Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Leahy- 777-300ER Cannot Compete With A350-1000  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 939 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 42552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

hum....

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...-777-cannot-compete-a350-1000-0525

208 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinegilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3001 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 42460 times:

I don't really get the thread...

Of course the COO of Airbus is going to say the A350-1000 is better than the 777-300ER, they are barely going to say otherwise.

Also it would be pretty disastrous for an airliner manufacturer to build an aircraft almost 15 years after the 777-300ER was launched that is it meant to compete against, that wasn't better or improved.

But considering Airbus hasn't had any orders since 2008 that would seem to be a concern...

After issues with new aircraft like the A380 and 787, with delays and manufacturing issues cropping up, it makes me wonder if airlines are getting cold feet about ordering aircraft that currently only exist on paper and have not yet been built.

Also it goes as testament to the 777-300ER, on what an excellent aircraft it is and how over the years, it seems to have exceeded most airlines expectation and still continues to pull numerous orders from airlines that haven't operated the type previously. Even though was launched over a decade ago.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42418 times:

Lets, just wait until the A350 1000 hit the skies.

User currently offlineEWRandMDW From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42399 times:

Well, he's right ... in a sense. The 777-300ER is real and flying passengers worldwide while the A350-1000 exists on computer screens and blueprints. The 777 has a phantom plane to compete against!

User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1010 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42326 times:

I too found Leahy's comment to be a non-starter as a) it is obvious an aircraft designed almost 15 years after it's intended competition should have some performance improvements and b) Boeing is readying a response when they feel the time is right in the form of the 777X family. Maybe Leahy is taking a proactive approach (i.e. going on the offensive) as he may feel troubled by the interest of some of his customers in the 777X?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42270 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It seems logical that the 777-300ER would not compete with the A350-1000.

Leahey's main problem now is that as the A350-1000's EIS is pushed farther and farther to the right, customers are buying 777-300ERs in the interim and that means less of them need an A350-1000 once slots become available.

Quoting Navion (Reply 4):
Maybe Leahy is taking a proactive approach (i.e. going on the offensive) as he may feel troubled by the interest of some of his customers in the 777X?

With the 777X and A350-1000 EIS relatively close (and perhaps getting closer if the A350 program is delayed even more), once airlines are ready to start ordering A350-1000s, Boeing's RFP will more and more not be the 777-300ER, but instead the 777-8 and 777-9.


User currently offlineKBJCpilot From United States of America, joined May 2012, 160 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42124 times:

He's a salesman. Of course his product is better, prettier, and smells better. Let's just wait until the A350-1000 is really ready to fly and see how his story will compare to reality.


Samsonite, I was way off!
User currently offlinepliersinsight From United States of America, joined May 2008, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 42092 times:

Quoting Navion (Reply 4):
I too found Leahy's comment to be a non-starter as a) it is obvious an aircraft designed almost 15 years after it's intended competition should have some performance improvements and b) Boeing is readying a response when they feel the time is right in the form of the 777X family. Maybe Leahy is taking a proactive approach (i.e. going on the offensive) as he may feel troubled by the interest of some of his customers in the 777X?

It also depends on what you are going to pay for your 777, depending on the discount, the performance increase of the 350 might not be worth the expense up front.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41670 times:

Just reduce the 77W noise and I will be happy. Seriously though, didn't we have the same topic in Jan, then Feb, then March, then Apri, guess you can see where I am going. Sad thing is that we won't know the answer for a few more years, and Leahy will probably be retired.

User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41639 times:

JL is the gift that keeps giving.  He should be in the arms business, He provides endless ammunition for wars.
Seriously, sell A3510s first, talk later.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41520 times:

Dear Mr. Mouth:

Maybe 777-300ER cannot compete with A350-1000.
However, I assure you that 777-9X can.

Signed: the Mighty Triple Seven fan.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41447 times:

Leahy is right that the biggest problem with the A350-1000 is when an airline can get its grubby paws on it. With that being so far in the future, and uncertain at that, and with Boeing planning a response that also at this point is undefined, it is not surprising that customers are sitting on their hands right now. Once the 777X is launched, and the A359 is flying (giving better certainty as to how the A3510 will perform) then we will see how they will compare.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41440 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 1):
But considering Airbus hasn't had any orders since 2008 that would seem to be a concern..
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 9):
Seriously, sell A3510s first, talk later.

You both miss the point that has been stated here on A-net over and over again, and which just recently was also confirmed by Boeing on their 777-RFP's. Availability is the biggest problem. As JL quotes:

Even though there have been no new orders for the A350-1000 since 2008, Leahy was bullish about its prospects. “Boeing only started talking about a new 777X after the A350-1000 came out,” he said. “Boeing knows the 777 won’t compete and that’s why they talk about folding wings and crazy things like that,” he said.

He said the most common question that he gets asked is “when can I get availability on the A350?”

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
With the 777X and A350-1000 EIS relatively close (and perhaps getting closer if the A350 program is delayed even more), once airlines are ready to start ordering A350-1000s, Boeing's RFP will more and more not be the 777-300ER, but instead the 777-8 and 777-9.

That is my expectation as well. So then we will see how good both new or renewed offerings are to the customers.

That the "old" B77W will loose against the A350-1000 is just about every thinkable way is logical and comes as no surprise. Boeing knew they would not stand a chance just as the A346 was overtaken by that same B77W. The A35J vs. the B777X is the next interesting contest.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

John Leahy, Airbus' main salesman, an American who lives in France and doesn't speak French what an oxymoron. Could the world imagine Boeing having a German or French man selling their planes, the unions would have something to say about that. Such a person would have to speak English as it is the " linga franca " of aviation. Leahy a character of French proprtions.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 10):
Dear Mr. Mouth:

Maybe 777-300ER cannot compete with A350-1000.
However, I assure you that 777-9X can.

Signed: the Mighty Triple Seven fan.

I couldn't have put it better myself  

I tend to not pay any attention to anything Mr Leahy says. As Airbus' most prominent salesman, he's hardly going to say anything different, is he?



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinePlaneAdmirer From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 41101 times:

JL sold a lot of A330's because they are available when the 787 isn't or wasn't. I fail to see how this isn't the reverse.

User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 40847 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 1):
Of course the COO of Airbus is going to say the A350-1000 is better than the 777-300ER, they are barely going to say otherwise.

Of course it can't compete - its a paper airplane vs. a flying airplane.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 40508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 10):
Dear Mr. Mouth:

Maybe 777-300ER cannot compete with A350-1000.
However, I assure you that 777-9X

Signed: the Mighty Triple Seven fan.

This should read "Dear Mr. Leahy c/o Airbus Toulouse, France..."


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 40443 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 2):
Lets, just wait until the A350 1000 hit the skies.

Clearly Leahy would prefer that customers order right now instead of waiting till A351 is flying and/or in revenue service with someone else.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Leahey's main problem now is that as the A350-1000's EIS is pushed farther and farther to the right, customers are buying 777-300ERs in the interim and that means less of them need an A350-1000 once slots become available.

His other main problem is that some important customers are bad-mouthing it in public.

Add that to:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 1):
After issues with new aircraft like the A380 and 787, with delays and manufacturing issues cropping up, it makes me wonder if airlines are getting cold feet about ordering aircraft that currently only exist on paper and have not yet been built.

and it's no surprise that Leahy is trying to create some interest in the product, even via pointing out his non-existing plane will outperform Boeing's existing plane while ignoring Boeing's next non-existing plane.

I suppose it's time for Randy to make some comments about his non-existing 787-9 beating up Leahy's non-existing A350 line?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 39616 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
John Leahy, Airbus' main salesman, an American who lives in France and doesn't speak French what an oxymoron.

On oxymoron is a rhetoric device. This is not what it means, and not how it is used. At all.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
Could the world imagine Boeing having a German or French man selling their planes, the unions would have something to say about that.

Something to truly be proud of.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
That the "old" B77W will loose against the A350-1000 is just about every thinkable way is logical and comes as no surprise.

General consensus appears to be otherwise. From what is being voiced, the A35K will be better on missions up to 6000nm stage length. On longer flights, the 77W remains superior. Even with the new stretched design, the A35K will not be able to replace the 77Ws on all of its missions.

There are markets for both planes, the 77W and the A35K. Purchasing decisions will be dependent on a number of factors, as each operator has its own requirements. Neither plane is going to kill the other off.

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 15):
JL sold a lot of A330's because they are available when the 787 isn't or wasn't. I fail to see how this isn't the reverse.

  

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 16):
Of course it can't compete - its a paper airplane vs. a flying airplane.

To keep you abreast with the development of the last 20 or so years: Airplanes are not designed on paper anymore. They use computer technology these days. These computers use data collected in real life experiences and apply them to said models. As a result, they produce fairly accurate estimates about a machine's real life performance.

This isn't as much of a knee-slapper as referring to the A350 as a 'paper plane', admittedly, but it helps gauging the credibility of such statements. It's obvious that Leahy will emphasize the upsides of his products and that he might even be inclined to embellish the truth a little bit. But that doesn't at all mean that his claims are unsubstantiated fairytales.

As much as many would probably like to think that..



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 39363 times:

Quoting KBJCpilot (Reply 6):
He's a salesman. Of course his product is better, prettier, and smells better. Let's just wait until the A350-1000 is really ready to fly and see how his story will compare to reality.

It's getting funny to take Leahy's comments about his products and put it back on a conversation some years ahead, just to see how he's as ridiculous as arrogant.
The A350-1000 will be nothing more than a revamped A330 and I think Airbus is getting pretty embarrassed with that...



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38994 times:

It must be a public holiday in a lot of countries. The usual band of boeing boys are peppering this thread with their wisdoms.

JL is right and we all know it. Will it sell more? Will it hit its design targets? Will it fly on time? These are things we don't know


User currently offlinepnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2225 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38735 times:

People fault the guy for doing his job. I take any marketers claims with a grain of salt because I am one of them. I know that it is his job to portray his product in as good a light as possible. Read between the lines and translate the marketing speak into English. In this case you can hear his boss or the Board of Directors saying, "John get out in front of this issue and start countering the lack of sales for the 350-1000, and start spinning like a top." You don't have to like the guy (I am not a fan), but at the same time read statements with a grain of salt, but don't hate the guy for doing his spin.

User currently offlineneutrino From Singapore, joined May 2012, 602 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38636 times:

Quoting something (Reply 19):

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 16):
Of course it can't compete - its a paper airplane vs. a flying airplane.

To keep you abreast with the development of the last 20 or so years: Airplanes are not designed on paper anymore. They use computer technology these days.


Call it a pixel airplane then.  



Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38582 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
He said the most common question that he gets asked is “when can I get availability on the A350?”

Well, Mr. Leahy's answer to that question should have been: "Well, I've just had an opening for several A350-1000s since I had one of my major customers CANCEL several of theirs, so show me the money!"

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 21):
It must be a public holiday in a lot of countries. The usual band of boeing boys are peppering this thread with their wisdoms.

Here we go....somehow I knew this would show up.  

[Edited 2012-05-28 08:56:18]

User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 39012 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 24):
Here we go....somehow I knew this would should up.

Well if the discussion would focus on explaining/demonstrating why the proposition "The Airbus A350-1000 will beat the Boeing 777-300ER on range and fuel burn per passenge" is not true, instead of merely bashing the messenger, maybe it wouldn't show up



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38995 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 25):

Well if the discussion would focus on explaining/demonstrating why the proposition "The Airbus A350-1000 will beat the Boeing 777-300ER on range and fuel burn per passenge" is not true, instead of merely bashing the messenger, maybe it wouldn't show up

As one of those Boeing boys, I have never doubted that the A3510 will beat the existing 77W on range and fuel burn per passenger. The question is how the A3510 will stack up on range and fuel burn per passenger against the 777X, and that is not something that we know much about yet. Since the customers do not know either, nor do they know when they can get either one, those that need planes NOW are buying 77W's. Those that can wait are sitting on their hands.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 39317 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
It's getting funny to take Leahy's comments about his products and put it back on a conversation some years ahead, just to see how he's as ridiculous as arrogant.

Geez, this from someone without the stars and bars next to their name?

You are giving some folks indigestion!

It seems it's time to put this one out again:

Quote:

"Having gone through the A380, learning from our mistakes, watching what is happening with the 787, and coming out four years after the 787, I think we should all be shot for gross incompetence if we have another screw up in the A350 programme. I'm sure we'll be on target."

John Leahy, 2009.

Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...Number=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604

It's hard to know which orifice Mr. Leahy is using when he speaks. Some time it's the mouth, some times it's the back side.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 38943 times:

Quoting something (Reply 19):
Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 16):
Of course it can't compete - its a paper airplane vs. a flying airplane.

To keep you abreast with the development of the last 20 or so years: Airplanes are not designed on paper anymore. They use computer technology these days. These computers use data collected in real life experiences and apply them to said models. As a result, they produce fairly accurate estimates about a machine's real life performance.

I'm sure they could print whats on the screen, making it a paper airplane.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 303 posts, RR: 44
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 37637 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
As one of those Boeing boys


To be clear, I didn't have "Boeing Boys" in mind when I posted, as I think most of those Boys would be mature enough to discuss the merits of their favorite planes against those of the competition without sinking down to insulting a guy who just stated something quite obviously true. And your post shows that !
JL-bashing doesn't necessarily relate to A vs B, it seems to be a sport in its own league  
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
The question is how the A3510 will stack up on range and fuel burn per passenger against the 777X


Actually the Leahy quote in the article only compares the A350-1000 and the 77W. He only mentions the 77X as the answer to the A350-1000 (to reinforce the argument that the 77W can't cut it).
His declarations could be confirmed or rejected by studying/guessing the performances of the respective aircraft. Instead we just get some crude, despising posts about JL. We already know he's a great salesguy with a mouth that can sometimes be too big for his own good. So what's the point ? Don't shoot the messenger, just prove the message is wrong !

As for the sales status, obviously the A350-1000 is not selling vs the 77W. Most likely because delivery dates are too far away and too uncertain, regardless of performance differences between the two.
So the A3510 can very well "be superior" (performance-wise) to the 77W, but sell less ; the two propositions are not contradictory.
Of course JL will choose to point out the proposition that is more positive for his product : that's his job !




[Edited 2012-05-28 10:37:40 subtly rephrased the part about the article mentioning 77X and A350. I made it sound like I think the 77W is on the way out, whereas several Tech/Ops threads have shown that it has a similar payload/range chart than the A3510, and has several other arguments running for it. It is a great plane with many more sucessful years ahead !]

[Edited 2012-05-28 10:44:31]


One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 37294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 29):
Actually the Leahy quote in the article only compares the A350-1000 and the 77W

Seems to have been lost in amongst the rush to stick the knife in somewhere.....

The 773ER CAN compete on a combination of availability and performance, making up in the former anything it loses in the latter (just as the A330 has with the 787)

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 29):
It only mentions the 77X as the answer to the A350-1000 (reinforcing the argument that the 77W can't cut it).

And reinforcing the argument that Boeing ARE working on something that can.......

JL certainly isn't the only one who can make a loud whistling noise when they want to.....  
Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
It's getting funny to take Leahy's comments about his products and put it back on a conversation some years ahead, just to see how he's as ridiculous as arrogant.

Seeing this, in the same post as......

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
The A350-1000 will be nothing more than a revamped A330 and I think Airbus is getting pretty embarrassed with that...

sometimes you just got to listen to the subject matter experts......  

Rgds


User currently offlineBLIKSEM From South Africa, joined Jan 2008, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 36951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 10):
Maybe 777-300ER cannot compete with A350-1000.
However, I assure you that 777-9X can

I fully agree with you .I am sure that Boeing wiil do their homework to ensure that their
worldbeater remains just that. Dream on Leahy.


User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 36670 times:

Let's just look at the article this thread is supposedly based on:
It's a crap article. Nothing substantial. Used car salesman talk. Not very becoming for an Airbus Salesman. Gorilla thumping chest...

Not sure what the purpose of JL or ATW is with this article...

Let's talk about merit of the planes itself and their place in time of their actual operation.

[Edited 2012-05-28 10:50:10]


Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 36601 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
Could the world imagine Boeing having a German or French man selling their planes

What does nationality have to do with selling planes?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
It's hard to know which orifice Mr. Leahy is using when he speaks. Some time it's the mouth, some times it's the back side.

Doesn't matter as long as he gets the customers to sign.

I'm not a fan of Leahy's style but what greater acknowledgement is there to his success than all the people trying to throw mud and explain away his success.


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 35927 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):

I'm not a fan of Leahy's style but what greater acknowledgement is there to his success than all the people trying to throw mud and explain away his success.

One thing I have learned in my 35 years in industry is that having a superior product is only half the battle; and often is the easier half. The other half is selling it. Selling is an art, and those of us who do not have the talent for it often look askance at those who do. I remember the sales manager at the grinding machine company; JL reminds me of him a lot; not only because they have many similar personality traits but they both were very good at selling their products.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1438 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 35707 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 34):

You are very correct.
The salesman DOES make the difference. To paraphrase a cliche saying: JL could easily sell ice to an eskimo.

So yes, he is good at what he does. It does come at a price however. Nothing is free in life. As successful as he is, people will mock you and dislike you. In the end, people like JL actually don't care. He's the one laughing all the way to the bank.



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlineglideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1603 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 35334 times:

What a guy! Watch the Blood Pressure John. The 350-10 may never be built. It will be too expensive despite the crash of the Euro. He is trying to keep it in the news. Nothing more.

The EU can no longer assist EADS to lower prices. Everyone is broke (except the Germans). The shrinking of the US defense budget will have the same effect on Boeing. 737 Max, 777NG. No clean sheet designs for quite a while from Boeing after the 787 IMO.



To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
User currently offlineairzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 35209 times:

One of the top salesman for years at Boeing was a Moroccan. Not sure your statement makes sense.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 11):


User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2686 posts, RR: 25
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 34621 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 36):
despite the crash of the Euro

Which "crash"? Did I miss anything?

Quoting glideslope (Reply 36):
The EU can no longer assist EADS to lower prices.

Could you please explain how the EU is "assisting" EADS? You mean they calculate the discounts for EADS or what?

@ JFK777: what's the problem with German or French salesman? Even your president has his roots in Africa. And do you know where the name Boeing comes from? (of course you know, was just a rethoric question)

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 1):
Also it goes as testament to the 777-300ER, on what an excellent aircraft it is and how over the years, it seems to have exceeded most airlines expectation and still continues to pull numerous orders from airlines that haven't operated the type previously. Even though was launched over a decade ago.

Well spoken. The 777 is really a(nother) success story of Boeing.


User currently offlineboeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 54
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 34350 times:

Leah running his mouth...

77W - orders (605)
its direct competition...
a346 - orders (97)

a350-1000 has what (62) orders since they started taking them and nothing since what 2008? Since 01/2008 Boeing has had (269) firm orders.

Since be in France, Leah can draw, develop and build his a350-1000 on all the cocktail napkins from his drunk rants.   



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 34222 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 41):
Since be in France, Leah can draw, develop and build his a350-1000 on all the cocktail napkins from his drunk rants.

One can only hope that your distinguished analysis presented above is a product of inebriation as well..



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 850 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 34111 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 2):
Lets, just wait until the A350 1000 hit the skies.

How very true   



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently onlineblueshamu330s From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 2852 posts, RR: 25
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 33925 times:

In life, I've found that when people mock, they are normally on the back foot and know it.

Time will tell if that applies in this instance.

Rgds



So I drive a 4x4. So what?! Tax the a$$ off me for it...oh, you already have... :-(
User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 33564 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 41):
Leah running his mouth...

77W - orders (605)
its direct competition...
a346 - orders (97)

a350-1000 has what (62) orders since they started taking them and nothing since what 2008? Since 01/2008 Boeing has had (269) firm orders.

Since be in France, Leah can draw, develop and build his a350-1000 on all the cocktail napkins from his drunk rants.   

How many of those 77W orders are for delivery after the true EIS of the A350-1000?

Answer... None..

The A350-1000 will be better than the 777-300ER in both costs and revenues (though the 10-abreast 77W is a fierce competitor) and I think even Boeing accepts this, which is why they launched the 777-8/9. Now with those two aircraft having commonality with the current 77W fleet, and the 77W likely to garner at least another 100-150 sales in that interim period (for direct 744 replacements and growth - I think SQ for example might want a top-up order, NH and JL will likely want more, DL and UA could use them as 744 replacements, KLM might take more, KE will likely add to their current 5 on order, and TK is very likely to take on more 77Ws). With all of these 77W operators in place, the 77X, which should at worst come very close to the operating economics of the 350-1000, ****might*** have the upper hand.

The A350-1000 certainly has its problems, but here John Leahy is just stating the obvious.


User currently offlineabba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1329 posts, RR: 2
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 33459 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Leahey's main problem now is that as the A350-1000's EIS is pushed farther and farther to the right, customers are buying 777-300ERs in the interim and that means less of them need an A350-1000 once slots become available.



The situation is much like the 330....

And it is highly doubtful if any 777 ever will. No matter what Boeing does - save for a clean sheet.

Remember: It is not enough just to match - or slightly beat - the A351 on CASM if that implies a much higher seat count. Higher seat count means more risk for the airline - and more risk means the need for significantly higher potential revenue. So having the same (or only slightly better) potential revenue on an 777x with - say with 15% more seats - means that the 777x is as dead as the 748i.

The 777x will simply loose out due to the 1.000.000 small things that - taken each on its own - cannot pay for a re-design only for each to contribute their 0.05% improvement that - when added up - makes the difference. Boeing's own talk as to the extent of a potential 777 re-design speaks in my ears volumes about this issue.

I consider the 777x as dead (or as a potential waking corps like the 748i - what a pity, by the way, that this ground breaking aircraft of beauty should end its run is such a undignified manner!!). If I was Boeing I would strongly warn against a Y3 at this point in time as it will prevent Boeing from effectively responding to a new NB from Airbus after the NEO. Boeing - please -keep focusing on the 787 and wait for Airbus to act as stupidly as Boeing did during Phil Condit. Sooner or later they eventually will....


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1882 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 33370 times:

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 15):
JL sold a lot of A330's because they are available when the 787 isn't or wasn't. I fail to see how this isn't the reverse.

Ummm...Boeing also sold just as many (if not more) 76's and Triples to cover the gap in service, so I fail to see the point of your argument.


User currently offlineMortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3834 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 33301 times:

Quoting glideslope (Reply 36):
The EU can no longer assist EADS to lower prices. Everyone is broke (except the Germans).

The US has been broke for over 20 years ...  


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31743 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 21):


The usual band of boeing boys are peppering this thread with their wisdoms.

Again with this?!? Surely you must realize that your constant complaining about other members' phantom biases despite no logical basis whatsoever only further establishes your reputation as the single most biased poster on the entire member list. I'm starting to think you relish the role however..

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
The 773ER CAN compete on a combination of availability and performance, making up in the former anything it loses in the latter (just as the A330 has with the 787)

Sure, however both the 77W and 330's ability to compete are based on unsustainable advantages; such will diminish relatively quickly as the availability of the superior products they compete with increases from production rates ramping up following EIS...the market ever changes. Obviously, A & B are well aware, as they're both considering re-designs to the current models so as not to fall victim to the innovative new products entering the market.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
JL certainly isn't the only one who can make a loud whistling noise when they want to.....  

Lol..no argument there.

Quoting BLIKSEM (Reply 31):
I fully agree with you .I am sure that Boeing wiil do their homework to ensure that their
worldbeater remains just that. Dream on Leahy.

Leahy's not "dreaming," as his statement about the *77W* was accurate IMO...obviously he failed to mention the likely update Boeing will give the 777 to compete with the A350, but he's a salesman (a damn good one at that), and such posturing is sales/marketing 101...nothing unusual.

The 77X won't be a "world beater" as its predecessor was because it will not only have a worthy competitor for the first time, but a competitor that should be slightly better from a strictly economical point of view. However, 77X doesn't need to be a world beater, as it already benefits from a strong market share advantage obtained by the 77W, therefore it only needs to "hold serve" against the A35J for it to be considered a successful venture by Boeing.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
The 777x will simply loose out due to the 1.000.000 small things that - taken each on its own - cannot pay for a re-design only for each to contribute their 0.05% improvement that - when added up - makes the difference. Boeing's own talk as to the extent of a potential 777 re-design speaks in my ears volumes about this issue.

I consider the 777x as dead (or as a potential waking corps like the 748i - what a pity, by the way, that this ground breaking aircraft of beauty should end its run is such a undignified manner!!). If I was Boeing I would strongly warn against a Y3 at this point in time as it will prevent Boeing from effectively responding to a new NB from Airbus after the NEO. Boeing - please -keep focusing on the 787 and wait for Airbus to act as stupidly as Boeing did during Phil Condit. Sooner or later they eventually will....

