it is the youngest plane on the market that has overcome its teething age...

789 and A359 will kill the 77E, but the 77W and 77L are sane for the next 10 years...


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 26872 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 2):
No new aircraft kills another. Accountants kill aircraft programs.

Correct.

Quoting autothrust (Reply 8):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777X, aside from having a metal fuselage, will be every bit as advanced as the A350.

Rubbish, the A350 will feature the largest all-composite wings ever made, the most advanced avionics

Are you forgetting the B-777NG debuts after the A-3510? That gives Boeing a better chance at even more advancements in engines, wing design, advanced materials, and avionics. The A-3510 design is approaching design freeze within the next year or so. Boeing's design of the B-777NG is just beginning (more or less), and they are still talking to the airline customers, engine companies, suppliers, ect.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 9):
The 77X has been discussed at length in other threads and it essentially comes down to weight, as things stand the A351 is going to be near enough the exact same size as the 773 but a lot lighter hence is able to use less powerful, more fuel efficient engines.

We don't know if Boeing will design a new composite wing, or not. We know nothing of the GE-90NX, or the proposed new RR Trent-800X engine for the B-777NG.

The current B-777-300ER carries 365 in 3 class, 451 in 2 class, and 550 in 1 class, max range about 8,000 nm and 2 X 115,540 lb thrust engines.

The proposed A-350-1000 carries 350 in 3 class, 412 in 2 class, and 475 in 1 class, max range about 8,400 nm and 2 X 97,000 lb thrust engines.

The B-77W has a cabin width more than 1' (305 mm) wider than the A-3510. Both airplanes are the same lenght, 242.4' (73.9 m), and about the same wingspan (B-77W is 212' 7" and the A-3510 is 213'), both carry about 44 LD3s.

Today's B-77W has out sold the A-3510 by more than 6:1 since the A-3510 was launched in 2007. The B-77W has sold at least 601 airplanes (as of Jan. 2012) since it was launched, and 570 of them since the A-3510 launch in 2007. The A-3510 has sold only 69 airplanes (as of Jan. 2012).

In fact the entire A-350 line-up has only a total of 561 since it began being offered by Airbus in 2006. The B-77W alone has outsold the entire A-350 line. To date ( as of Jan. 2012) the B-777 line-up has sold some 1,365 airplanes, more than 2.5 times the A-350.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 26758 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
I have no idea at all as to the 'provenance' of the figures in the tabulation; and, equally, no idea as how far the two main competitors will manage to 'hit their targets' with the various existing and planned designs/revisions. But I hope it's of interest and promotes lively debate, anyway:-

http://www.thaitechnics.com/aircraft....html

I'm not sure how useful that's going to be as the data for at least the A35J (i haven;t checked the others) seems either out of date or inaccurate.

The A35J spec's posted here by Airbus are as follows;

  • Range.............................. 15 600 km (8,400nm)

  • Max ramp weight ............ 308.9 tonnes

  • Max take-off weight.......... 308.0 tonnes

  • Max landing weight ......... 233 tonnes

  • Max zero fuel weight........ 220 tonnes

  • Overall length................... 73.88 m

  • Fuselage width.................. 5.96 m

  • Max cabin width................. 5.61 m

  • Seating............................. 350 (3-Class) - 440 (High Density)


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 26652 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):

I’m not sure what your point is with this list as it’s a seemingly random collection of statistics / data.

Couple of points however, I seriously doubt that an extra 12-18 months of development for an engine is going to make a significant difference, if in fact any difference at all. It’s also way too early to be able to draw any conclusions in terms of sales considering the A35J’s configuration isn’t even frozen yet.

And yes, the 77W is a foot wider, which is undoubtedly a big advantage when chartered to National Eating Disorders Association.

[Edited 2012-02-22 07:48:59]

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26505 times:

In the recent past two times the following pattern has evolved regarding the upgrade vs. new decision:
"The challenged company has reacted with the same approach as the first mover did."

And two times it worked:
First mover: 787 (= new design); response that worked: A350 (= new design)
First mover: A320NEO (= upgrade); response that worked (?): 737MAX (= upgrade)

It has to be noted that in both cases the responding company tried hard to pursue the opposite strategy for a considerable time (an upgrade against the new 787 and a new design against the A320NEO) but they failed.

On the other hand the opposite approach has evolved one time:
"The challenged company has reacted with the opposite approach as the first mover did."

And it can be considered as failure (if only because of lost opportunities):
First mover: A380 (= new design); response that failed: 748 (= upgrade)

According to the lessons we can learn from above cases, the 77X will be a failure. No upgrade ever was able to keep in contact with a new design that incorporated the shift in technology premises as introduced by the A350 (as well as 787). By the way the NG is not a valid example because it was just fixing the 737 version which was developped in parallel with the A320 (that has emerged as main driver for Airbus' success).

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777 is still a very young and very advanced airframe.

As the A330 and even the A350V1 was. But no chance once the cards have been reshuffled on the technology front.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
The 777X, aside from having a metal fuselage, will be every bit as advanced as the A350.

Closer truth would probably be that every bit is penalized by the inherently larger MTOW requirements.


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26471 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 14):
And yes, the 77W is a foot wider which is undoubtedly a big advantage when chartered to National Eating Disorders Association.

And yet, Airbus designates their A350 as XTRA WIDE BODY. And people on this board LOVE to say how the A350 is wider than a 787, how Airbus aircraft are always "wider" than Boeing and have wider seats (a silly claim), and is better because it is wider. And how the 747 is not "big enough" to compete with the A380. So if that's the case, Airbus must cater to the morbidly obese, right?   And how people prefer widebody aircraft. and on and on.

In other words, your point is nonsensical. KC135's point is valid...777 is wider than an A350. How that plays for airlines and passengers is anybody's guess.

But to the OP's main contention that either the A350 or the 787 will "kill" the 777? No. Hasten it's development or withdrawal from service? Maybe, but highly unlikely, if you listen to various sources (airlines, analysts).

Quoting autothrust (Reply 8):
Rubbish, the A350 will feature the largest all-composite wings ever made, the most advanced avionics, will get A380 technologies like power by wire, Brake to Vacate, NSS, 5,000 psi variable camber wing technology (like the 787) etc..

