Quote:
Boeing is targeting a year-end board launch for its conceptual 777X, in time for a late decade service entry, said the company's commercial unit CEO, Jim Albaugh.
"We're working towards being in a position toward the end of this year to talk to our board. That's assuming the business case closes, that's assuming the technical trades are ones that close," says Albaugh, who was speaking at a press conference following the unveiling of Boeing's 1000th 777.
The conceptual two-member family is seen as a 14,800km (8,000nm) 407-seat 777-9X and 353-seat 777-8X and potentially even a third model in an ultra long-range 777-8LX. The baseline -9X and -8X each grow the lengths of the existing 777-300ER and -200ER fuselages and add a 787-style composite wing, say those familiar with Boeing's studies.
The launch of the new 777 family would likely be done in conjunction with a 323-seat 787-10X, a stretch of the 787-9 due for service in 2014, and would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26948 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17516 times:
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17503 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
The last paragraph of that article is interesting, and could be either good or bad:
Quote: Albaugh declined to offer any details on the 777X's potential efficiency in comparison to the 777-300ER, but says it would be a "pretty significant improvement" and "I think that our customer base would be very interested in."
A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.
Interesting times ahead for the 777. I can't wait to see how it pans out
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17421 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2): A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.
If at 15% per seat number is correct, and the 9X is 407 seats, and the 300ER 365 seats, makes the trip costs not very different to the current 300ER.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 17361 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting zeke (Reply 3): If at 15% per seat number is correct, and the 9X is 407 seats, and the 300ER 365 seats, makes the trip costs not very different to the current 300ER.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16935 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17284 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2):
Interesting times ahead for the 777. I can't wait to see how it pans out
Pardon me for being a cynic. And for the record, I am neither an A nor B fanboy. And this is not an AvB starter.
First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such. The Airbus fanboys will absolutely love every little setback. The Boeing fanboys will keep on bringing up the A350 and A380 programs.
Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.
Both planes will fill different niches, but they will do well.
InsideMan From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 195 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17240 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such. The Airbus fanboys will absolutely love every little setback. The Boeing fanboys will keep on bringing up the A350 and A380 programs.
Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.
That's the whole purpose of being on A.net, isn't it?
redrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 217 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17238 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such.
Seems like its like that for every model type, whether its Boeing, or Airbus.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.
Marketing
The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1597 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 17037 times:
If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight? Or do they aim to keep the current numbers but growing the frame inside the same weight budget?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16945 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): First of all, it will be overweight, probably behind schedule, and the first few frames will be not quite as efficient as planned. There will be some manufacturing issues with the CFRP or some such.
You could say the same for the A350 as well. In fact, just about every aircraft produced had run into dramas along the way causing the first few frames to miss its projected targets. The 787 missed its targets, so did the 747-8, so did the A380, and presumably, so will the A350. Improvements on later built frames will get it to meet, or perhaps even exceed its initial forecast targets.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Then Airbus will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing how the A350-10 is just as capable as the 777-9X and more efficient, while Boeing will put out a bunch of fancy graphs showing that the opposite is true. They will both use heavily-massaged numbers, of course.
That's all part of marketing.
Quoting sweair (Reply 8): If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight?
First of all, it's only a minimal stretch. The 777-8X is 4.46m longer than the 777-200, while the 777-9X is 2.13m longer than the 777-300. Secondly, new (smaller) engines, new CFRP wings, more extensive use of composites in other areas, along with the use of Al-Li alloys on its fuselage and structure ought to bring its weight down somewhat.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, RR: 96 Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16918 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 2): A previous FlightGlobal article predicted a 15% reduction in per seat costs over the 777-300ER, so I'm guess they don't want to sound overly optimistic officially - certainly not until the design has been frozen.
It's worth being careful with quotes like this.
The article you linked clearly sates "a 14% - 16%" reduction in per seat FUEL costs. Not per seat costs.
The per seat cost reduction would likely be about half that, making it about 7% - 8% I'd guess.