The 748i is an irrelevant comparison as it was soundly beaten by even the 77W from an economical standpoint. I disagree that the 77X is dead, and don't think it's as thoroughly dominated as you imply. To say that the 77X will only improve .05% over the 77W when we know it will have new tech wings and engines is laughable. We've seen many projections on here by the mathematically-inclined that show the 77X to be very competitive versus the competition despite its relative age. If the 77X is merely *competitive* economically, the dominant position of its predecessor as to market share and Boeing's ability to sell it @ a discount relative to the A35J will be sufficient to result in sales....not @ the level of the A35J, but surely it won't be "dead."


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31542 times:

Quoting something (Reply 19):
Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 16):
Of course it can't compete - its a paper airplane vs. a flying airplane.

To keep you abreast with the development of the last 20 or so years: Airplanes are not designed on paper anymore. They use computer technology these days. These computers use data collected in real life experiences and apply them to said models. As a result, they produce fairly accurate estimates about a machine's real life performance.

Purely a figure of speech. Take it as such.

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 21):
JL is right and we all know it. Will it sell more? Will it hit its design targets? Will it fly on time? These are things we don't know

And neither does he, although he has to act as though he knows. BTW, have they ever settled on the window shape, yet?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineflylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31476 times:

Quoting gilesdavies (Reply 1):
Of course the COO of Airbus is going to say the A350-1000 is better than the 777-300ER, they are barely going to say otherwise.

Now that would be a thread: "Leahy says 'Our stuff is junk and the 777-300ER is better than the A350-1000'"



...are we there yet?
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 31184 times:

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 49):
The US has been broke for over 20 years ...  

So Leahy should push the A350 to Greece, Italy, Spain..., to get the aircraft sold at discount may be able to get some frames in the air.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30954 times:

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
I consider the 777x as dead

There seem to be a few big airlines out there that disagree with you...



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlineMD2012 From United States of America, joined May 2012, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 30283 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Stitch

So, when is the estimated EIS for the 350-1000 again?

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 41):

Very very impressive indeed, but just out of curiousity how many of those were due to compensation for delays with the 787 (i.e. BA). Even so, the amount of orders speaks volume about how much airlines love this bird.

Quoting something (Reply 19):

Would be a nice discussion to see how 350-1000 stacks up against the 787-10 which is also maximize for similar range.


User currently offlineChimborazo From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 71 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29690 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
John Leahy, Airbus' main salesman, an American who lives in France and doesn't speak French what an oxymoron. Could the world imagine Boeing having a German or French man selling their planes, the unions would have something to say about that. Such a person would have to speak English as it is the " linga franca " of aviation. Leahy a character of French proprtions.

Mate, take a little stroll outside your own head sometime. A large proportion of French, German, [insert long-stablished European country here] people, particularly those in hi-tech industries, speak very good English. In fact, I'm sad to say, a lot of Europeans I've met have a better grasp of English than many folk from my own isle. Further, as a continental European wanting to get a job in pretty much any big company you're expected to speak English as well as your own tongue, many people speak 3 or 4 languages.

In fact, an American selling a European joint-effort product is actually pretty good: the face and voice that hits the media and talks to the customers isn't showing up any particular country as "favourite".

One of a few things less good about growing up in England is that we don't push foreign languages as so many folk speak English these days. Following on: it can be difficult when you're older to learn a foreign language and if most folk you work with/meet speak with you in English... I can fully appreciate why one might not learn the language. I'm not defending it or him but it's certaainly understandable.

For the record, I'm a Boeing fan for the simple reason that they make better planes than Airbus *.




*(Better to look at, that is!)

[Edited 2012-05-28 16:05:56]

User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6862 posts, RR: 63
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 29457 times:

"Fernandes confirmed the airline will do a come-back to Europe when the A350-1000 arrives in 2015. “Hopefully it is not delayed,” he said."

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engine...s-fill-gap-until-a320neo-arrives-0

I thought that was mildly interesting...  


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2010 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 29021 times:

The usual sales talk, though I suspect Airbus are slightly worried about the A350-1000 variant, which has been revised once already and now has lost some of its compatability with the A359, a move which hasn't yet produced great sales.

It reminds me of Boeing's regular missives about all the hundreds of airlines its talking to about the 748i...



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinepoLot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2122 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28882 times:

Quoting PM (Reply 58):
I thought that was mildly interesting...

I'm guessing they meant the A359, because if Tony switched to the A350-1000 while expecting an 2015 EIS he is going to be very disappointed.


User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6862 posts, RR: 63
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28860 times:

Quoting poLot (Reply 60):
I'm guessing they meant the A359, because if Tony switched to the A350-1000 while expecting an 2015 EIS he is going to be very disappointed.

That was part of why I found it interesting!  


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28784 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
Geez, this from someone without the stars and bars next to their name?

You are giving some folks indigestion!

Am I?  
Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
It seems it's time to put this one out again:

Quote:

"Having gone through the A380, learning from our mistakes, watching what is happening with the 787, and coming out four years after the 787, I think we should all be shot for gross incompetence if we have another screw up in the A350 programme. I'm sure we'll be on target."

John Leahy, 2009.

Ref: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...er=2&virtualBrandChannel=11604

It's hard to know which orifice Mr. Leahy is using when he speaks. Some time it's the mouth, some times it's the back side.

Gotta love this one!
I think while Boeing is selling planes, Airbus (Leahy) is selling more and more PR and useless (bad?) policy.



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
Could the world imagine Boeing having a German or French man selling their planes
What does nationality have to do with selling planes?
Quoting N14AZ (Reply 38):

There is absolutely nothing wrong German or French people selling a Boeing plane. In the English speaking world it widely accepted, as most English speaking advanced countries are multi-cultural. In France and Germany most " senior" positions are from the country. Even in a country as advanced a the UK Bob Diamond being CEO of Barclays Bank is new territory, he is American. Can you imagine the day an American is CEO of Renault or BMW ?


User currently offlineairproxx From France, joined Jun 2008, 624 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28431 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
sometimes you just got to listen to the subject matter experts......

Well, as very very very far as I am from considering myself a subject matter "expert", you have to admit that the A350 genesis comes from a "enhanced" A330, that as been stretched, re-engined, bigger-windowed, as many times as it has been publicly "revealed" on press conferences since years now... I even remember models that would have scared the most soviet jets fanatic amongst us all ! (No offence, really   )This design method was very far from the one preached by Airbus which is still arguing the fact that they produce novelties, rather than old revamped designs (designating Boeing obviously).
I know they went to a completely new design after that (and the rather possible failure of the first design attempt). But....

So the blank sheet policy sold by John Leahy today is a pretty funny joke I think.

Cheers  



If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 28377 times:

How can it be that Leahy, who is a drunk ranter, does not speak French, talks out of his a$$ and all the other personal issues he has, has made Airbus the number 1 supplier of aeroplanes in the world. Guys, you make it personal then you lose, facts are that he has helped make Airbus the company it is now. Also, by being good he has helped Boeing who will soon pass Airbus as the largest supplier. Think about that.

For me, I get safe reliable transport from them both.

Now if Airbus could put the 320 assembly in MA instead of AL, I would be happy.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12845 posts, RR: 100
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 28170 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EWRandMDW (Reply 3):
The 777-300ER is real and flying passengers worldwide while the A350-1000 exists on computer screens and blueprints. The 777 has a phantom plane to compete against!

But there are proven technologies that will make next generation aircraft more efficient. The reality is Boeing must develop the 777X to stay competitive. It is a question of when, not if.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 5):
Leahey's main problem now is that as the A350-1000's EIS is pushed farther and farther to the right, customers are buying 777-300ERs in the interim and that means less of them need an A350-1000 once slots become available.

  

Quoting something (Reply 19):
General consensus appears to be otherwise. From what is being voiced, the A35K will be better on missions up to 6000nm stage length. On longer flights, the 77W remains superior. Even with the new stretched design, the A35K will not be able to replace the 77Ws on all of its missions.

While true, I expect Boeing will have reduce the 'break even range' for good 777 sales. Hence the 777X.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 30):
The 773ER CAN compete on a combination of availability and performance, making up in the former anything it loses in the latter (just as the A330 has with the 787)

Just as the A330 still competes with the 787.   

All airframes have a sales life unless upgraded. It is coming time for another 777 upgrade. That is all.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 476 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 27990 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 63):
Can you imagine the day an American is CEO of Renault or BMW ?

The CEO of Renault is Brazilian. Does that count?  


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 27546 times:

I'm not sure you can disagree with Leahy here - but, as others have noted, the comparison wont really between the 77W and 351, but the 77X and the 351.

Quoting abba (Reply 47):
I consider the 777x as dead (or as a potential waking corps like the 748i - what a pity, by the way, that this ground breaking aircraft of beauty should end its run is such a undignified manner!!). If I was Boeing I would strongly warn against a Y3 at this point in time as it will prevent Boeing from effectively responding to a new NB from Airbus after the NEO. Boeing - please -keep focusing on the 787 and wait for Airbus to act as stupidly as Boeing did during Phil Condit. Sooner or later they eventually will....

Strange.

I find the strategy generally more interesting than the aircrfat's performance (though that of course feeds into the strategy etc).

I think Airbus was well and truly outmanoeuvred by Boeing in the 320-400 seat space care of the 77W, whether Boeing originally intended to do so or just got lucky. It soundly outperformaed the 346, entering the fleets of first-movers seeking either additional capacity (EK, QR) or, progressively, as a replacement for 744 fleets (AI, AC, CX, JL, NK, NZ, AF, KL etc).

As the 77W has served the needs of these airlines over the 2000s while Airbus had no offering (the 346 dying a slow death). Now implanted in these fleets, the aircraft has progressivley improved and satisfied these airlines' needs for the next 10-15 years, possilby more. It's a reliable and efficient aircraft that airlines have established support systems and a high level of confidence in.

Airbus's belated response with the 351, with an EIS that remains uncertain and specs that have shifted more than some cusotmers apparently want, is now likely to compete with the 77W successor, with its own lesser-capacity jets (358/9) not only just entering airlines' fleets en masse a few years before the 77X, thereby somewhat negating fleet commonality/airline confidence benefits.

So if anything, abba, Boeing appears to have its shiz together in this space. All assuming, of course, that the 77X is a goer.


User currently offlineboeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 54
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 24465 times:

Quoting something (Reply 43):
One can only hope that your distinguished analysis presented above is a product of inebriation as well..

Called a figure of speech, take it as that... Most your reply's are critical towards other members anyways.

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 46):
How many of those 77W orders are for delivery after the true EIS of the A350-1000?

Answer... None..

(358) 777s left to be built and delivered... (267) of those are 77W. Boeing averages 45-48 new build 77W/yr since 2009. So you tell me with a EIS of 2017, the math states they will still be delivering them come 2017. Also the (3) carriers this year ordering the 77W, DT, BR, & AC. Two of them added purchase rights for additional 77W's. More orders, more business, longer wait.



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlineN14AZ From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2686 posts, RR: 25
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 24465 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 63):
Can you imagine the day an American is CEO of Renault or BMW ?

Actually yes: grew up in Rüsselsheim, the City of Opel, which has an US American CEO since decades.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 24494 times:

Quoting col (Reply 8):
Just reduce the 77W noise and I will be happy.

Hear, Hear! I'm all for a quieter 777 cabin.

I kinda like John Leahy . . .   


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 68, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 23926 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 70):
(358) 777s left to be built and delivered... (267) of those are 77W. Boeing averages 45-48 new build 77W/yr since 2009. So you tell me with a EIS of 2017, the math states they will still be delivering them come 2017.

Wow, steady there trigger, Boeing ain't gonna be cutting production to support your argument. Try production being at 60+, then do the maths. Now the real point is how will the order book for the 77W perform in 3 to 5 years from now. Sadly, we don't have a crystal ball, but I am sure the 77W will be being produced in even after the 351 lands at an airport near you.


User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 23556 times:

At least one forward thinker is sticking to the 350-1000

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...cks-with-a350-1000-for-now-371833/

JL is on track.


User currently offlineboeingfever777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 409 posts, RR: 54
Reply 70, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22993 times:

Quoting col (Reply 73):

Boeing O/D for delivered 77W.

2011 - 52
2010 - 40
2009 - 52

total = 144
3yr average = 48 frames

(358) outstanding 777 orders to be built and of those (275) are 77W, (83) non-77W. They just don't place those to the back of the build log. No argument... Just math, try it. (275) 77W un-built orders at an average of 48 frames a yr (if they only built 77W) which they do not = 5.7yrs.



Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre.
User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 22859 times:

Quoting airproxx (Reply 20):
It's getting funny to take Leahy's comments about his products and put it back on a conversation some years ahead, just to see how he's as ridiculous as arrogant.

Do you really think that the A351 will turn out worse than the 77W? Think again!

I tell you it is funny, how quickly people reach emergency mode bar any common sense when they see the name of John Leahy mentioned. Completely ignoring whether his statements could be true or wrong, relevant or irrelevant. This time his statement was true but irrelevant. What he said is a no-brainer. People who don't see that easily match him on the scale of brain-less chatter. I would say they beat him.

But I also admit, that his comparison is pointless. Because the A350-1000 is so late, that the 77W will not be the Boeing product, Airbus has to compete against.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26):
As one of those Boeing boys, I have never doubted that the A3510 will beat the existing 77W on range and fuel burn per passenger.

This is a good position to have.


User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 22030 times:

I've been in sales my whole life and one of the basic rules of selling is --If your competitors are spending a lot of time and energy talking about your products that actually helps you. It usually reaffirms to the buyer that you have a pretty good product.

The more time and energy Mr. Leahy puts into talking about the 777 the better it is for Boeing.


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 21934 times:

Quote:
Leahy- 777-300ER Cannot Compete With A350-1000

In reverse: A350-1000 Cannot Compete With 777-9X

 


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 21015 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 70):
(358) outstanding 777 orders to be built and of those (275) are 77W, (83) non-77W. They just don't place those to the back of the build log. No argument... Just math, try it. (275) 77W un-built orders at an average of 48 frames a yr (if they only built 77W) which they do not = 5.7yrs.

You are using historical data. 777 is running at 7/month and will go to 8.3/month by early 2013. You can use the 77% split of output being the W version. You will see what I mean if you use todays facts.

Like I said, Boeing is not gonna slow down the line for you, the customers need those noisy 777 asap.  


User currently offlineN5716B From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20956 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 2):
Lets, just wait until the A350 1000 hit the skies.

This turn of phrase always makes me nervous.



Bring back the L-1011!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 20676 times:

The discussion of how many 77W's that are on order will be delivered after the A3510 flies is overlooking two points. One is that 77W orders are still pouring in, while A3510 orders are not. The second is that if a carrier orders an A3510 today they will probably not receive it the day after the A3510 enters service, but probably years after due to the availability of A350 slots in general. Which, combined with uncertainty over the performance of the 777X is why the A3510 is not selling.


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20137 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 12):
You both miss the point that has been stated here on A-net over and over again

Unlikely, given that I have argued for exactly the same point in the recent A350-1000 thread.  

I have never understood the need to go one-up on your competitor in public in the aviation industry. If we are talking about two competing supermarket chains, sure, "mine's better than yours" makes sense from marketing perspective. But in the aviation industry, those who makes the decision are not going to be swayed by this kind of PR, and those who would be swayed are not in a position to make decisions.

I am sure A350-1000 will become a very successful aircraft and it should be better than 77W. I just think JL should focus more on selling A350s and stay away from this kind of PR which frankly is only slightly better than the ridiculous "A380 is too quiet" claim. Make the aircraft a leader in its class and orders will follow.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8271 posts, RR: 7
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 63):
The CEO of Renault is Brazilian. Does that count?

Carlos Ghosn of Lebanesse decent which was a French colony, so he is colonial French. His family some how ended up in Brazil.

Quoting N14AZ (Reply 66):
Can you imagine the day an American is CEO of Renault or BMW ?
Actually yes: grew up in Rüsselsheim, the City of Opel, which has an US American CEO since decades.

Opel has been GM's gerrman subsiduary for nearly 100 years, so ot would be natural for it to have a US CEO.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19894 times:

No One knows how good the 8X and the 9X will be, its not defined yet, just ideas. If B cant get the 8 and 9X to what they want, what will they do then? Live with a smaller market in both 777 and 737. Giving up their bread and butter sort of.

Maybe the McDonnell curse still haunts Boeing? Going from no need to change the 77W to a panic 77X seems a bit strange. No NSA or Y3 on the horizon and yet A is sort of going for the jugular in all areas, the board being asleep at the wheel? Dividends are more important than long term profit and survival? Maybe 787 was the last new build for a long time at Boeing, being a mess scares any new ideas to firm.

Sure the governmental aircraft factory that Airbus is IMO, Boeing should have woken many years ago.


User currently offlinevin2basketball From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19431 times:

Quoting boeingfever777 (Reply 65):
(358) 777s left to be built and delivered... (267) of those are 77W. Boeing averages 45-48 new build 77W/yr since 2009. So you tell me with a EIS of 2017, the math states they will still be delivering them come 2017. Also the (3) carriers this year ordering the 77W, DT, BR, & AC. Two of them added purchase rights for additional 77W's. More orders, more business, longer wait.

True EIS of 350-1000 DNE 2017, the most likely timeline is mid 2018 or into 2019


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 81, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 19445 times:

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 43):
I think even Boeing accepts this, which is why they launched the 777-8/9.

I think it's important to point out that the 777X is NOT launched. Indeed Boeing is talking about such a product because it is expected that the A350 will be an excellent product, and indeed such an upgrade to 777 is inevitable, but Boeing has the great advantage of great orders and ongoing sales in this space and thus a great ability to decide exactly when its replacement will be launched and what form it will take. This is similar to the A350 situation where B787 had already launched and Airbus was able to size it to hit the gap between the 787 and 777 with plenty of overlap as well.

Right now the 777X isn't costing Boeing a lot of money, yet is generating a whole lot of market interest and is causing people at Airbus a whole lot of concern.

Quoting abba (Reply 44):
The 777x will simply loose out due to the 1.000.000 small things that - taken each on its own - cannot pay for a re-design only for each to contribute their 0.05% improvement that - when added up - makes the difference.

Time will tell on that one, but Boeing has a huge interest in getting it right and has a lot of resources available to make sure it does.

No aircraft is ideal. As good as the A350 is, we are certainly hearing that has been under schedule pressure for at least a year or two, so some compromises are inevitable, and the tinkering with the A350-1000 specs shows that there is still some issues with getting that product right.

Quoting col (Reply 61):
How can it be that Leahy, who is a drunk ranter, does not speak French, talks out of his a$$ and all the other personal issues he has, has made Airbus the number 1 supplier of aeroplanes in the world.

When push comes to shove, it's really about the product. Leahy is a great salesperson, but he's getting way too much of the credit for Airbus's success. I'm sure he has a strong team pulling together the sales presentations, and of course there's a huge team doing the actual design and manufacture of the product.

Quoting col (Reply 61):
Now if Airbus could put the 320 assembly in MA instead of AL, I would be happy.

I love it - we'd throw in a free thermos filled with chowda for each plane sold!

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 64):
the 346 dying a slow death

Actually, as of this year, the A340 is officially dead in terms of new frames being sold or produced.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 82, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19246 times:

Quoting N5716B (Reply 75):
Quoting 747400sp (Reply 2):Lets, just wait until the A350 1000 hit the skies.This turn of phrase always makes me nervous.

I agree, it should read "if the A-3510 hits the skies".

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):
Maybe the McDonnell curse still haunts Boeing? Going from no need to change the 77W to a panic 77X seems a bit strange. No NSA or Y3 on the horizon and yet A is sort of going for the jugular in all areas, the board being asleep at the wheel? Dividends are more important than long term profit and survival? Maybe 787 was the last new build for a long time at Boeing, being a mess scares any new ideas to firm.

Boeing has done a few PIPs to the B-777 in the last 10 years, and will continue to do more of them. They are not sitting on their hands. I don't see any area where Airbus is going for Boeing's juglar vain. I doubt even the EU would allow Airbus to drive Boeing out of the commerical airplane business. Boeing is working on more commerical airplanes, PIPs, and new models than Airbus is capable of. Boeing, as a global company is about 2X the size of Airbus (globally).

Here is a list of Airbus and Boeing commerical products they each are working on;

AIRBUS;

A-380-800-PIP
A-380-800-Rib Feet
A-380-PRODUCTION
A-350-8/-9/-10
A-320NEO
A-320-Sharklet
A-330-PIP/NEO
A-330F

BOEING;
B-747-8F/I PIP
B-787-9/-10
B-787-8-PRODUCTION
B-777-8X/-9X
B-77W/L/F-PIP
B-767-300ER/ERF-PIP
B-767-2C
B-737NG-PIP
B-737MAX
B-737-BATW

Airbus is working on 8 different commerical projects, and Boeing is working on 10. I did not include military programs, even though both have them. But if you were to include them, Airbus has 5-6 military projects going, and Boeing has about 15-18 military programs.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 83, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 19003 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
When push comes to shove, it's really about the product. Leahy is a great salesperson, but he's getting way too much of the credit for Airbus's success. I'm sure he has a strong team pulling together the sales presentations, and of course there's a huge team doing the actual design and manufacture of the product.

Maybe the product helped, but when you look at the die hard/only Boeing operators who went to Airbus, then you have to have a good strategy to take someone from their comfort zone, and Boeing is a safe comfort zone. He is good.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
I love it - we'd throw in a free thermos filled with chowda for each plane sold!

We'll do the factory tours in the fall with a free bag of leaves from my back yard, but you pick your own just like strawberry and apple season. Sadly by then the Sox will be out of the play offs, and the Pats will promise so much only to screw it up in the "Scupper Ball".

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
No aircraft is ideal. As good as the A350 is, we are certainly hearing that has been under schedule pressure for at least a year or two, so some compromises are inevitable, and the tinkering with the A350-1000 specs shows that there is still some issues with getting that product right.

   The manufacturers have to draw the line at some point, and there will always be that few percent if they waited longer they could have got. Fact of life, and if all the airlines got what they wanted there would be 100's of 737's in different shapes and sizes!!


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 84, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 18914 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 29):
Actually the Leahy quote in the article only compares the A350-1000 and the 77W.

That's not what I'm reading.

From the article:

Quote:
“Boeing knows the 777 won’t compete and that’s why they talk about folding wings and crazy things like that,” he said.

Which 777 won't compete? If he's referring to any 777 variant including future derivatives, he's dead wrong. If he was referring to the currently available 777 (except for the 777F) then I'd agree.

Quoting abba (Reply 44):
Remember: It is not enough just to match - or slightly beat - the A351 on CASM if that implies a much higher seat count. Higher seat count means more risk for the airline - and more risk means the need for significantly higher potential revenue. So having the same (or only slightly better) potential revenue on an 777x with - say with 15% more seats - means that the 777x is as dead as the 748i.
Quoting abba (Reply 44):
I consider the 777x as dead

Clearly you haven't kept up to date with Boeing's latest predictions for the 777X. If it meets its targets, it will have 11% more seats but 21% better fuel burn per seat 777-300ER which, unless I'm very much mistaken, translates to a trip cost advantage over the current plane. According to ferpe's calculations the 777-9X will have better fuel burn per seat than the A350-1000.

The 777X isn't just a warm over of the current 777-300ER. It is much, much more than that. It will have larger wings, made from composite materials, will probably both reduce weight and add lift - or at least, add lift without adding weight. There's also going to be a wider cabin through the use of thinner and lighter insulation, which allows for a greater seat count, thus improving its fuel burn per seat figures. There's also the possibility that the fuselage skin will be made from Al-Li. It will have brand new engines which are newer than the Trent XWB. At this early stage of the program, anything's possible.

People who so easily dismiss the 777X off hand are just as short sighted and narrow minded as those who dismiss the A350.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 85, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18656 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):
No One knows how good the 8X and the 9X will be, its not defined yet, just ideas. If B cant get the 8 and 9X to what they want, what will they do then? Live with a smaller market in both 777 and 737. Giving up their bread and butter sort of.

I don't think they'd be talking so much about it if they didn't have a pretty good idea that they will get to where they need to be.

For instance: http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

Quoting sweair (Reply 79):
going from no need to change the 77W to a panic 77X seems a bit strange.

Why do you sense panic? According to the above link, they've been working on it pretty hard in 2010 and 2011 so they can be in a position to get board approval by end of this year. That's the polar opposite of what happened with 737MAX.

Quoting col (Reply 83):
He is good.

Actually I went a step further and said he is great, but still, I think he gets too much credit. It's not like he's the only one who works for sales at Airbus, and he is selling an excellent product.