Pooh pooh Boeing all you want, but that link you posted specifically stated "Airbus took a long hard look the CURRENT STATE OF THE ART, THE 787." So it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Boeing will ADVANCE that state of the art when it improves the 777.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26456 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
http://www.thaitechnics.com/aircraft/compare_A350_B787_B777.html

The A350-1000 data are for the "old" (pre-MTOW and thrust bump) A350-1000, and there's no data for the 777X. Just be aware...


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1985 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26346 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Depending on the seating arrangement, the 787-9 can be a direct replacement for the 777-200ER as they offer near-identical cabin lengths.

With one less seat in each row unless you want to pack 'em in like sardines.

[Edited 2012-02-22 08:41:46]

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 839 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26343 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 16):
Pooh pooh Boeing all you want,

All he did was point out that the A350 has significant advancements over the 777, this if course is to be expected as its 20 years or so newer. I don’t see how this “pooh pooh” Boeing.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 16):
So it isn't out of the realm of possibility that Boeing will ADVANCE that state of the art when it improves the 777.

I’d be fascinated to learn what you think Boeing are going to be able to do to the 777 in order to make it more advanced than the A350.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5333 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26339 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 18):
With less seat in each row unless you want to pack 'em in like sardines.

The same way the 747, 757, and 737 "pack 'em in like sardines?" The seat width of 9Y 787 is identical to the seat width of all those other aircraft.


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 26315 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 18):
With less seat in each row unless you want to pack 'em in like sardines.

US carriers do 9 across in Y for the 77E and have selected 9 across in Y again for the 787.

[Edited 2012-02-22 08:10:52]

User currently offlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3575 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26184 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 14):
It’s also way too early to be able to draw any conclusions in terms of sales considering the A35J’s configuration isn’t even frozen yet.

OTOH, wouldn't it be equally premature to call an undetermined 777 upgrade "rubbish"?


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2758 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26155 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 20):
The same way the 747, 757, and 737 "pack 'em in like sardines?" The seat width of 9Y 787 is identical to the seat width of all those other aircraft.
Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 21):
US carriers do 9 across in Y for the 77E and have selected 9 across in Y again for the 787.

Which means that either the seats or the aisles (or both) will be narrower on the 787 than on the 777. There's no way around this.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinehmelawyer From United States of America, joined May 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 26142 times:

The biggest questions I think that have to be answered for the 777X are: (1) what will be the real facts regarding the advanced Al-Li that Alcoa keeps bragging about being almost comparable to composites; and (2) how easily can they be incorporated into the 777X. We just do not know the answers to these questions right now (manufacturers may be closer to the answers, but I haven't heard enough to make any judgments).

One could assume that it should be easier to swap out these new compounds for current generation Al skins and components than the big changes needed for composites. If they even come close to Alcoa's talk, with the larger size of the 777 and a few additional years of development for engines (vs. the A351) and HLF (which Boeing is working on hard already for 789) it should be a competitive product even if the A351 has some advantages.