I'd guess that half of that per seat fuel burn reduction comes from the engine, some from the increased span, and the rest from shoehorning 353 people into an aircraft some 6m shorter than the 365 seat773ER
The article linked by CXB77L suggests that the -8X will be 4.5m longer than the 772 - at c. 68m (about 1m longer than the A350-900).
That would suggest a cabin area of about 310 m2, some 30 m2 up on the 772, if I assume a 2"-3" increase in interior width.
I'm guessing EK's seat count would go up from c 286 on their 772's to 326 on the 777-8X, assuming 4 extra rows of 10Y
The 2m stretch of the 773ER suggested in the article for the 777-9X would seem to imply a cabin area of about 350m2.
If that extra space is allocated to Y, EK's 3 class seat count would be about 378 (an extra 20 Y seats up on their 3 class 773ER).
I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14409 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16884 times:
behramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4479 posts, RR: 43 Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16865 times:
B 777-800X (778) - range is 14,800KM seating 353 pax in a 3 class configuration
B 777-900X (779) - range will be the same i.e. 14,800KM but will seat 407 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be a replacement of the B773ER and can fly DXB-LAX/SFO/SYD/GRU nonstop without any payload issues.
Boeing 787-100X - range will be 14,000KM and will seat 323 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be the direct replacement of the B772ER
Comments:
Personally speaking, I do not think that the B778 will be a popular choice for airlines as it brings nothing special to the table. However, the B779 shall definitely be as it would be seating 57 more pax versus the A350-1000X and only offering a range of 800KM less.
Emirates has been a key driver of this program and one can definitely expect it to order many of the type as its primary requirement was to have an aircraft the size of a B773ER or slightly larger that could operate with a full load of pax + cargo from DXB to the U.S. West Coast and South America which the B779 is slated to. In turn, one can now also expect QR's CEO to follow suit and order many as well which in turn will result in the carrier dumping the A351 if Airbus does not listen to his demands as the A351 program is heading down the same road as the A346HGW!
One more appetizing feature of the B779 is that according to its specifications, it shall also be able to fly nonstop with a full payload from both BOM and DEL to ORD-Chicago which can prove to be a really attractive proposition for 9W/UA/AI/AA to ponder over their long term fleet requirments!
SchorschNG From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16393 times:
The quoted fuel burn is -8LX versus -300ER, which doesn't make any sense.
I think the B777 is a perfect platform for seizing the upper end of the single deck capacity region, limited to ~450 PAX in 3 class. The only thing - as stated by many seasoned posters before - is that the -8/9X is the final death certificate of the B747-8I. Without any chance of selling these the entire program becomes more of a joke. OK, the board has changed since and the predecessors can be blamed.
A launch of the -8/9X (especially the 9) would pressure Airbus to do something with the A380, probably go Trent 1000 and go A380-900/800HGW.
ANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3240 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15922 times:
I realize exact numbers would be impossible to compute, but how much will developing the 777X cost, compared to developing an all-new large twin based on the 787?
It seems like Airbus and Boeing, for some reason, are afraid to launch all-new aircraft and prefer to rest on their laurels (see A320NEO, 737MAX, A330HGW, 747-8, etc). Are the 787 and A350 going to be the last new airframes to come from these two companies for a while?
I understand that creating a new airframe requires a ton of money, time, and manpower, but I have to imagine that a bespoke aircraft, taking advantage of all-new technology (rather then implementing some improvements to old tech - remember, the 777 is a 20-year old design at this point) would be a more significant return-on-investment in the long run, no?
Again, I'm sure Boeing (and Airbus) are doing their homework in this case and that the decision was made for a reason, but I'm always surprised to see "adjustments" of old designs, rather than all-new products.
Or, is it a marketing gimmick? Is it done this way solely to take advantage of the Airworthiness Certificate and the famous name of A320, 737, and 777? Is the new aircraft different enough that it could be its own entity?