Quoting col (Reply 83):
We'll do the factory tours in the fall with a free bag of leaves from my back yard, but you pick your own just like strawberry and apple season.

Sounds better than putting them in hip waders and sending them down to the cranberry bog!  
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
will probably both reduce weight and add lift - or at least, add lift without adding weight.

Pretty much a given, seeing that we know that Boeing sent out RFPs for a 99k lb thrust engine, down from the 115k you find on the 777W.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 86, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18645 times:

Quoting vin2basketball (Reply 80):
True EIS of 350-1000 DNE 2017, the most likely timeline is mid 2018 or into 2019

Why is mid 2018 or into 2019 most likely? What information do you have that the OEM does not have access to? It is not as they count their numbers and then shorten it by a year or two because there is no negative effects from announcing delays.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
If he's referring to any 777 variant including future derivatives, he's dead wrong. If he was referring to the currently available 777 (except for the 777F) then I'd agree.

Of course he was referring to current version.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
Clearly you haven't kept up to date with Boeing's latest predictions for the 777X. If it meets its targets, it will have 11% more seats but 21% better fuel burn per seat 777-300ER

777X is less defined than the mysterious 787-10 definition and even less defined that Sonic Cruiser, very much a work in progress.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 87, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 18424 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
What information do you have that the OEM does not have access to?
Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
777X is less defined than the mysterious 787-10 definition and even less defined that Sonic Cruiser,

To use your own line, what information do you have that the OEM does not have access to?

From my link above:

Quote:

"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 Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief executive Jim Albaugh.

Seems to me we're at or beyond beyond Sonic Cruiser turf. The article provides info on performance per seat, wingspan, engine thrust, schedule, etc. It suggests one round of wind tunnel studies have been done. We've had articles with several key airlines including EK and BA expressing a lot of interest in it. It's pretty clear to most observers that the 777 will need refreshing if not replacement by the end of the decade, whereas the SC was largely a pipe dream and would have turned out to be an utter marketplace disaster had it gone forward, which even the Stonecipher era Boeing management was able to figure out once customers got the data on it.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 88, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 18198 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
The 777X isn't just a warm over of the current 777-300ER.

Though I agree with you on this one, at the time the first generation A350, which had comparable changes to the the predecessor model A330, was deemed a warmed-over design, especially here on A-net.   Which btw already had 200 firm orders before the A350-XWB was born.

But again on topic; the B777-300ER is probably not long on offer in 2017 or later. Since the first free A35J slots are expected to be in 2019 it will be positioned against the B777-X variants. How well these planes will compete with each other is still too early to tell. It will be (imho) quite a fierce battle, which is good. There is no way that the situation where the B77W is virtually without competition will endure for another decade.  .


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 18192 times:

I think the 777-8X could be the only good model and the 9 a dog. Sort of like the 739ER being a real dog in its family.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 18150 times:



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
I tell you it is funny, how quickly people reach emergency mode bar any common sense when they see the name of John Leahy mentioned. Completely ignoring whether his statements could be true or wrong, relevant or irrelevant. This time his statement was true but irrelevant. What he said is a no-brainer. People who don't see that easily match him on the scale of brain-less chatter. I would say they beat him.

The commenting of A350-1000 vs 777-300ER does not surprise me. It really sounds like they will have a good plane, but it takes time to develop and Leahy is trying to court customers that are willing to wait. Placing orders and having to wait 6-8 years for delivery is a problem and I think that is what he is facing. Financing is a lot tighter on aircraft. Both Airbus and Boeing have seen airlines having to delay orders (sometimes for airplanes already in production or built) because financing is more difficult to get. With how tight margins are, tenths of a percent in interest rates can make the difference between a new order being profitable or not for an airline.

Long lead times is one of the biggest problems that Airbus faces. The A320NEO and A350 have proved popular, but they are still in development. Leahy doesn’t have a product to sell other than the A330 and A320 which are not very easy to sell based on a life cycle of 20 years since they are nearing the end of their production runs. Profit margin on a new A320 or A330 is going to be much lower since they have to discount the airplane because it does not have the 20 year life cycle fuel and maintenance advantage of its upcoming competition (787, A350, A320NEO or 737MAX).

Even though John Leahy is not in a very good position to sell more airplanes right now (other than A380s), he still does predict some sales, which I think is reasonable. The current huge backlogs, and long waits on the new improved models, and two models hitting the end of their life does not make it easy for him to get big sales numbers. Even though it does not look like the year of Airbus for sales, I think there will still be some customers shopping and Leahy is working it as he always does.

Quoting cmf (Reply 86):
Why is mid 2018 or into 2019 most likely? What information do you have that the OEM does not have access to? It is not as they count their numbers and then shorten it by a year or two because there is no negative effects from announcing delays.

I think it is reasonable to accept there is a genuine risk for delays in a program as complex as a new airplane. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that the airplane will be late. The last two major programs by Airbus and Boeing were both severely late, but I expect they have accounted for many of the problems and there would not be delays for the same reasons.

If I was told 2017, then I would believe it, and realize that with any forward looking speculation there is risk.

[Edited 2012-05-29 10:18:27]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 91, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 18094 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
This time his statement was true but irrelevant.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 71):
I also admit, that his comparison is pointless.

I have to ask, then: Why did you post it if it is irrelevant and pointless? Just curious...

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 84):
Which 777 won't compete? If he's referring to any 777 variant including future derivatives, he's dead wrong. If he was referring to the currently available 777 (except for the 777F) then I'd agree.

He is referring to the current 777, implying that it's inability to compete with the A350-1000 is why Boeing is looking at folding wings et al. I'm sure if pushed he'd have similar things to say about the rumored 777X. He might be right.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 18037 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 81):
This is similar to the A350 situation where B787 had already launched and Airbus was able to size it to hit the gap between the 787 and 777 with plenty of overlap as well.


Some differences IIRC from conventional wisdom on this site:

Boeing aggressively marketed the 787, along with an even more aggressive time schedule, and on that basis mopped up most of the market for that particular size. Airbus went with a larger plane because they were somewhat forced to. Cynics amongst us note that Boeing won this round with its pixel plane (and is paying dearly for the victory)

Sizing planes is hard. For the 787, the -3 self aborted early in gestation. The 8 was good enough that it did not have to be altered near as much to become the -9 variant. The -10 now is going to be a larger but shorter ranged variant. This is a pretty major difference from what Boeing first envisioned. The results so far suggest that the -9 and -10 may be the big winners.

Airbus did the 350-9 as the standard version, and obviously well placed. The -8 is a little problematical, good but not ideal. The -10 has been more problematical, and Airbus has been changing its size/range to create an optimum plane for particular airlines and routes. At this point the -9 is likely the big winner.

Boeing has figured out possible variants of the 777 which will enlarge the niches where it competes with the 350. The argulment is just how large those niches will beome. A big hit, or just OK?



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17910 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 87):
To use your own line, what information do you have that the OEM does not have access to?

Where did I claim to have more than Boeing   

Quoting Revelation (Reply 87):
Seems to me we're at or beyond beyond Sonic Cruiser turf. The article provides info on performance per seat, wingspan, engine thrust, schedule, etc. It suggests one round of wind tunnel studies have been done

The article calls 77X "conceptual specifications". That means trying to figure out what ideas may have potential. Sonic Cruiser was way beyond first round of wind tunnel studies.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 90):
I think it is reasonable to accept there is a genuine risk for delays in a program as complex as a new airplane. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that the airplane will be late. The last two major programs by Airbus and Boeing were both severely late, but I expect they have accounted for many of the problems and there would not be delays for the same reasons.

If I was told 2017, then I would believe it, and realize that with any forward looking speculation there is risk.

I agree with what you say. I'm objecting to the idea that we should automatically add a year or two to every date given by an OEM because the previous project(s) was late.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 94, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 17843 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):
I'm objecting to the idea that we should automatically add a year or two to every date given by an OEM because the previous project(s) was late.

Bernstein Research is still convinced the A350-900 will EIS in 2015, though they now believe it will be early 2015 as opposed to late 2015. So if you believe their outlook is accurate, that could push the A350-1000 EIS to 2018.


User currently offlinejreuschl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17766 times:

Remember also, 4 engines are safer than 2. The A340 orders keep rolling in...   

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 17680 times:

I think some of us here are failing to see what them stem of his argument is. He, JL, is claiming the A350-k will be better than the B773-er, which is true. But shouldn't he thinking what the 789 and the 787-10 will bring to the table?? The counter offer for the 787 was the 350 but now since the inevitable introduction of the 7778x and 9x, one family of planes is essentially taking on two. What hasn't been mentioned is the smaller 777-200LR possible replacement that the FG article states as being the 777-8LX.

When the fox can't reach the fruit, he'll always say its sour or isn't worth the effort. He's just doing what a salesman does.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 97, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 17513 times:

Leahy wouldn't even be mentioning this subject if he were confident in the A-3510. He has not sold one since 2008, and of the 75 originally ordered, 13 have been cancelled or converted, the orderbook now stands at just 62 airplanes.

It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 98, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 17494 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.

Can you elaborate on why the A3510 is looking like the A345/6? The A345/6 were heavier than their competition, burned more fuel, had higher maintenance and had (slightly) lower capacity. It is pretty clear on paper why they were not popular.

I don't see how the same conclusion can be made with the A351 looking more efficient than the 77W. The 77X is undefined, and the A359 looks to be in a class of its own. I wouldn't expect the A351 to set sales records like the 77W has for large widebody twins, but I would not expect it to need to since it can ride as a member of the A350 family. It can be much more successful than the A345/6 if it only makes up 20% of A350 sales.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 99, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 17452 times:

Quoting jreuschl (Reply 95):
Remember also, 4 engines are safer than 2. The A340 orders keep rolling in...

Great post, take the rest of the day off.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
Leahy wouldn't even be mentioning this subject if he were confident in the A-3510. He has not sold one since 2008, and of the 75 originally ordered, 13 have been cancelled or converted, the orderbook now stands at just 62 airplanes.

It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.

Oh dear, this is what we are down to now on this topic.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17136 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 90):
I think it is reasonable to accept there is a genuine risk for delays in a program as complex as a new airplane. However, I don’t think it is fair to say that the airplane will be late. The last two major programs by Airbus and Boeing were both severely late, but I expect they have accounted for many of the problems and there would not be delays for the same reasons.


Using that logic, there is a good chance a major change like the 77X will be late as well.

In the meantime, the A320 will have the new sharklet, which is going to offer significant improvements.

[Edited 2012-05-29 19:02:57]

User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 101, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 16801 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 98):
I don't see how the same conclusion can be made with the A351 looking more efficient than the 77W. The 77X is undefined, and the A359 looks to be in a class of its own. I wouldn't expect the A351 to set sales records like the 77W has for large widebody twins, but I would not expect it to need to since it can ride as a member of the A350 family. It can be much more successful than the A345/6 if it only makes up 20% of A350 sales.

Well, and to add to that, the A351 is competing with an immensely popular 359 and a decent 358 for production space. I don't think Airbus needs to have dozens being ordered right now, as the production line will be humming along fairly well without it. In due time the specs will be firmed, the 777X will be offered (if that's what B chooses to do) and airlines will move ahead with their ordering decisions. Until then...

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1560 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 16734 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
Quoting cmf (Reply 93):I'm objecting to the idea that we should automatically add a year or two to every date given by an OEM because the previous project(s) was late.
Bernstein Research is still convinced the A350-900 will EIS in 2015, though they now believe it will be early 2015 as opposed to late 2015. So if you believe their outlook is accurate, that could push the A350-1000 EIS to 2018.

Airbus expects first flight of the A350 now to be "towards the end of first half 2013". Without further delays, I personally expect EIS to be Q3 2014. But Airbus is taking much care not to run into the same problems as the 787, and be ready for production without the amount of rework as the first 60 production 787s. That takes more time than expected.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 98):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.
Can you elaborate on why the A3510 is looking like the A345/6? The A345/6 were heavier than their competition, burned more fuel, had higher maintenance and had (slightly) lower capacity. It is pretty clear on paper why they were not popular.

If there is one program that has the risk of the same fate as the A345/6, it's the 777-8X and -9X.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 616 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16519 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 100):

Using your logic how can something that is still a concept be late?? Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the new 777 variants (8x &9x) going to consist of a

stretching of thefuselage with a different blend of metals and a cfrp wing and some refinements to shed excess weight?? Mind you Boeing has been

working on this since 2010. I'm sure they would have approached the board by now but they have had an extremely rough learning curve with the 787 so I

doubt past mistakes will not be repeated. Correct me if I'm wrong.