25 YTZ : 9Y on a 777 and 9Y on a 787 are not the same. Except that 12-16 hour flights are not the norm (or even possible...execepting the 747) on those aircra
26 YTZ : The 787 may well do that without any NG version.
27 Post contains images astuteman : Unique? It's almost exactly the smae place the A350-1000 will occupy It certainly proves they feel they need to do something to protect that "unique"
28 na : The 777 was developed in the early 90s, and by the time a NG might fly its a rather old type. It would be a stretch to call a concept almost 25 years
29 KC135TopBoom : That comment was uncalled for. Of course you don't see the point. I was pointing out the 20 year more advanced A-3510 matches the B-77W in almost eve
30 Roseflyer : I am going to try to avoid the typical fanboy rhetoric. The typical Airbus supporters say it's impossible for any derivative of a 777 to compete with
31 UALWN : Except that the 35J can do it cheaper, which is the whole point.
32 Daysleeper : Indeed, the A35j is going to have very similar capabilities to the 77W, where they will differ however is in how much fuel they burn while accomplish
33 Post contains links Roseflyer : Airbus is actually proposing 25% fuel burn improvement over the 777. Although I haven't seen technical details on how that number is calculated. http
34 MountainFlyer : You're basing this theory off of two examples that hardly have enough data to even compare yet? At this point, for all we know, any of the above list
35 JayinKitsap : It is interesting as the 3510 gets closer, the more the 777 sells, 2011 orders were 202. That is 15% of its total lifetime orders, not bad for a plane
36 Post contains images EPA001 : A great post again Roseflyer. The A vs. B war we sure can do without. . The new developments will be very interesting to monitor. .
37 EPA001 : Exactly the same scenario we have seen, and are we still seeing with the A330. It sells like hot cakes even though the B787 is quite near. And the A3
38 Post contains images cosmofly : It will be mighty cool if Boeing puts the 787 section 41 and cockpit in it too. The look will cause upheaval at A.net.
39 Viscount724 : At the rate technology is changing today, I wouldn't call a 20-year-old design "very young". I better word is probably "mature".
40 MountainFlyer : I can agree with that, although, in the big picture, the 777 is one of the youngest *flying* designs in the commercial airliner market. The only comp
41 KC135TopBoom : That is the claim from Airbus. As I said, that is the claim from Airbus. I just don't understand why some here on a.net focus so much on the A-3510 w
42 Post contains images Daysleeper : Yes it is, which we have absolutely no reason to doubt. If you do then I’d be fascinated to see you explain how an engine that is both smaller and
43 Post contains images EPA001 : That has been explained multiple times in many threads, and I am sure you have read it. But you are conveniently ignoring the arguments. But I am hap
44 MountainFlyer : Actually, I would tend to agree with KC135. While in reality they all three represent different stages of technology, the A380 shares more commonalit
45 U2380 : Yep, every single number that is presented for the A350 is a 'claim from Airbus'. It hasn't flown yet. I'd argue that this is just a 'claim from Boei
46 Roseflyer : I don't think fuel burn is the question (it is pretty apparent it will be less), but rather what capabilities will the A350-1000 have? Airbus has cha
47 Post contains images PW100 : Funny how A350 Mk 1 based on a 20- year old platform would have no change whatsoever against the "revoltutionary" [or evoltuionary?] 787, while a 777
48 MountainFlyer : Well, that may be true, but that's a bit like saying the Willis (Sears) Tower has more glass than the Crystal Cathedral. The A380 uses about 20% comp
49 Post contains images EPA001 : It holds more CFRP by weight then the B787. Has the largest and most advanced CFRP wing-box. Has superior aerodynamics on a level the B777 does not p
50 Post contains images EPA001 : Which is only 1 of dozens of items of which the technological advancement on an airliner can be measured. The percentage of composites is imho not th
51 solarflyer22 : I'd be really surprised if the A350 and 787 did NOT make the 777 obsolete. The 777 is my favorite plane but let's keep in mind its original CAD desig
52 davs5032 : I don't disagree with anything you say there...however you're completely ignoring the advantage that the Boeing product has, and will continue to hav
53 Post contains images U2380 : I really do believe that the 787/A350 are both a 'mere' evolution and aren't 'revolutionary'. I believe that the revolution will fundamentally change
54 Post contains images EPA001 : True. But the extra will only be useful if you can fill all those seats. Otherwise they represent added weight which does not generate any revenues.
55 zippyjet : Then the 777 will go to Cargo carriers and second and third tier commercial airlines.
56 Post contains images ghifty : Airplanes are still what they were in the 60's. Tubes with wings. I see the introduction of high bypass engines to be a revolution, but the airframe
57 BMI727 : From where I sit, that looks like the best option. That won't be for some time, which is precisely why Boeing has time to come up with the Y3. The me
58 Post contains links NAV20 : Recent article by the (usually reliable) Andrea Rothman which offers some more information on the present situations of both manufacturers. Worth read
59 Post contains images CXB77L : Who says that sort of technology will not be incorporated into the 777X? The design hasn't even been frozen yet. I also believe that the 777X will be
60 Post contains images astuteman : ??? Except that last year's surge in sales was for the most part quite specifically driven by the competition getting "further away"...... You should
61 Post contains images N14AZ : That's a wonderful saying, I propose using it in the forum rules or in the posting help. Something like "Attention! No new aircraft kills another. Ac
62 rheinwaldner : Sadly, I would have to. If Boeing would build it. But I am certain that Boeing will correct their strategy before millions will be spent. These are s
63 Tancrede : With a relatively old frame (compare to A350-1000) you will very soon bump into limitations due to the fact that the 777 is an older design concept,
64 zeke : That is what Boeing fanboys say, in reality the -900 and -1000 series are the Airbus replacements for the A340-300/500/600. They are to replace aircr
65 Post contains images ferpe : I think the best way I can contribute is to bring some perspective on what advantage or disadvantage the 777X would have from it's 777 heritage: CFRP
66 Post contains images CXB77L : You're right, there are some aircraft that I don't really care for either way. The A350 is not one of them, however. I'm looking forward to it. So? D
67 rheinwaldner : I have forgotten to answer this one. As the first order for the 737-300 and the the first order for the A320 happened only three months apart, we hav
68 ferpe : It might have with a 777+ tactic and then the full 777X later when the contours of the -1000s final performance is clearer.
69 rheinwaldner : You and about everybody else judge non-existent aircraft all the time in these discussions. Why doesn't it make sense only if I do the same? Any judg
70 CXB77L : Have I? I haven't written off any aircraft that doesn't yet exist. I have never said the A350 will be a failure. I'm doing the exact opposite of maki
71 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is more on the 777X and the 787-10 in today's AW: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Likely%20This%20Year&channel=comm Essentially the