TIS
www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3998 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15735 times:
Quoting behramjee (Reply 12): Boeing 787-100X - range will be 14,000KM and will seat 323 pax in a 3 class configuration; this will be the direct replacement of the B772ER
If this 787 variant is to be announced later in the year it will be within the MTOW capability of the existing under carriage of ~ 255t and will have a range of ~6500nm at max. passenger load. A 772E equivalent would need ( probably) a new wing and certainly an undercarriage with more wheels and would be unlikely to be ready for offering in 2012.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15443 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 8): If they stretch the frames, how will this save any weight? Or do they aim to keep the current numbers but growing the frame inside the same weight budget?
The idea is that because the plane will be carrying many tons less fuel to complete the same mission due to better engines, there is margin in the design that can be used to cover the weight of the stretch. I'm sure the devil is in the details, so I am waiting to see what Boeing says what it really thinks it can do.
Quoting behramjee (Reply 12): Personally speaking, I do not think that the B778 will be a popular choice for airlines as it brings nothing special to the table. However, the B779 shall definitely be as it would be seating 57 more pax versus the A350-1000X and only offering a range of 800KM less.
Emirates has been a key driver of this program and one can definitely expect it to order many of the type as its primary requirement was to have an aircraft the size of a B773ER or slightly larger that could operate with a full load of pax + cargo from DXB to the U.S. West Coast and South America which the B779 is slated to. In turn, one can now also expect QR's CEO to follow suit and order many as well which in turn will result in the carrier dumping the A351 if Airbus does not listen to his demands as the A351 program is heading down the same road as the A346HGW!
As above, TC had some interesting things to say:
Quote:
Clark said the delivery timetable of the Airbus jet is questionable. He also predicted that the 777X will outperform it.
"They're different airplanes," he said. The 777X "has greater legs, greater range, greater lift."
The specifications offered by Airbus for the A350 show that the plane will adequately cover up to 10-hour flights, Clark said. That currently encompasses 80 percent of the Emirates route network, he said, but the airline plans to shift more "into the 13-to-18 hour mission range."
"That's, frankly, where it doesn't quite stack up," Clark said.
So at least one very important customer is seeing the merits of the 777X. Whether or not that's enough to banish the A351 to obscurity will be the topic of many current and future a.net discussions!
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4288 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 15404 times:
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15): I realize exact numbers would be impossible to compute, but how much will developing the 777X cost, compared to developing an all-new large twin based on the 787?
Exact numbers are indeed hard to come by, but it's safe to assume the cost of the all-new plane would be at least twice as much, and possibly up to four times as much, as a derivative like the 777X. There is also more risk in the all-new plane, as Airbus and Boeing have just demonstrated so well with the A380 and 787.
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15): Are the 787 and A350 going to be the last new airframes to come from these two companies for a while?
Assuming Boeing proceeds with the 777X, the next real opportunities to launch an all-new airframe will be for EIS in the 2020s, so it will be at least a few years before either maker does so. I think an all-new narrowbody from either Boeing or from both majors is the most likely.
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15): but I'm always surprised to see "adjustments" of old designs, rather than all-new products.
The existing designs are so refined, and such major technological leaps are needed to decisively surpass them, that the huge risk and expense of all-new programs gets harder and harder to justify. Most of the benefits can be accomplished through refinements. Boeing pretty much had to do the 787 because the 767 was conceptually flawed in today's market. But there is a lot of pushback on Airbus for doing the A350 instead of an A330 refinement with new engines, new materials, and a considerably improved wing -- pretty much Boeing's exact plan with the 777X.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 14962 times:
I think one could summarize Clark's comments that he needs two niches filled - large twin up to 10 hour and large twin 13-18 hours. He needs more of the former than the later, but the ratio will move somewhat toward the 13+ hour. The 778-9 are niche models, as is the 350-10 (and other very large airliners). But they are important to airlines, and can be profitable for the maker and user. Boeing is capitalizing on the only space or niche left for the 777. Hope they do it well.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26948 posts, RR: 83 Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 14242 times:
Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.
I don't see the point of targeting the 777-8 at the 777-200ER market. The 787-9 already fills that role for long-haul and the 787-10 will fill it for medium-haul (where the extra capacity and more trips allow you to maximize the lower costs and higher revenues). Not to mention the A350-900 will have a 10-year head start for airlines that need a 300-seater for 13-15 hour missions.