User currently offlinecol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 104, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16469 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 102):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 98):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.
Can you elaborate on why the A3510 is looking like the A345/6? The A345/6 were heavier than their competition, burned more fuel, had higher maintenance and had (slightly) lower capacity. It is pretty clear on paper why they were not popular.

If there is one program that has the risk of the same fate as the A345/6, it's the 777-8X and -9X.

As long as the flight is as smooth and quiet as a 340, then they can all be at risk. Any chance to move on   


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 105, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 16457 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlaneAdmirer (Reply 15):
JL sold a lot of A330's because they are available when the 787 isn't or wasn't. I fail to see how this isn't the reverse.

Because that would be logic and that isn't to be used when tehre is a debate which involves JL.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
It is beginning to look like Airbus learned nothing from the A-345/6 disaster, and want to repeat it with the A-3510. The A-345/6 were sales disasters and the A-3510 is beginning to look like it will follow those airplanes into the low sales record books.

Please explain in what way it is looking like that? it has 62 orders which I believe is approximately 62 more orders than the 77W had at this point in its gestation.

Fred


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2213 posts, RR: 5
Reply 106, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 16422 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 90):
Leahy doesn%u2019t have a product to sell other than the A330 and A320 which are not very easy to sell based on a life cycle of 20 years since they are nearing the end of their production runs.

The A320 will be the first passenger aircraft that will be produced for 30 years without upgrade (except the PC-6 maybe). The A320 will not be harder to sell than the NG, which has to last two more years.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 91):
I have to ask, then: Why did you post it if it is irrelevant and pointless? Just curious...

More than 80% of the first 15 posts (after that I stopped counting) said more or less the same. So, why should I not post that?

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 101):
Well, and to add to that, the A351 is competing with an immensely popular 359 and a decent 358 for production space. I don't think Airbus needs to have dozens being ordered right now, as the production line will be humming along fairly well without it.

This is correct. IMO this is also a significant factor why Boeing is in no hurry to bring the 781. Would the 781 be launched today, the orders would probably look as "disappointing" as the today A351 orders for the time being. Because the backlog of the 787 reaches at least as far into the future as the backlog of the A350. Who wants to order aircraft with the earliest delivery slots 8-10 years in the future?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 107, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15957 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 102):
If there is one program that has the risk of the same fate as the A345/6, it's the 777-8X and -9X.

Come now, you did notice that the A345/6 has twice as many engines as the 777X, didn't you?

It's pretty hard to make up from that kind of starting position.

Not to mention that Airbus did not do much for the wing other than reinforce it, whereas we're hearing of an all-new composite wing for the 777X that takes advantage of lessons learned on 787.

We're hearing that the 777X will reduce thrust requirement from 115k lbs to 99k even though it will have better payload/range, because the 777X will be that more efficient an airplane.

To me, there's almost no risk at all that 777X will share the same fate as the A345/6, and if it should, Boeing's team should face John Leahy's infamous self-directed gun barrel (rhetorically speaking, of course!).



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1560 posts, RR: 1
Reply 108, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15817 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 107):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 102):If there is one program that has the risk of the same fate as the A345/6, it's the 777-8X and -9X.
Come now, you did notice that the A345/6 has twice as many engines as the 777X, didn't you?

I'm not talking about the engines. In fact, there is where the 777X could have an advantage on the A35J (although I believe Boeing should go with the RR RB3025 which sounds more advanced than GE's GE9x). But the 777X will be heavier, and - most likely, have higher recurring cost than the A35J (and that is apparently giving Boeing the most headaches right now, according to This article

I'm not saying it will certainly share the same fate as the A345/6, but it's risk is higher than for the A350-1000. The 777X can IMO only have lower CASM through its higher seat count. But if the A35J will be better than expected and can match the 777X' CASM, the latter will be dead.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 107):
Not to mention that Airbus did not do much for the wing other than reinforce it, whereas we're hearing of an all-new composite wing for the 777X that takes advantage of lessons learned on 787.

True, a lot could be gained there.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 107):
We're hearing that the 777X will reduce thrust requirement from 115k lbs to 99k even though it will have better payload/range, because the 777X will be that more efficient an airplane.

I will be hugely impressed if Boeing can pull that off. I mean that in a positive way, not being sarcastic. But even with a far more efficient (but also bigger) wing, and a small fuselage stretch..... I have some doubts.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5445 posts, RR: 29
Reply 109, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15538 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 91):I have to ask, then: Why did you post it if it is irrelevant and pointless? Just curious...
More than 80% of the first 15 posts (after that I stopped counting) said more or less the same. So, why should I not post that?

I never said you "shouldn't" post it. I asked "why" you posted it, seeing as you felt it was irrelevent and pointless information.

It was largely rhetorical, though. The answer seemed somewhat clear.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinedynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1857 posts, RR: 8
Reply 110, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15514 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):

The A320 will be the first passenger aircraft that will be produced for 30 years without upgrade

You forgot about the engine upgrades from V2500-A1 to V2500-A5 and CFM56-5A to CFM56-5B. The -A5 and -5B powered A320s are essentially of the same vintage as the 737NG.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 15456 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
The A320 will be the first passenger aircraft that will be produced for 30 years without upgrade (except the PC-6 maybe).

That’s exactly the problem that Leahy has. He’s got great airplanes coming, but airlines have to wait 8+ years for them. The only airplanes he’s got is one that has a limited market (A380) or two models that while efficient today, are going to be eclipsed so when viewed over a 20 year period, the sales proposals don’t look that good.

I think it is because of these reasons why we see an article with him insulting the competition.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
The A320 will not be harder to sell than the NG, which has to last two more years.

I was trying to avoid A vs B, but in the widebody market, Boeing is not that much different although the 777 is selling better than the A330. 2011 was a great sales year for Airbus, but they don’t have the production right now to fulfill those orders which was my point. John Leahy has promised great things and continues to do so and this has kept order books full. However, the 737NG and A320 will have years of soft sales as any model does before the new products come out and huge discounts are likely how they are going to fill those production slots.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineCruiser From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 7
Reply 112, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 15295 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
Who wants to order aircraft with the earliest delivery slots 8-10 years in the future?

Airlines who cannot afford to be left behind...that is who! You need to get in line at some point, or find a leasing company who has already done it. As a bunch of other majors are finding out...you cannot just go to the corner store to pick up aircraft when needed - you have to plan years in advance for these types of things.



Leahy on Per Seat Costs: "Have you seen the B-2 fly-by at almost US$1bn a copy? It has only 2 seats!"
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 113, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 15225 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 106):
Who wants to order aircraft with the earliest delivery slots 8-10 years in the future?

Presumably all the airlines who do not hold orders for planes 7.9 years in the future and realize that there is a duopoly so it's better to get into line than to miss out.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 108):
But the 777X will be heavier, and - most likely, have higher recurring cost than the A35J

I see what you did there!  

You switched horses in mid-stream, to use an old American expression...

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 108):
I'm not saying it will certainly share the same fate as the A345/6, but it's risk is higher than for the A350-1000.

Really?

You don't see the inherent risk in the all-new A350-1000, and some of the indifferent statements from the market?

You don't see how the 777X can slot right in after the current models, just like the 737NG slotted in right after the classics, and how the NEO is slotting in right after the A320 classics?

You don't see the value they have of being the incumbent vendor at places like Emirates, Singapore, BA, AF, etc, just as the replacement window gets hot at the end of this decade?

You don't go along with the "bigger is better" argument made by A380 fans? Here we'll have a true 747-400 replacement or better, with two engines and a lot more efficiency.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 114, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 15141 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 90):
The current huge backlogs, and long waits on the new improved models, and two models hitting the end of their life does not make it easy for him to get big sales numbers.

although of course the very lengths of the backlogs causing the issue mean that a year of low sales isn't really an "issue".
If the competition has a good sales year, they're only going to end up in the same spot.

Quoting dynkrisolo (Reply 110):
You forgot about the engine upgrades from V2500-A1 to V2500-A5 and CFM56-5A to CFM56-5B. The -A5 and -5B powered A320s are essentially of the same vintage as the 737NG.

splitting hairs a bit... The 737 upgrades had completely different engines as opposed to a tweak of the existing one, and were different enough to merit a new model designation..

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
You don't see the value they have of being the incumbent vendor at places like Emirates, Singapore, BA, AF, etc, just as the replacement window gets hot at the end of this decade?

Although at least 2 of these are A350 customers too....

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
You don't go along with the "bigger is better" argument made by A380 fans?

I'm sure he does.
It is somewhat amusing though just how popular "big is beautiful" has suddenly become, and also just how relaxed we've suddenly become about infrastructure-challenging wingspans (relaxed to the point of torpor, I might add).....   

Rgds


User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 115, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 15100 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 111):
That’s exactly the problem that Leahy has. He’s got great airplanes coming, but airlines have to wait 8+ years for them. The only airplanes he’s got is one that has a limited market (A380) or two models that while efficient today, are going to be eclipsed so when viewed over a 20 year period, the sales proposals don’t look that good.

I don't see Boeing having anything different to airbus. According to them they've orders in the 1000s for the MAX (sorry some are commitments but worthy to be counted by Boeing). T7's are sold out to 2017 (is the number I recall). They can't give away the 748. And the 767 is not exactly a hot ticket right now. Actually, Boeing will by the end of the year be in a worse state than Airbus, in terms of product availability.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 108):
I'm not saying it will certainly share the same fate as the A345/6, but it's risk is higher than for the A350-1000.

Really?

You don't see the inherent risk in the all-new A350-1000, and some of the indifferent statements from the market?

You don't see how the 777X can slot right in after the current models, just like the 737NG slotted in right after the classics, and how the NEO is slotting in right after the A320 classics?

The 777x is more likely to be A345/6 disaster. A double stretch and a widening of a stretch "seems" a stretch too far for me. New materials yes yes but as Judge Judy would say, if it sounds too good to be true then it usually isn't.

Boeing promised the earth with 748 and they produced a lemon. Nothing wrong if you like lemonade but if you are running an airline, you can't make it a success with lemons.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 116, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 15059 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 111):
That’s exactly the problem that Leahy has. He’s got great airplanes coming, but airlines have to wait 8+ years for them. The only airplanes he’s got is one that has a limited market (A380) or two models that while efficient today, are going to be eclipsed so when viewed over a 20 year period, the sales proposals don’t look that good.

The current A320 will be getting the sharklets, which will give it a significant performance improvement.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 117, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 15039 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 114):

although of course the very lengths of the backlogs causing the issue mean that a year of low sales isn't really an "issue".
If the competition has a good sales year, they're only going to end up in the same spot.

I agree it is not an issue. However I think it explains why he is insulting the competition. He doesn't have anything to sell, so he's at least telling airlines that the competition is inferior so they won't buy Boeing. It's a bit childish in my opinion, especially when he's been quoted in other articles as wanting to avoid cheap shots between A vs B, but that is my opinion.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 118, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14700 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 114):
It is somewhat amusing though just how popular "big is beautiful" has suddenly become, and also just how relaxed we've suddenly become about infrastructure-challenging wingspans (relaxed to the point of torpor, I might add).....

I certainly sympathize with where you're coming from, but it's pretty early to get that engaged on the topic WRT 777-9X till Boeing has worked through a few more options (including the folding wings that Leahy has called "silly") and gets the plane through firm configuration sometime in 2015 according to http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 115):
The 777x is more likely to be A345/6 disaster. A double stretch and a widening of a stretch "seems" a stretch too far for me. New materials yes yes but as Judge Judy would say, if it sounds too good to be true then it usually isn't.

You are entitled to your opinion, and so am I. You see a A345/6 disaster, I see a 737NG glorious victory. The 737NG was a double stretch with new engines hanging off new wings as well, and it's been a money printing machine for the better part of two decades now.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14660 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 115):
The 777x is more likely to be A345/6 disaster. A double stretch and a widening of a stretch "seems" a stretch too far for me. New materials yes yes but as Judge Judy would say, if it sounds too good to be true then it usually isn't.

I see few similarities between the 77X stretch and what Airbus did with the A345/6, and there are many reasons why.