72 zeke : If you read my post carefully, I did say a new wing and a twin. Majority of the 787s and 330s will be used in the short to medium haul operations, th
73 rheinwaldner : You see intact chances for the 77X and I not. The conclusion is the only difference between you and I. But there is no difference in the fact that we
74 135mech : @ Roseflyer... I enjoyed reading your post... this was the only problem I found with it. The MD-11 had a few problems at the very beginning, however
75 Daysleeper : A great point that further emphasizes how premature it is to draw any conclusions about the sales figures for the 1000. Again, another great point. I
76 Post contains links NAV20 : A bit more evidence which supports the idea that Airbus and Boeing appear to have radically-differing ideas as to what the 'next step' may be. Basical
77 Post contains images CXB77L : Well in that case, I don't see why a theoretical 'A336' can't be competitive if it has a capacity advantage over the A35J. Likewise, I don't see why
78 Post contains images na : Did I say so? No, I didnt talk about the 77W at all. I said, 787 and 777 families are overlapping. And thats the truth, you cant deny it. I think its
79 Post contains links CXB77L : http://www.flightglobal.com/page/A38...-A380-In-Service-Technical-issues/ I'm not trying to single out the A380. Each and every new design will go thr
80 Post contains links Daysleeper : The issues mentioned in this article are from 2009, three years ago – You implied it was still suffering with “teething” issues. Source I don
81 Post contains images Stitch : If the 777NG turns out like the 737NG, I expect Boeing would have few regrets, as even though they'd lose their current market dominance in the long-
82 rheinwaldner : My premise was not that upgrades always fail. In fact if you read my post #15 again, you can see in what context upgrades can succeed. I have specifi
83 Post contains images NAV20 : Good one...... Agreed - and it still remains to be seen (over a period of years) whether the proposed larger A350s work at all - or even happen. Boei
84 morrisond : Wouldn't it be easier just to base the 773 successor off the 787? Just like Boeing did with the 767 and 777? What is more work - Rewinging the 777 and
85 Daysleeper : I understand why you would discount the 748I as it’s future doesn’t exactly look very bright, however the same cannot be said for the A380. It’
86 Burkhard : It must do so. Question is if the A330 will achieve that earlier. They will do with it as much as can be done for small cash to keep it alive as long
87 KC135TopBoom : The B-777 program was the first airliner program that involved the airline customers in the design process. IIRC, there were 8 airlines involved, all
88 Daysleeper : So 5 years before it entered service it had 35 orders, the A35J isn't due into service until 2017 and has almost double that amount. My point still s
89 Roseflyer : I understand your overall point that a refreshed or enhanced design cannot compete with an all new design. Like I said earlier, I think there are som
90 Post contains images EWRandMDW : What If 787 And A350 Kill The 777? A fantasy question for me as a big fan of everything Boeing is "What if the 787 and 777 kill the A350?"
91 pygmalion : You need a source for that 32 billion development cost quote... It is so far out of line with reality is patently ridiculous. The other big hole in y
92 Post contains links and images Revelation : Sad to see the -800 not getting the love... It's likely. Accountants kill airplanes when new airplanes come along with better numbers, so airplanes d
93 UALWN : Which I guess makes it all the more remarkable that over the last 10 years Airbus has consistently beaten Boeing in both orders and deliveries...
94 Post contains links Daysleeper : Here The 32 billion does include the recently deferred production cost so it was perhaps a little mis-leading for me to say it was just development co
95 Post contains images EPA001 : What evidence? There are no shortfalls. As far as I can see the A35J will eat the B7W's breakfast any day of the week and twice on Sundays. The 773 i
96 Post contains images ferpe : 777-9X I think many of us agrees/realizes that a slightly enlarged 777-9X have a good chance to get a competitive CASM, it can also carve out an own P
97 Post contains images seabosdca : I can't see any, except for ULH. And we all know ULH missions are killer money-makers. Like 333 vs. 772, except better for the 787, because the 787-1
98 Stitch : For the purposes of accuracy, that is per delivery. The A380 program remains well into the red and likely will be so for the foreseeable future (whic
99 DocLightning : Boeing will not start the 777X program unless there are enough orders to make them reasonably certain that it will run in the black. Unlike the 787, t
100 astuteman : That appears to be the norm on here from where I sit. The 787 is far from the only recent programme to suffer from this. Not many people feel incline
101 Revelation : What are you thinking of? It's not the 747-8, it has 're-lofted' Al wings.
102 seabosdca : Or, to be more precise, they've already designed such a thing, but never built it (the original A350).
103 AirframeAS : It's an 18 year old airframe. Circa 1994, IIRC.
104 NAV20 : Please see Post 58 above, EPA001. Apparently Airbus are concentrating on the A350-900 and putting both the 800 and the 1000 on the backburner for som
105 Cerecl : None of these is new therefore they are not evidence of "shortfall of current A350-1000". In fact, given that A350-1000's design hasn't been frozen i
106 DocLightning : Oh, I thought they were CFRP. My bad, then. Which is younger than the A320, A330, 737, 767, and 747. For aircraft larger than ~120 seats, only the A3
107 AngMoh : What I think the 737 shows is how the disadvantage of an older design can be turned into an advantage. The base 737 is a lot lighter than an A320, al
108 zeke : The A320-200 is marginally lighter than the 737-800, 41,244 kg vs 41,413 kg,
109 neutronstar73 : Boeing is actually sitting quite well right now with the 777 and any follow-on, while Airbus is up against the wall to put out a compelling A350-1000
110 astuteman : When you've finished indulging your favourite pastime, can we get back to the evidence of a "performance shortfall" please? I'd also ask "relative to
111 Post contains links Burkhard : http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2016310102_boeing25.html Boeing now has sunk over 32 Bio$ into the 787 before they got the first pay
112 Post contains images BMI727 : Oh come on. That assumes that Boeing has learned nothing from the 787 and makes all the same mistakes they did once more. And has a strike in the mid
113 rheinwaldner : I looked at it mostly from the efficiency viewpoint ("There was no new technology available that allowed the A320 to gain an efficiency break-through
114 BMI727 : Like hell we are. The 777 is an aircraft very much in its prime. The intermediate period starts in 2017 when the A350-1000 actually hits the market.
115 Daysleeper : I’ll restate a little what I mentioned further up the thread for completeness. In regards to the 787 cost calculations the discounted price was not
116 Post contains links NAV20 : It's normal in almost any industry to allocate funds to 'research and development.' Failure to do so eventually leaves you 'out of date'; but, inevit
117 Post contains images Cerecl : Because Airbus wants to make A330 more competitive thereby selling more of them in the future? Because of the same reason(s) Boeing is looking at 777