The 777-300ER is the market leader and making it better certainly can't hurt. I am skeptical Airbus will meet their 2006 goals in terms of MWE per seat, block fuel per seat and and COC per seat against the 777-300ER, especially at launch. I'm sure it will be better, but a 777-8 that knocks 10% off the MWE per seat, 15% off the block fuel per seat and 15% off the COC per seat of the 777-300ER will likely be very close to what the A350-1000 offers, but could still have a higher seat count, a higher payload weight and equal or better range.
And that could be the recipe for a general split of the market, which is good for both OEMs, overall.
Hamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2669 posts, RR: 59 Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 11397 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11): Some airlines will like it. Many others will completely ignore it.
In every thread concerning the 777X, I've seen you continue to repeat this claim. That the 777-9X as speculated in the media will be too big for most airlines. However, I see no evidence whatsoever that this will be the case. A few? Sure. But "many"? Non-sense.
Let's look at today's 365-seat 777-300ER. To date, it has 601 firm orders (China Southern's 10 and Pakistan's 5 have yet to be firmed as of this writing). Of those 601:
- 300 (50%) are operated/ordered by A380-800 (525-seat) customers.
- 146 (24%) are operated/ordered by 747-400 (416-seat) customers.
That's 74% of the -300ER's orderbook where the 777 is not even the largest aircraft in the respective airlines' fleet. Nor will the media-speculated, proposed -9X. In other words, these are customers who can (or at least believe they can) fill these aircraft.
Now, I certainly agree that it's an entirely open question whether Boeing will gain enough interior dimension to make operators like SQ go 10-wide. Frankly, I have no clue, and it will be interesting to see what the 777X actually turns out to be. So if it's a debate about comfort, I can certainly see both sides.
But arguing that customers will shun a larger -300ER based on sheer capacity alone is fanciful.
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): Boeing is targeting a year-end board launch for its conceptual 777X, in time for a late decade service entry, said the company's commercial unit CEO, Jim Albaugh.
"We're working towards being in a position toward the end of this year to talk to our board.
I think FlightGlobal is getting their timing a little cross-wired. The way I read Mr. Albaugh's quote, is that they will be presenting the 777X to the board by year-end for ATO, not Launch. I would see ATO being granted @ year-end, with Launch subsequently following by mid-Q2 '13.
What I certainly can see is a potential simultaneous ATO (and subsequent launch) of the 787-10X and 777X. By pitching a full-fleet of 787's and 777X's, Boeing seems to fill in their product line very well, at least on the surface.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 10): I still wonder if a small gain in extra width would be enough for cariers like SQ to go 10-across.
As I said above, so do I. It's a very open question at this point, and I'm very curious to see the 777X fleshed-out.
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter): would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.
I've had more than one Boeing salesman tell me that the main obstacle to selling 747-8i's is the 777-300ER, not the A380. If the 777-9X gets anywhere near to where FlightGlobal is speculating it is going, the 747-8 passenger days are done. Sad, as it is perhaps one of the most beautiful airliners in the skies, ever. But that's the reality.
Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 15): I understand that creating a new airframe requires a ton of money, time, and manpower, but I have to imagine that a bespoke aircraft, taking advantage of all-new technology (rather then implementing some improvements to old tech - remember, the 777 is a 20-year old design at this point) would be a more significant return-on-investment in the long run, no?
It's not nearly so cut-and-dry, no. If it was, then yes, you'd be seeing clean-sheet designs every 10-15 years. However, the state we are at in the industry now is too mature. These airframes are so thoroughly optimized, so updated, the engineering so fine-tuned, that there really isn't any "all-new technology" that's going to substantially change things for the forseeable future. The most that can be gained is in the engines, and the subsequent benefits to the airframe. Thus why you're seeing the NEO, the MAX, and to a certain extent, the 777X.
No, she only missed weight targets, but due to better the performing of the whole package she did not miss range or fuel burn targets at EIS. And these values have been improved on the A380 ever since. .
Quoting astuteman (Reply 10): The article you linked clearly sates "a 14% - 16%" reduction in per seat FUEL costs. Not per seat costs.