1. The -346 was not simply a stretch, but a *massive* one at that...11.7 meters (38.3ft) longer than the -343. Such a huge departure from the -343 "sweet-spot" presented more risk, and the final product was somewhat compromised from an efficiency standpoint as a result. The 77-9X, on the other hand, is a mere 2.6 meter (8.5ft) stretch over the current 77W. There's still risk associated with this stretch, but *much* less than with the A346 because the change is minimal in comparison. Also, the bigger stretch, increasing the 772 by 5.8 meters (19ft) to get the 77-8X, is bringing that version *closer* to the length of the 77W, which is, by all indications, the "sweet spot" for efficiency purposes...I see much more reward than risk in that proposition, personally.

2. Also, the A345/6 struggles in the marketplace were due primarily to the products it competed with having the benefit of 2 engines, and the size to carry more pax, meaning inherently superior efficiency. IIRC, the 77W had barely entered service and was just establishing itself @ the time the A345/6 EIS, and the -345/6 were pretty much dead on arrival as a result. The A350 will be a formidable competitor for the 77X, but the 77X will not be nearly as disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint as the A345/6 were relative to the 777.

3. Lastly, I don't think the A345/6 improved over its predecessor, from a technological standpoint, as much as the 77X is likely to improve over its. The A340's bigger variants have larger wings, as will the 77X, but I don't believe that they were too much different than those seen on the smaller variants, although feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. I expect the 77X to incorporate some of the innovative wing design seen in the 787, for example, into the new version, which will be a significant addition.


User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 120, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 14538 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 118):

Was/is the NG a double stretch of a stretch, like the proposed 77x? I genuinely am ignorant to the specifics of Boeing's 737.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 119):

I'm no technical expert but if you stretch 2.6 inches from "the sweet spot", do you get a sweeter spot?

I just remember the 748 and what Boeing promised. We shall see


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 121, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14522 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 120):

Was/is the NG a double stretch of a stretch, like the proposed 77x? I genuinely am ignorant to the specifics of Boeing's 737.

The 737NG was a new wing, new engine, stretch and increase in MTOW from the 733, which was a stretch, new engine and MTOW increase from the 732. The 777X is proposed to be a new wing, new engine, stretch and decrease in MTOW. Similar but not the same.

The A351 is a stretch and increase in MTOW in addition to minor modifications to the wing, structure, gear and engines.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 122, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14423 times:

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 119):
2. Also, the A345/6 struggles in the marketplace were due primarily to the products it competed with having the benefit of 2 engines, and the size to carry more pax, meaning inherently superior efficiency. IIRC, the 77W had barely entered service and was just establishing itself @ the time the A345/6 EIS, and the -345/6 were pretty much dead on arrival as a result. The A350 will be a formidable competitor for the 77X, but the 77X will not be nearly as disadvantaged from a competitive standpoint as the A345/6 were relative to the 777.

As I recall it the A345/6 entered service well before the 77W; the 77W was projected to best the A346 by a small margin, and ended up beating it by a big margin, surprising everyone (including Boeing.) That caused A346 sales to dry up, and when the 77L appeared it killed off the A345. Boeing was initially not going to bother with the 77L but some customers asked for it and they did.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14211 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 120):
I'm no technical expert but if you stretch 2.6 inches from "the sweet spot", do you get a sweeter spot?
I just remember the 748 and what Boeing promised. We shall see

You seem to have misunderstood my post. Plus, I don't think a 2.6 "inches" stretch would be in their best interests.  
-I didn't say the 779 was getting "sweeter" by any means, I only pointed out that it departs much less from its predecessor's size than the A346 did...you've failed to refute or even address this in any way.
-I did say that the 778 stretch, as proposed, would bring it closer to the 77W, which judging by its sales/CASM, represents such a "sweet spot" for efficiency. The 778 should be stretching *towards*, not *from* the most efficient frame length, as you seem to imply.

As for the 748, I know you're eager to declare it a flop, but let's wait until the paint dries on the few -8's even in service yet before we judge its performance.


User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 14117 times:

@Davs5032 reply123.
Yes sorry I meant metres not inches. Late at night on the iPhone  

There is nothing to refute vis a vis the 345/6. Great products. In the marketplace, not great sellers.

If we can wait for the paint to dry on the 748s, then surely we could do the same with XWB-1000? Tell the others.


User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2683 posts, RR: 4
Reply 125, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 14072 times:

Quoting ebbuk (Reply 115):
Actually, Boeing will by the end of the year be in a worse state than Airbus, in terms of product availability.

Nice try...

Existing holes in product line-up by manufacturer:

Airbus - 200-250 seats, 300-480/500 seats

Boeing - 450 seats plus

Yar, Boeing's in all sorts of trouble with their product line-up by the end of the year  


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 126, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13869 times:

With no 77L on the new frames, what will become of the 777F? I cant imagine they want to give up their only advantage they will have over A350?

The 748F seems like it wont be in production for too long ahead either.

I don't think a stretched 77L will be as good freighter?! The 9X will be too stretched and lack the thrust.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 127, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13955 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting sweair (Reply 126):
With no 77L on the new frames, what will become of the 777F?

The 777-8LX is essentially a 77L replacement, and will most likely form the basis for the new 777F. I'm sure a new 777F will be in the pipeline some time down the track, but there's no hurry. The current 777F can soldier on for years to come as it has the market all to itself, at least until Airbus launches the A350F. If that happens, Boeing can then respond by building a new 777F based on the 777-8X.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13923 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 127):
If that happens, Boeing can then respond by building a new 777F based on the 777-8X.

But this frame will have higher weight and less thrust? Maybe its good for passengers but freight?


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 129, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 13883 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting sweair (Reply 128):
But this frame will have higher weight and less thrust?

We don't know if it'll weigh more than the 777F yet. Even if it does, weight is only a problem if it doesn't translate to better revenue potential. The 777-8X is larger than the current 777F, so a theoretical 777-8F will have greater cargo volume, and presumably better payload capability and better range than the 777F as well.

Less thrust is compensated for by having more lift generated by the new, larger wings.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 130, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 121):
The 737NG was a new wing, new engine, stretch and increase in MTOW from the 733, which was a stretch, new engine and MTOW increase from the 732. The 777X is proposed to be a new wing, new engine, stretch and decrease in MTOW. Similar but not the same.

(bold added by me) I think this is going to be the difficult part of the 77X, particularly with the big new wing that is proposed.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 125):
Quoting ebbuk (Reply 115):
Actually, Boeing will by the end of the year be in a worse state than Airbus, in terms of product availability.

Nice try...

Existing holes in product line-up by manufacturer:

Airbus - 200-250 seats, 300-480/500 seats

Boeing - 450 seats plus

Yar, Boeing's in all sorts of trouble with their product line-up by the end of the year

Many bending of truths going on here?

How does airbus have a gap in the product offering between 200 and 250 seats which Boeing doesn't?

The gap for Boeing is from the 737-900 to the B787-8
The gap for Airbus is from the A321 to the A332

The capacity of the 737-900 is marginally smaller than the A321 and the capacity of the B787 is marginally smaller than the A332 so please exaplin how this assertion was attained.

There was also a statement earlier in the thread that said the B77W was basically sold out around 2017 which is the planned EIS of the A3510 so to all intents and purposes they are in the same position albeit with dominant positions in different areas.

Fred


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2596 posts, RR: 5
Reply 131, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13761 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 130):
I think this is going to be the difficult part of the 77X, particularly with the big new wing that is proposed.

As I understand it, a big part of that will come from having to carry less fuel due to improved aerodynamics and reduced fuel burn of the new engines.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 130):
How does airbus have a gap in the product offering between 200 and 250 seats which Boeing doesn't?

The 767 is still in production. Airbus doesn't have anything 767 sized.

[Edited 2012-05-31 02:40:23]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineebbuk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 13729 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 125):

Old bean, I spoke of availability. We know Boeing's showroom is crammed full of product. They just can't build them quick enough for some product, for other products, as I've said before, they can't give them away.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1060 posts, RR: 1
Reply 133, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

John Laehy is a consumate Saleman! But THIS time Airbis is behind the 8 Ball. And John Might be feeling the Heat! Y'Think?

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13644 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 131):

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 130):
I think this is going to be the difficult part of the 77X, particularly with the big new wing that is proposed.

As I understand it, a big part of that will come from having to carry less fuel due to improved aerodynamics and reduced fuel burn of the new engines.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 130):
How does airbus have a gap in the product offering between 200 and 250 seats which Boeing doesn't?

The 767 is still in production. Airbus doesn't have anything 767 sized.

Virtually no one is buying it. The A321 Can seat over 200, the A330-200 seats 250 and under. It's a pretty minor gap, considering that if it was that important to fill, the 767 would be selling a lot more planes.

Both sides have the segment advantages, which is how they both seem to have targeted their products all along, rarely seeking a direct head to head fight.


User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 135, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 13596 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 131):
The 767 is still in production. Airbus doesn't have anything 767 sized.

Oh yeah! I forgot about that one.

Does anyone know what the civilian backlog is like on the 767?

Fred


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 136, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 13500 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 122):
Boeing was initially not going to bother with the 77L but some customers asked for it and they did.

That is not entirely correct. 77L was being developed from the get-go as a counterpart to the 77W. However, due to Asian crisis, it was put on the shelf for 2 years or so, until interest in it resurfaced again.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently onlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1560 posts, RR: 1
Reply 137, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13461 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 108):I'm not saying it will certainly share the same fate as the A345/6, but it's risk is higher than for the A350-1000.
Really?

You don't see the inherent risk in the all-new A350-1000

I was referring to the risk of becoming another A345/6. And no, I don't see the A350-1000 as that much of a high risk programme. It will EIS 3 years after the A359, Airbus will have learned from teething problems of the A359 and will be able to incorporate improvements/lessons learned into the -1000. Just like Boeing does with the 'all-new' 787-9, it will have a bunch of improvements learned from the 787-8.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
and some of the indifferent statements from the market?

Reasons for that have been discussed to death in this forum.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 114):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):You don't see the value they have of being the incumbent vendor at places like Emirates, Singapore, BA, AF, etc, just as the replacement window gets hot at the end of this decade?
Although at least 2 of these are A350 customers too....

Exactly. And as the 777X IMO can only compete with the A350 in 10 abreast Y configuration, it is more than doubtful airlines like CX or SQ will order it - I can't see them going 10 abreast in Y on a 777.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 113):
You don't go along with the "bigger is better" argument made by A380 fans?

No.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 138, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13413 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 135):
Does anyone know what the civilian backlog is like on the 767?

Der Google says that at the time the order for FedEx was placed last October, the backlog was 44 frames which would have run out in 2013, but the FedEx order added 27 frames, which is really only a year's production at 2 frames per month.

Another article says that the 767 line is moving up to 2 frames per month by mid year, from it's current 1.5 frames per month.

As for the tanker, Wiki sez that the contract in place calls for Boeing to complete and deliver 18 initial operational KC-46 tankers by 2017, so at 2 frames a month that only eats up 9 months of production over the next five years.

Putting it all together, we get the pre-FedEx orders taking things till 2013, FedEx taking it to 2014 and the first batch of military orders taking it to 2015, leaving Boeing hoping that the government likes the early build tankers enough to start ordering them in batches somewhere around 2016.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 139, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 13387 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 136):

That is not entirely correct. 77L was being developed from the get-go as a counterpart to the 77W. However, due to Asian crisis, it was put on the shelf for 2 years or so, until interest in it resurfaced again.

OK, I didn't realize that, but it makes sense. Since most of the work for the 777NG was on the wing (including engines) it makes sense to apply it to both fuselage lengths.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30524 posts, RR: 84
Reply 140, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 13228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 135):
Does anyone know what the civilian backlog is like on the 767?

21 for the 767-300ER and 42 for the 767-300F.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12985 times:

I don't think Boeing can make the already stretched 77W a good frame with yet another stretch. Going beyond design points really. They should leave it the way it is now, maybe growing the 200 frame a bit, internal stretching and the new wing+engines. At some point all frames become suboptimal stretched, ie 340-600. Too heavy..

User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 142, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 12912 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 141):
I don't think Boeing can make the already stretched 77W a good frame with yet another stretch.

This cannot be determined without a thorough knowledge of the structure. The most important feature is the length to the diameter ratio, and this will be still be better than the A346. But it is not the only factor. The most extreme L to D ratio was probably the 753, which to my knowledge had no structural issues and was not overly heavy. The MD-80 series also had some pretty extreme L to D ratios, and they were fine.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 143, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 12379 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 141):
I don't think Boeing can make the already stretched 77W a good frame with yet another stretch. Going beyond design points really. They should leave it the way it is now, maybe growing the 200 frame a bit, internal stretching and the new wing+engines. At some point all frames become suboptimal stretched, ie 340-600. Too heavy..