118 Post contains images EPA001 : All that has been known for about a year now. The landing gear modification has been known for many years already. On the back burner might be the A3
119 NAV20 : But wouldn't that inevitably 'eat into' prospective A350-800 sales, Cericl?[Edited 2012-02-24 05:20:00][Edited 2012-02-24 06:01:39]
120 seabosdca : Hardly. It's been clear for some time now that the A350, particularly the two smaller models, is optimized for true long-haul missions. The A330 impr
121 Post contains images EPA001 : Almost 600 orders for a plane still 2.5 years away from EIS? That is the highest number ever recorded for wide-bodies, only to be pipped by the B787
122 NAV20 : Looks like we both have the same 'feeling,' seabosca. That there are serious questions as to whether the A358 will ever get built, when a re-vamped A
123 Post contains images Cerecl : Thank you for reinventing my username. seabosdca has already responded. I would like to add that 1. the current focus of the A350 program (and some s
124 Post contains images NAV20 : Sorry mate - edited! I'm on record as saying that, IMO, the 748 was a 'mistake' in most senses. As was the A380. Big twins have been 'the way to go'
125 Post contains images Cerecl : It is a work in progress. I see you made the first step...
126 Daysleeper : For the moment they are only considering relatively minor updates to the A330, in the form of a MTOW bump to 240T, and Shark-lets that they are plann
127 Stitch : I swear, the way Airbus Aficionados and Boeing Boosters fixate on program costs, you'd think they were Accounting Majors. But then, if they were Accou
128 zeke : I am not sure how true that statement is, the A380 development costs had been written off before the first delivery. As a program it is far from brea
129 Stitch : My statement is reflective of statements by Airbus management, whom are on public record as noting that they expect A380 deliveries to start being pr
130 Daysleeper : I agree to an extent, as an enthusiast I don’t really care too much about how a project is paid for, I just enjoy the results of such endeavours. H
131 na : Maybe you wish for it, but that doenst make it true. The A380 beats the 77W in all respects, if an airline can fill it. Its more comfy, if offers wid
132 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : No, your point is worthless. The B-777-200/-200ER sold a total of 114 airplanes in the first 5 years it was offered (Jan. 1990 to Jan. 1995). That is
133 Stitch : I'm probably one of the biggest supporters of the A380 as a passenger plane on this forum so I have argued vociferously in her defense over the years
134 Post contains images EPA001 : That is absolutely true. Through all the years, you to my knowledge (and you were not the only one fortunately) have indeed defended the plane where
135 Stitch : They were ordered as 777-200ERs, but delivered as 777-300ERs, so Boeing updates their O&D reports to note this.
136 Daysleeper : Okay, so Airbus announced the A350 6 months after SQ ordered the A350 MK 5 at the in FAS 1996 and 8 years after they launch the A359... Tell you what
137 neutronstar73 : Citation please.
138 Revelation : Wow, so your model does not allow for progress since the JT3C of the 50's? You seem to not take into account that Boeing had sold 1800 or so 727s in
139 Roseflyer : I see it two ways. It could be that the A350-1000 looks like it will take a serious dent into 77W sales and be more efficient, so something needs to
140 neutronstar73 : That has to be one of the most ridiculous attempts at historical revision I've read on this site in a fair while. First, the 787 SET THE BAR FOR WIDE
141 Roseflyer : Composite primary structure is a very new concept in commercial manufacturing. The benefits of composites are not. The point of composite structure i
142 Post contains images CXB77L : I see you've conveniently omitted other widebody twins - the A300, A310, A330, 767, 787 and A350. Of those, A330 and 767 have both sold more than 100
143 Revelation : I agree with your point, but as a nit I will add that I've been told that CFRP allows one to get a more accurate airfoil on a wing, and that does add
144 Post contains images Daysleeper : Wow, are Boeing’s sale’s figures really that important to you? Your are correct though from what I can see, the 787 certainly hold the record for
145 abba : At the time the NG came along, the A320 has already allowed Airbus to lay the basic foundation for the company we know today. The fact that Boeing an
146 abba : So Boeing will not only make a new wing but also make a new composite fuselage? Do you believe that yourself? Your argument is fundamentally flawed a
147 flyingclrs727 : They're more likely to kill orders for the 747-8I. Boeing will probably come out with the 777-8 and 777-9 in response to the A-350, and the 777-9 will
148 Stitch : Boeing launched the 737 Classic in March of 1981 and Airbus launched the A320 three years later in March of 1984. Both companies started design studi
149 Post contains images cmf : Couple of big mistakes here. 1) The 32 BUSD is just a guesstimate. It can easily be 5BUSD off, possibly more. 2) They included the cost of producing
150 abba : This most likely also played a role. But it appeared (further studies might be needed at this point) that the payment incentives at the time at Boein
151 seabosdca : There's no doubt in my mind that the 777-9X will give the 747-8 passenger version even more trouble than it already has. But the 747-8 in general isn
152 Post contains images astuteman : ??? What on earth has this bit of self opinion got to do with the pressure to develop and deliver a product to market? You are surely the expert on A
153 Post contains images neutronstar73 : I don't think you quite understand how this works. You made a claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. I only made a "Guess" as to why they can
154 Post contains links Stitch : We should note that while Etihad did cancel six A350-1000s, they still have 19 on firm order and retain 25 options. I believe we're speculating they d
155 CXB77L : I agree. I think the A350 and the 777X will both gain a decent slice of the duopoly that exists in the 350-400 seat market. Neither aircraft will 'ki
156 abba : I think this is a rather simplistic description of the situation. Development since the 777 came about as the state of the art of its time has progre
157 astuteman : Trust me, I understand exactly how it works As Stitch shows, it wasn't very hard to find this. If you had really been interested in finding data, Neu
158 Post contains links ncfc99 : I'm sorry but this type of post is what makes this forum hard going at times. Below is a quote from a thread about the canceled 6 frames, which it sh
159 india1 : Here we go again... its not point-counterpoint and good, honest debates that go on often here. It's obvious biases trying to outSHOUT one another. A&a
160 CXB77L : And this is what I've been suggesting all along. The 777X needs to be a substantially upgraded 777 with brand new wings and engines, and systems (if
161 zeke : That is not what you said first time. The reason for their comments were the early frames were sold with launch discounts, and required rework for ou
162 ncfc99 : That quote was from neutronstar73 in a reply in another thread to a post you made. I was using it to answer a post by neutronstar73 to astuteman in t
163 zeke : Sorry, I was not aware of that.
164 Post contains images Daysleeper : My understanding is that the 2015 break even for the A380 is when it will have met the cost of its production. To clarify, Airbus were in a similar s