The per seat cost reduction would likely be about half that, making it about 7% - 8% I'd guess.
Which makes a big difference, though the reduction still is significant.
Some airlines will like it. Many others will completely ignore it.
407 seats looks like cramped up seating to me. But I can choose not to fly airliners with a cramped-up seating configuration. .
Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Nothing I am seeing changes my belief the 777-8 should be the same length as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be as close to an 80m stretch as Boeing can attain.
I agree with you on this, but Boeing may have some reasons to make these choices. Though they have not really explained them convincingly yet.
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21): As I said above, so do I. It's a very open question at this point, and I'm very curious to see the 777X fleshed-out.
For which we still have to wait quite some time. Only then we can start telling about some significant issues instead of theoretical numbers what we mostly were forced to do since the real data will not be available for many years to come. .
NW1852 From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 37 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9844 times:
Quoting LAXDESI (Thread starter):
would more evenly spread Boeing's widebody product line from the 242-seat 787-8 to the 467-seat 747-8.
I've had more than one Boeing salesman tell me that the main obstacle to selling 747-8i's is the 777-300ER, not the A380. If the 777-9X gets anywhere near to where FlightGlobal is speculating it is going, the 747-8 passenger days are done. Sad, as it is perhaps one of the most beautiful airliners in the skies, ever. But that's the reality.
Boeing could always add 4 ultra efficient engines to the 777X to appease A-netters with an affinity for 4 holer's.
Silly but I dream.....And how handsome would that be?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16935 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 9846 times:
Quoting Hamlet69 (Reply 21): It's not nearly so cut-and-dry, no. If it was, then yes, you'd be seeing clean-sheet designs every 10-15 years. However, the state we are at in the industry now is too mature. These airframes are so thoroughly optimized, so updated, the engineering so fine-tuned, that there really isn't any "all-new technology" that's going to substantially change things for the forseeable future. The most that can be gained is in the engines, and the subsequent benefits to the airframe. Thus why you're seeing the NEO, the MAX, and to a certain extent, the 777X.
I would argue that we've pretty much optimized the fuselage of a commercial airliner. We're at the point where there aren't many cost-effective improvements that can be made to the fuselage.
Now, the wings and engines are a completely different story. There's a lot of room to update and upgrade there.
So if you can use the same fuselage and put on new wings and/or engines (which is what was done with the 737NG, 744/8, A345/6, 77L/W, and A320NEO) then you should do that. It's only worth coming up with a new fuselage if it will be significantly better or if the new wing/engine simply won't allow that fuselage.
25 PIEAvantiP180: Does anybody esle see the strategy that Boeing might be doing a Y3 in 2 stages. First develop a new wing and engines that will come out in 2019 and st
26 CXB77L: At a planned 353 seats, I don't think the 777-8 is a true 777-200ER replacement, or a competitor to the 787-9 or the A350-900, for that matter. The B
27 frigatebird: I guess the current 777-9X proposal is the maximum Boeing can do. Stretching it further would probably mean so much redesigning of the landing gear e
28 Stitch: Well no, in that is depends on 10-abreast in Economy, as does the 777-9. As much as we carp about 10-abreast on the 777, it is a configuration a numb
29 seabosdca: My view is that SQ and CX would not do it, and that NH and JL would not do it for their long-haul fleets. But I also think no other airline in the wo
30 JoeCanuck: Currently the standard seat width in a 10 abreast 777 seems to be around 17". There is a 13" difference between the 777 diameter and Boeing interior w
31 dfwrevolution: What is "cost-effective" constantly changes as new technologies mature. To say that we have "pretty much optimized" any structure of a commercial air
32 dfwrevolution: I disagree to an extent. We're really only in our second generation of electronically-designed aircraft. We're still seeing the short-comings of thes
33 Stitch: And 17.5 inches would match the seat cushion width Airbus has been showing in their A350 Press Releases* so for airlines who desire a common seat cus
34 Viscount724: Seat cushion width is only part of the story. Also have to consider the narrower armrests and smaller gap between the cushions and seatbacks on 10-ab
35 Stitch: True, but now we're talking millimeters, if even that, and I expect most passengers do not travel with micrometers on them. 8 is more than 7, so an A
36 JoeCanuck: I'm not a small guy but I never had a huge problem with seat width on my EK flights...but I did notice the crappy seat comfort...or lack thereof. I t
37 LAXDESI: Copy of OP from my thread in the technical forum comparing A350-1000 to B777-9X(407 seats. A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Mar
38 zeke: The wing are and OEW for the -1000 is incorrect, I guess most of the subsquent calculations are also incorrect.