This is a valid concern, and I'm sure Boeing has that in mind, presumably why they limited the (proposed) stretch to such a small one. Based on appearances alone, the 77W definitely has a "stretched to the max" look about it. However, given how well the current model performs, you wouldn't expect such a small stretch to cause the frame to "fall off the deep end" from an efficiency standpoint, and I'm sure Boeing's engineers made sure of this. I do think it will be less ideal L:D ratio-wise, however not to the extent that a new wing & engine and more pax $$ can't exceed and cover up.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 137):
Exactly. And as the 777X IMO can only compete with the A350 in 10 abreast Y configuration, it is more than doubtful airlines like CX or SQ will order it - I can't see them going 10 abreast in Y on a 777.

Fair point, although it will be interesting to see how the 77X's wider cabin influences the decision making of those airlines currently in 9X configs. As I've noted before, the trend is already moving away from 9X, and you'd figure a couple more inches to work with would, at minimum, continue this trend. At some point, those like CX and SQ may very well be part of a minority 9X group, as opposed to the majority 9X group we see today.

I was curious, and did a quick tally of how the 777 operators are configured @ this point. I'm sure I mistakenly left a few airlines off, but I think the numbers are still representative of the market as a whole. It would appear that ~30% of airlines operating 777s today have 10X Y. A minority share no doubt, but more significant when you consider that this group was probably around 5% not too many years ago. Interestingly, of the airlines still using 9X configs, over 40% fit their 777 cabins with Y seats between 17"-17.5" wide. I view these airlines as being more apt to make a 10X switch, as they could do so without having to "steal" inches away from pax. (Admittedly, aisle space will be valued more for certain airlines, so 10X won't be a no-brainer by any means.) However, if the 77X cabin allows for 10X with seats measuring closer to 17.5" than 17", as the rumored cabin increase would, I wouldn't be surprised to see many of these 777 operators make the switch if the -X is included in their future fleet plans, as it would increase revenue potential, while presenting lesser risk of Y-class rioting.

In the end, however, this debate may be decided by fuel prices above all else, and given that these decisions will be made years from now, it's impossible to predict with certainty how things will shake out in that regard...always a fun debate though!


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9975 posts, RR: 96
Reply 144, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 143):
However, if the 77X cabin allows for 10X with seats measuring closer to 17.5" than 17", as the rumored cabin increase would, I wouldn't be surprised to see many of these 777 operators make the switch if the -X is included in their future fleet plans

Of all the things being discussed for the 777X, "magicking" some 4" on the interior cross-section is the single one that I have a fair bit of scepticism over. Scepticism might be the wrong word. "Concern" might be better.
I suspect to some it might sound relatively simple.
I'm not an airframe manufacturer, but I have spent my life working on complex integrated products, all of which stuffed "stuff" into large cylinders (in the 5m to 12m diameter range).
The thought of the potential structural impacts, physical integration impacts, system routing impacts, and equipment/system mounting impacts make my eyes water, if I consider them on the petrochem and defence products I've been involved with.

Being one who generally "trusts" the engineering capability of the two airframers, I can't believe that Boeing don't know their product, and the impact of the product changes.
To me though, new wings, new engines and fuselage stretches sound relatively straightforward compared to taking 4" off the inside.   

I'm certainly interested in seeing how this one turns out.  

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 145, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12217 times:

Why not grow the 200 and leave the 300 as it is, just trim weight and stretch internal width, new wing and engines. The 300ER a few thousand pounds lighter and a wider cabin could be a real winner. 365 seats is plenty.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4700 posts, RR: 38
Reply 146, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 12036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
To me though, new wings, new engines and fuselage stretches sound relatively straightforward compared to taking 4" off the inside.   

That is also the design feature which is most interesting to me. Let's wait and see how they think they can manage, and then let's wait and see if it can be realised.  .


User currently onlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6812 posts, RR: 46
Reply 147, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11993 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
To me though, new wings, new engines and fuselage stretches sound relatively straightforward compared to taking 4" off the inside.

I agree with this, but I also agree that Boeing would not be proposing this without a very good idea of exactly how they are going to accomplish it.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 148, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11956 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
Being one who generally "trusts" the engineering capability of the two airframers, I can't believe that Boeing don't know their product, and the impact of the product changes.
To me though, new wings, new engines and fuselage stretches sound relatively straightforward compared to taking 4" off the inside.

I can't claim to have the knowledge about what Boeing has "stuffed" on the sides of the passenger cabin but have understood, and can certainly be wrong, that apart from routing things between under the floor and above ceiling there isn't much stuff. From that point of view only a few thicker places for routing pipes would be needed and the rest of the cabin could be widend.

What has me more concerned is isolation. We need a big temperature difference between the outside of the cabin and inside and the space is already very thin. Space is one of the most efficient ways to provide isolation and when you consider weight and cost of materials allowing thinner walls with similar isolation I'm having problems seeing how it is done.

But I have never designed airplanes or their water relatives. My experience is in fields where justifications prioritize things very differently. I've always been fascinated by how small priority changes can justify dramatically different solutions to what at first sight looks like similar problems.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11813 times:

the 787 does have thinner walls then the 777, maybe insolation has developed some from the 90´s? Also the 777X will have far quieter engines, like the 787 has.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11794 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 148):
What has me more concerned is isolation. We need a big temperature difference between the outside of the cabin and inside and the space is already very thin. Space is one of the most efficient ways to provide isolation and when you consider weight and cost of materials allowing thinner walls with similar isolation I'm having problems seeing how it is done.

The 777 has a fuselage width of 20'4" and cabin width 19'3" = 13"
The 737 has a fuselage width of 12'4" and cabin width 11'7" = 9"

The 777 has 4 more inches of isolation then the 737 and they operate in basically the same environment. I personally have noticed no difference in climate or comfort between the two. So, I have to assume it is doable... Just my opinion.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 151, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 11756 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 150):
The 777 has 4 more inches of isolation then the 737 and they operate in basically the same environment. I personally have noticed no difference in climate or comfort between the two. So, I have to assume it is doable... Just my opinion.

I think its the same on the 787/A380 and A350. Thinner walls on the modern frames, I have no doubt its doable, I am more sceptical of the frame stretching.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 152, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11739 times:

IIRC the 777 has a full round body. And it has been mentioned that some inefficiency factors with all that useless space above the passenger compartment. Is that true? And what critical 'utilities' are in the side walls, and how expensive would it be to move them to the ceiling compartment?


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 153, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11685 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 152):
And what critical 'utilities' are in the side walls, and how expensive would it be to move them to the ceiling compartment?

Very little is in the side walls except for the A/C risers.

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 152):
And it has been mentioned that some inefficiency factors with all that useless space above the passenger compartment.

You mean the space where most of the Systems runs and the Crew Rests are located? It's actually very useful.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11668 times:

the 777X will push the Y3 back at least another 10 years? But what if the 777X is a poor seller, what might Boeing do then? Seeing how the 737 has lost market share and maybe the 777 losing market share, something has to grow?

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9481 posts, RR: 52
Reply 155, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11646 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 144):
Of all the things being discussed for the 777X, "magicking" some 4" on the interior cross-section is the single one that I have a fair bit of scepticism over. Scepticism might be the wrong word. "Concern" might be better.
I suspect to some it might sound relatively simple.
I'm not an airframe manufacturer, but I have spent my life working on complex integrated products, all of which stuffed "stuff" into large cylinders (in the 5m to 12m diameter range).
The thought of the potential structural impacts, physical integration impacts, system routing impacts, and equipment/system mounting impacts make my eyes water, if I consider them on the petrochem and defence products I've been involved with.

If the space between the sidewall and skin is reduced, the consequence is redesigning the frames. The frames likely go up in weight because they are not designed as optimally. The space between the sidewall and skin is essentially the depth of the frame. A new fuselage structure allows these frames to be redesigned and re-contoured. It will require some redesign, but if they go AL-Li as proposed, then there is the impetuous to do it.

It might look odd having non-uniform frames as they change in contour around the windows, but I am confident that the stress analysts can compensate for this when designing the structure.

Quoting sweair (Reply 145):
Why not grow the 200 and leave the 300 as it is, just trim weight and stretch internal width, new wing and engines. The 300ER a few thousand pounds lighter and a wider cabin could be a real winner. 365 seats is plenty.

What rationale are you using when you imply that the 300ER should not be stretched? If the airlines desire more capacity, and technically it can be done from an engineering standpoint, why should it not be stretched? Rotation angle is a limiting factor, but there are ways around it such as enhancing takeoff high lift surfaces, semi-levered gear, gear lengthening, tail skid & tail strike prevention, etc. Those extra features do not necessarily cause significant drawbacks for efficiency.

Your profile indicates you are an engineer, so from an engineering standpoint, what constrains the length of the 777X fuselage to the 300ER length or is your opinion based on intuition?

Quoting cmf (Reply 148):
What has me more concerned is isolation. We need a big temperature difference between the outside of the cabin and inside and the space is already very thin. Space is one of the most efficient ways to provide isolation and when you consider weight and cost of materials allowing thinner walls with similar isolation I'm having problems seeing how it is done.

The insulation blankets are basically the only thing between the sidewall and the aluminum skin. The insulation blankets actually are designed more to prevent burn through of a fuel fire entering the cabin than they are for actual insulation.

Quoting cmf (Reply 148):

I can't claim to have the knowledge about what Boeing has "stuffed" on the sides of the passenger cabin but have understood, and can certainly be wrong, that apart from routing things between under the floor and above ceiling there isn't much stuff. From that point of view only a few thicker places for routing pipes would be needed and the rest of the cabin could be widend.

There are riser ducts, structural frames, and insulation blankets. There’s also some electrical wiring.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 156, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11432 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 153):
You mean the space where most of the Systems runs and the Crew Rests are located? It's actually very useful.

Thanks for the reply. I meant to put 'useless space' inside of quotes.

[Edited 2012-06-01 13:58:47]


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11184 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 154):
But what if the 777X is a poor seller, what might Boeing do then? Seeing how the 737 has lost market share and maybe the 777 losing market share, something has to grow?

The 777 is almost certain to lose market share, as it's starting @ such a high mark, it will inevitably give up some ground, as a competing product that did not exist prior will be present. Boeing's goal is to minimize the success of the competitor, thereby limiting the market share it could potentially lose. The reason the 77X is such an attractive proposition, from Boeing's point of view, is that because of the 777's dominant position in the market currently, operating in the fleets of so many airlines, the new product only needs to be competitive with the A35J, not necessarily beat or even match it, to give many of the current operators financial incentive to buy the new version, as they'll be able to make up for minor efficiency disadvantages with costs saved by not having to introduce a new aircraft into their fleets.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1060 posts, RR: 1
Reply 158, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 156):

Insulation Wiring Cargo fire protection wiring and Plumbing Potable Water Plumbing, Air conditioning Risers and emergency lighting wiringthe open area Above the cabin could be used for Pilot and Cabin Crew rest areas as well as extra communications amd passenger entertainment gear to move it OUT of the cabin or the Cargo Compartment and maximizing Cargo revenue


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 159, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11082 times:

This picture shows the aircond piping in question, the light grey snakenests in the fuselage crown distributes the air which is being feed from big pipes on the sides of the cargo compartment. To get to the top they pass behind the cabin sidewalls between the fuselage frame and the window frame (most of them colored red in the picture).

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/AirCondpiping.jpg

They are oval today and can be made more oval or even square as they are molded plastic parts. So getting the sidewalls thinner should be doable to the point where the you just get cross-section area problems on those feeder pipes. Of course those flattened fuse frames will weigh a bit more but the material change will help.


Now in order to not spoil the threads character (a training in rhetoric which is quite fun to watch    ) I have cut out clues from which of the two frames this picture stems    .



Non French in France
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 10872 times:

Many here complain about the 10 across on the 747, is it really worse than 10 across on the 777? As it should have a wider cabin?

User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 161, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 10754 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 155):
The insulation blankets are basically the only thing between the sidewall and the aluminum skin. The insulation blankets actually are designed more to prevent burn through of a fuel fire entering the cabin than they are for actual insulation.

Actually insulation for sound is the name of the game now, and for the new 777 Boeing has to work seriously on the cabin noise. The walls on the A380 are the thickest I have seen an I guess if Boeing is going for similar sound suppression as Airbus did on the A380 the walls will get thicker not thinner.