165 Post contains images EPA001 : No you did not imho. You clearly missed the point I made. Some tricky formulating the sentence got you immediately directed into the wrong direction,
166 Cerecl : Alas your estimation is a little optimistic. The last official estimation of program break-even target was 450 and the number probably went up since
167 CXB77L : Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but the 777X is still part of the 777 family. As such, the 777 family is far from dead, and will live on for many more
168 Post contains images EPA001 : That I agree with. But I stated that the B787, A350 and B777-X will "kill" the B777. For sure all the versions of the B777 that we know of today, and
169 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Telling myself (not for the first time) that I should have 'done my homework.' I've been thinking - and even said on here, a while ago - that I though
170 Post contains images EPA001 : If you mean A350-1000 vs. B777-X, that could indeed end up in a very close contest. The A350-1000 vs. B77W will however be no match at all. The B77W
171 Post contains links astuteman : Not really I'd suggest. The subject has been discussed extensively on this thread Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept (by cubastar Feb 13 2012
172 JayinKitsap : Yes the 787 did a big tech leap - bleedless, buss architecture, composites, all electric. They are at 1st generation on this. It it prudent to hold o
173 abba : The reason is quite simple. Taken system by system Boeing needs to validate that each and every upgrade they are going to do can pay for itself. In o
174 zeke : Manufacturers do not have unrestricted scope to change an aircraft during upgrades to a new derivative. The FAA will set the limit as to what they ar
175 abba : Another thing also needs to be noted. That is that efficiency here is not only efficiency in operation, but also in production. A new design will als
176 SeJoWa : That's a nice theory, and doubtless some ideas to that respect are incorporated into new designs, but I think reality has proven precisely the opposi
177 abba : We can only hope that Boeing and Airbus learn from their past mistakes and become better in implementing their programs in the future. However, this
178 billreid : This is a bizarre thread. the A350 and B787 have two different missions, as does the A350 and the B777. None are the exact same bird. There are so ma
179 astuteman : I can only agree. I'm astonished if you think my comment about the 773ER and A350-1000 occupying the same space in the market is an example though. c
180 Post contains links and images rheinwaldner : Compare the amount of orders 6 years ahead of EIS. IIRC the 772 order sheet stood very close to zero at that time. I don't believe that the 777 is de
181 Revelation : And no aircraft having those high bypass-ratio turbofans that first appeared on the 747 can compete against a plane of today, which is why your model
182 Daysleeper : In the broad strokes I think there is a valid point to be made here. If you look at the history between Boeing and Airbus then other than the A346 wh
183 abba : I think - for that reason - that Boeing's best option is to move the 777 out of reach of the 350 in terms of capacity if they can get the trust neede
184 Post contains links and images CXB77L : If Boeing does nothing to the 777, then yes, I would agree that the best they can achieve would be marginal incremental improvements in efficiency th
185 Revelation : Right, but the point being made was that composites is such a great leap forward, akin to that of the high bypass turbofan, that an aluminum frame ca
186 Daysleeper : I just don’t see the logic in going to such extremes to upgrade an airframe that without a fairly large stretch is never going to be as efficient a
187 abba : No - that is EXCATLY NOT what is going to be the case. I can promise you that! Boeing's managers are certainly not idiots! There is a simple logic in
188 na : This thread attracts mostly 777 claqueurs and stirs up the 777 hobby marketing guys, while it does not address the topic, which is the question "What
189 india1 : IF (emphasis mine) they indeed do, then I guess B has no other option besides Y3 - they're not going to vacate the market segment surely?
190 Post contains links and images frigatebird : And that is what Boeing is doing: a small stretch of the 77W fuselage, finding room by means of somewhat thinner sidewalls and smarter relocation of
191 Post contains images frigatebird : Not that simple, or Boeing would have 'simply' upgraded the 787 as a result of the A350. Exactly. And Y3 may even be the best solution in the longer
192 flipdewaf : Indeed, 777 is ~7% composite? A380 is ~20% composite and 787 is ~50% composite. Soo the change in composites goes thus:- 777-A380 composite measure i
193 na : The step between the 787 and A350 is bigger than from A350 to 777. And its too early to talk about a 787 upgrade when the A350 isnt flying yet. There
194 rheinwaldner : There is something else I should have added. What you say is true, but it is not about the point I made. We look at different cases: how competitive
195 cmf : You're wrong. 1) It matters 2) The "flexibility" in how you book things are nothing like you try to make it. A lot of people seem to have problems to
196 Revelation : Many investors would say the "better things" are returning the money to the investors. You make it sound like corporations primarily exist to engage
197 Stitch : True, but then the A320 was created in no small part because the customer base for BAC and Sud Aviation and Fokker were all eroded from Boeing's narr
198 cmf : You're misreading it.
199 flipdewaf : I realise that it can be useful to determine where your money has been spent (for tax and control etc) but the point is that it has all been spent an
200 rheinwaldner : The important bit is that FBW is not a key technology for efficiency. In the sense "without it you can't compete against an aircraft that has it". Th
201 cmf : What is the problem with that? We all know why there hasn't been much revenue yet. We all know there are a lot of revenue coming. We all know Boeing
202 Post contains links and images neutronstar73 : I'm sorry. You are a bit late. Plus it isn't my duty or responsibility to find your facts for you. But you know still have no idea how this is suppos
203 flipdewaf : I have no problem with that, I'm not sure where you got that idea from. I was initially questioning the idea that we should'nt include all sunk costs
204 Post contains images astuteman : I couldn't agree more. It might be worthwhile taking some responsibility for finding facts out for yourself though. It might even send positive messa
205 Roseflyer : I'm not sure what you mean by demolish. The A320 certainly gained market share, but demolish and kill are pretty strong words to use. The 737 classic
206 Post contains images cmf : - Then you should understand that it does matter what is allocated to R&D and what is allocated to production. That there is a big difference bet
207 Daysleeper : Compared to Boeing and MD at the time Airbus were a small insignificant company, and yet they managed to take 50% of a market they had dominated for
208 Daysleeper : Around 10 Billion US has been attributed to the production of the first 50 frames, a further 1 billion US was also deferred but attributed to tooling
209 Roseflyer : Huh? The classic made sales of the 737 takeoff. The DC9 sold far better than the 737 originally and the 737 spent years on the verge of being shutdow
210 pygmalion : Capital costs are not R&D. New tooling and buildings are not R&D. R&D money gets different tax treatment from capital investments. The re