39 fruitbat: Well, the engine competition just kicked off - part of a big feature in Flightglobal on the 777X http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...rolls-royce-pr
40 Stitch: Boeing decided a GTF was too risky for the 787. I wonder if they will change their mind for the 777X? Pratt have stated that they could scale the GTF
41 astuteman: Worthy of its own thread IMO. Some mouthwatering info... From RR - 132.5" fan BPR of 12:1 PR of 62.5 10% better SFC than the GE90-115 From P+W - a 10
42 ZiggyStardust: Thanks for the articles. In http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/ "The redefinition of its widebody line will place roughly 15
43 Stitch: If the GTF turns about to be amazing, that the 777X can have it and the A350-1000 cannot (at least per the current exclusivity agreement with the Tren
44 PlaneAdmirer: My knowledge of engines and how they work amounts to a pile of beans. However, I find this part facsinating. It's a great dyanmic. It also tells me th
45 CXB77L: Thanks for the links. These numbers are even better than I had originally thought they'd be. What I thought would result in a 40% market share for Bo
46 PlanesNTrains: According to Keesje in the Flightglobal comments, putting something other than a GE on the 777X would negate the exclusivity agreement currently in p
47 PM: As I understand it, they have exclusivity above 100,000lbs. Whether that extends to the -8X and -9X, I don't know but I noticed that the RR engine is
48 PlanesNTrains: Intersting. So theoretically if the RR engine is at 99,500, then GE/Boeing are still bound by the exclusivity clause...... -Dave
49 PM: Yeah, except that the GE9X also appears to be rated at 99,500! Maybe that's just what the plane requires. Mind you, if the 100,000+ exclusivity deal
50 Stitch: Both Boeing and GE have stated that another supplier could put engines on a revised 777 and they wouldn't open the competition otherwise. And as I un
51 sweair: Maybe PW will have a comeback in large civil engines, mostly been RR and GE lately. Beside the GTF how are they on the turbine side? Are they up to da
52 astuteman: "Have to"? I'd suggest they have elected to do so as their view of the optimum trade-off. As I said, in recent years, GE have been the ones who have
53 StickShaker: The last thing Boeing wants is to be stuck with an inferior engine on their new 777-8/9X while the 350-10 powers ahead, exclusive agreements or not.
54 sweair: Does the A350 have exclusive on all models? I remember customers demanding a 2nd engine choice on 787, how come they don't with the A350? I think all
55 Daysleeper: I’m not sure where I heard this, but I was under the impression that it was Airbus were insisting that any 2nd engine option for the A350 would hav
56 sweair: Lets hope this trend with exclusive engines is over, I like competition as it drives the engine makers to excel themselves more than now. I really ho
57 dfwrevolution: If the engine manufacturers cannot expect a reasonable ROI, then they will limit their investment accordingly. At most we will see two engine options
58 SEPilot: Overall, it doesn't really matter if both airframers have exclusive agreements with the engine makers or not from the engine makers standpoint. They
59 CXB77L: Bad choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to suggest that as though it were a negative. I have very little knowledge of the technical aspects of
60 SchorschNG: Tricky question, the preference of course changes with body size. But it ain't that simple. "Most preferred" by customers is something in the vicinit
61 Stitch: Boeing Commercial Airplanes President & Chief Executive Jim Albaugh spoke at the JP Morgan Aviation, Transportation and Defense conference and he
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5085 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Aug 2011, 195 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1597 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9257 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4479 posts, 
From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 442 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3789 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3658 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