211 Stitch : The A320 is a damned good product. It had to be in order to break into the market, much less come to take half of it. The issue some of us have - on
212 ContnlEliteCMH : Who is not including this money already spent? Such money should be included, and it is. Boeing is hiding nothing; all that is required is to underst
213 flipdewaf : I totally understand that a 400m jet is fine, I'm unsure why you keep questioning me on things that I have no problem with. The original assertion wa
214 Post contains images EPA001 : My point was for 100% correct. You still have missed my real point. You still have to comment on that, or have to acknowledge that for that matter Th
215 Post contains images Daysleeper : I’m sorry but that’s a joke, back in 2004 it was estimated the project would cost 8-10 billion and that would have been without ANY delays or add
216 Post contains images EPA001 : A great summary. That is basically the whole point here. . The B777 (read: the B77W) is to many like a holy grail in large civilian airliners; do not
217 pygmalion : So if the 777x has a composite wing, 5000psi hydraulics and next gen 787 style FBW etc. etc., it might kill itself off but will not compete against th
218 Post contains images EPA001 : If you conclude this from my post then you have misread it, and all the other posts I have written on this subject in multiple threads, completely. .
219 odwyerpw : You answered your own question. $12 billion in delays, penalties, etc. Lets assign the bulk of it to 787, say $10 billion. Leaves $20 billion left. L
220 cmf : I have not questioned you about the 32 BUSD total spend though I am the one who said it is a rough estimate and suggested plus minus 5 BUSD. You did
221 Post contains images Stitch : I specifically said R&D costs, not total program costs, so please pay attention. The R&D cost analysis done by The Seattle Times is probably
222 abba : There are Boeing fanatics and there are Airbus fanatics. The problem is that many of the Airbus fanatics - being from continental Europe - will not o
223 abba : I believe that yours and Stitch' estimations as far as Boeing is concerned is not too far off the mark. But as I understand the situation, Boeing has
224 rheinwaldner : You would not have to go ballistic if you had an argument at hand, right? An argument about the fundamental technological difference that impacts the
225 Daysleeper : Got to work this morning so no time. But I think a key part of these costs your forgetting are the deferredwritten off costs from a few years ago for
226 Post contains images flipdewaf : I think we have crossed wires somewhere, I think I know where you are coming from and our differences in thinking. My line of thinking:- Boeing are w
227 Post contains images InsideMan : brilliant!
228 Post contains links NAV20 : That's the size of it, in my view. There was a guy once who said, "I am certain that fully one half of our research expenditure is wasted. All I have
229 flipdewaf : 69 orders 5 years before EIS is exactly 69 orders more than the 77W had 5 years before EIS although these numbers are particularly silly because most
230 Post contains images na : Thank you. I sometimes think the 777 marketing department has highjacked this forum
231 StickShaker : I remember the reason given by SQ to drop both the MD11 and A343 was the inability of their respective manufacturers to guarantee that the aircraft c
232 Daysleeper : The figures you are quoting from the Seattle times were used in an article that estimates the overall cost of the 787 project to be around 32 Billion
233 Post contains links CXB77L : If that's what it takes to compete with the A350, then that's what they'll have to do. Besides, they aren't proposing a "fairly large stretch": the p
234 Daysleeper : Do you really believe that being 2 meters longer, which is what - Going to allow for perhaps 10 or 20 extra seats will be able to overcome the signif
235 CXB77L : The 777-9X is planned to be a 407-seater, which means it's 42 seats more than the 777-300ER. 2m could fit 2 rows at 10-across, giving 20 more seats.
236 Revelation : I'll refer back to: The real problem is the 777 fuse is engineered to carry 20-30t more fuel (either directly, or via loads transferred from the wing
237 Daysleeper : Perhaps it’s just me, but I just can’t get this to work. For a start if they have just 20 extra economy seats which would mean it would have arou
238 flipdewaf : This is the bit I don't get:- The A380 only works in limited markets because as we all know that "if you build it, they will come" doesn't really wor
239 rheinwaldner : Good post! I appreciate your patience with us and your willingness to go great lengths to explain your points (regardless whether I agree all the tim
240 nomadd22 : Only if you want to perform a bogus comparison like assuming a 100% load factor for the A350 all the time.
241 na : Predictable hope for someone with your username. No need to repeat it for the umpteenth time, I heard you very well a dozen times before. I still thi
242 flipdewaf : If we compare aircraft then you will see that the A350 should always have a higher load factor then the 777X (except for at the 100% case). I believe
243 Post contains images EPA001 : Thanks for the compliment. To be named in the same category as respected members as Stitch I will take as a compliment. . If Boeing finds out the re-
244 Post contains images Stitch : With respect, you (appear to) have been talking Research & Development costs, not total program costs. So I am "picking out" the sections you hav
245 Revelation : I think Boeing is getting feedback from its customers as to whether or not they can sell the extra capacity. If they feel they can't, the business ca
246 flipdewaf : I disagree, I think the assumption is if these aircraft are going to be compared to each other by an airline then they will be analysed over a given
247 ncfc99 : I said in a previous thread that the 777X at 407 seats would need to achieve a load factor of 90% and above to make it start to be a better choice th
248 Stitch : TIme to Market might be driving Boeing's decision to launch the 777X instead of Y3, just as it eventually forced Boeing's hand to launch the 737 MAX
249 ContnlEliteCMH : Simply put, 787 has been a disaster for Boeing, like a hurricane followed by a tornado followed by a volcanic eruption trumped by a tsunami. It is po
250 Post contains images flipdewaf : I think that is quite harsh. Although true for the most part but I firmly beleive that after the tsunami and hurricane and tornado and volcano there
251 Stitch : The true disaster for Boeing would to have done nothing and allow Airbus to eventually control the entire market with the A330. The A330-300 has snuf
252 abba : Boeing must do something. And I would be very surprised indeed if Boeing is not going to enlarge the 777 so as to take it out of 350 territory and th
253 odwyerpw : It's a way of being passively aggressive. I don't mind the ROTFL (rolling on the floor laughing) icon if it's used to Laugh AT Yourself or to Laugh W
254 Post contains images Daysleeper : I appreciate the time you have taken to respond in such detail, and although I could go through line by line debating what costs contribute what I re
255 Post contains images Daysleeper : I'm sorry but . A simple smile warrants all this? I wish you the best of luck on your mission to get people on the Internet to respect each other, yo
256 Revelation : We'll never know if 787 and 747-8 screw ups cost Boeing the resources needed to do Y1 or Y3 in the current time frame.
257 aircellist : You know... It may only be a question of codes, but I'm the same age as odwyerpw and I somehow felt the same... I also believe respect on the interne
258 Post contains links Stitch : I expect they will. All the analysis being done - even a very detailed one done by a member of the A400M program who stated the 787 won't break even
259 ContnlEliteCMH : That the "do nothing" approach would create worse consequences than what has actually happened with 787 is something with which I can agree. I would
260 ContnlEliteCMH : Bollocks! Stuff and nonsense! Poppycock! Balderdash! This 41-year-old resents any implication that he is, or shall soon be, OLD! The DC3 is old. I, n
261 Post contains images cmf : We know revenue is greater than production cost. Add aftermarket revenue with its typical high profit margin and the only smart decision is to produc
262 Stitch : The 777 cost twice as much as budgeted when it entered service, but it's now considered anything but a disaster as it stands a good chance of passing
263 frmrCapCadet : And Boing seems to maintaining its earnings goals year after year. Is anything threatening this in the years ahead?
264 ContnlEliteCMH : Agreed. The "do nothing" option for Boeing was a non-starter for obvious reasons. How does this mean the current state of the 787 is not a disaster?
265 Post contains links NAV20 : Given the fact that only five have so far been delivered, and deliveries are currently at a dead stop, hard for anyone to disagree with that. Boeing
266 Post contains images CXB77L : Point taken, but, if I understood ferpe's post correctly, ... The 777X will be larger in size than the A350. It can therefore use its size as an adva
267 zeke : I suspect those revised seating numbers have nothing to do with changing 200/300 fuselage dimensions, it is all about playing with seat density, I.e.
268 CXB77L : The Flightglobal article I referred to did mention that the 777-8X will be a ~4m stretch over the 777-200 while the 777-9X will be a ~2m stretch over
269 rheinwaldner : In cases where the A35J will be hard to fill the even larger 77X will look even less compelling... Most of us agree that the 77X will have to rely on
270 Daysleeper : I’m assuming to get such a difference you would be assuming that the A350 has one less seat per row in Y? The problem with this is that the A350 is
271 Post contains images flipdewaf : They are all on a level playing field, just one might be fitter and stronger than the other I beleive the idea is that it will have a bigger wing, it
272 abba : No my point is that there unfortunately is a number of Boeing supporters who's counterpart in continental Europe fortunately will not be able to offe
273 Daysleeper : I believe the current speculation is that the 77X will have the same MTOW as the 77W, so yes, I would assume that the frame at least is going to be c
274 flipdewaf : I thought that they were going to be trying to drop the MTOW somewhat (I have a feeling that it is in the order of 15t) down to around 335t or so. A
275 aircellist : Could it also be that, as for the A345/6, the eventual new wing chord would be longer? Hence the necessity to make the -9X longer, just to keep an in
276 flipdewaf : I fudged together some runway performance numbers (just ground run is all I can be bothered with right now but its a good indicator). If the 77X come
277 Stitch : I know many planes don't go out at 100% load factor on a regular basis, but that the 777-300ER outsells the 777-200LR by a 10:1 margin implies that lo
278 flipdewaf : The difference here is that the trip costs are almost the same so the 'risk' factor is taken almost right out of the equation. Fred
279 zeke : One does not achieve an additional 42 seats in the case of the -9X with a 2m longer fuselage. It is as exactly as I called it, it is playing with the
280 Post contains images Stitch : Bingo. Which is why I think a 64m 777-8 would give currently 777-300ER operators the ability to take the same load farther or stop having to leave pa
281 flipdewaf : I see what you mean, the risk in this scenario is not that you fly empty seats with the increased cost but that you have to leave cargo behind but th
282 abba : There is plenty of space between the present 777 and the 380 that is only filled badly by the 748i. There is certainly a place in the sun for an enla
283 ZiggyStardust : The A350 internal width is 18.4ft according to the Airbus website, while the 777 width is 19.2ft on Wikipedia. If the 777 only support 10 abreast at
284 Post contains links flipdewaf : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...d-operating-cost-advantage-223853/ Charter type operations I think. Fred
285 aircellist : Yet: what would be the width of the seat? ... Boeing could now use the "wider-fuse-so-wider-seat" against Airbus, like Airbus does to Boeing for the
286 OldAeroGuy : The information I have says 16.5" with a 16.25"aisle. This will make the 17" 10 A/B seat of the EK 773ER luxurious while the 17.2" seat on the 747, 7
287 seabosdca : One does achieve 42 extra seats, if not more, with the combination of a 2 m longer fuselage and a cabin that allows 10Y with the same comfort level a
288 zeke : Almost all ? ANA is 8 across, that is most of the 787s currently flying.
289 Post contains images aircellist : Was that the seat width in Air Inter's A300, at the time? It was quite manageable for the hourish hops in France... But even just for the transatlant
290 LAXDESI : AirAsia X has its A333 configured at 9-abreast in Y with 16.5" width and 32" pitch. A350's cabin is 12" wider than that of A330, which suggests that 1
291 Post contains images davs5032 : ...This is just not true, unless your definition of "relative comfort" is . Not only could the A350 not pull off 10X comfortably, I don't think it wo
292 Post contains links and images CXB77L : You're focusing too much on CASM. Airlines look at many other factors other than CASM in order to determine which aircraft they'll purchase. Even if
293 rheinwaldner : They simply won't. How on earth would that be possible? A pitch of 19" inches? Even more impossible if you apply a proper class mix. Ok, ok, twin is
294 ncfc99 : I've flown on a 8 abreast 767, and it was acceptable for a 9hour flight. How does a 8 abreast 767 compare to a 11 abreast 777 and a 10 abreast 350? A
295 abba : Life is full of paradoxes. I have also been wondering about the same strange phenomenon: Those who are the strongest voices for the HUGE revolution t
296 rheinwaldner : Ok thanks, now I got it.
297 Post contains links and images SA7700 : This thread will be locked for further contributions as it has become quite long and difficult to load for some users. Please note that all posts adde
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...
How Quiet Are The 787 And 747-8 From The Outside? posted Mon Jun 7 2010 22:19:50 by A380900
787 And A350 Final Prices posted Fri May 7 2010 21:31:09 by panais
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) posted Tue Dec 8 2009 22:33:47 by Diamond
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 posted Mon Dec 7 2009 19:45:42 by AeroPiggot
What If LHR And Other Airports Become 24 Hours? posted Sun Jan 27 2008 16:33:19 by QatarA340
What If Etihad And Gulf Air Merge? posted Fri Sep 7 2007 08:16:31 by Beijing21
LH Talks About 787 And A350; A350 Seating Data posted Wed Jun 13 2007 19:16:24 by A342
UAL Says Looking At 787 And A350 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 19:10:05 by NYC777
Why Only Two Engine Choices On 787 And A350? posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:02:16 by 1337Delta764
Thomsonfly Looking At 787 And A350 posted Mon May 15 2006 19:37:10 by TomatLTN