Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 EIS Moving To The Right, 777-X Up Next?  
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 21292 times:

Boeing is in no hurry to offer the 787-10, according to Leeham.net who cites a Bloomberg report,

IIRC, there was recent Boeing chatter about the -10 getting board approval early in 2013 with EIS circa 2016 and that the 777-X was a bit further out.

However, as Leeham.net asks, does an end of decade EIS for the 787-10 mean the 777-X will debut sooner than expected? Seems reasonable that Boeing would want to have the 777-X ready sooner so it could compete with the A350-1000 as close to its EIS as possible rather than having it languish to the next decade.

Nevertheless, this must be good news for the A330-300.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ched-787-until-late-in-decade.html

http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...7-10-to-come-later-than-suggested/

[Edited 2012-08-14 21:12:53]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5323 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 20870 times:

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):

Boeing has plenty of time to do the -10. They have years of full production runs of the 787 and since they are basing the -10 off of the -9, they will get a lot more data once the -9 is flying and has been in the air a while. The -10 stretch really shouldn't swallow all that much in the way of resources.

The 777x, on the other hand, is a huge undertaking...most of the aircraft will be replaced or substituted with other materials.



What the...?
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8848 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20373 times:

Quote:
The “end of the teens” is the likely target for the new Dreamliner’s entry into commercial service

What do they mean with the "end of the teens"?



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 20339 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 2):
What do they mean with the "end of the teens"?

Just before 2020


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20127 times:

Good news is that the potential launch customer for the -10 has a fairly young widebody fleet and is able to wait as well  


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineAAplat4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19853 times:

The question is whether Boeing is reacting to a slower economy or just unable to marshall the resources to get the -10 project moving? After all, it is 2012 and where is the -9? It wasn't that long ago when Boeing was hinting that the launch of the -10 was close. Very disappointing.

User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 19737 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
Good news is that the potential launch customer for the -10 has a fairly young widebody fleet and is able to wait as well

My first feeling was that the potential launch customer is in no hurry to order, therefore launch of the -10 is postponed.

And, slots for any 787 won't be available until at least 2018, and we've seen airlines are not really eager to order airplanes that far into the future.

Besides, the -10 is targeted against the A333, which main replacement cycle won't be in this decade anyway.

Quoting WarpSpeed (Thread starter):
However, as Leeham.net asks, does an end of decade EIS for the 787-10 mean the 777-X will debut sooner than expected? Seems reasonable that Boeing would want to have the 777-X ready sooner so it could compete with the A350-1000 as close to its EIS as possible rather than having it languish to the next decade.

Well, I'm sure EK would like to have the 777X sooner than 2019, but even with the 787-10 postponed I can't see how it can debut much sooner. It's as near to a new aircraft model as a derivative can be. GE and RR need the time as well to develop their new engines...



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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 18129 times:

The 777X is going to be first because I think it really needs to be. It would appear from the comments of EK and others that they need to see this airplane sooner than later. I just hope we dont have the delays and problems with the 777X that we all saw unfold on the 787.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17832 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Considering the number of A330-300s Airbus is selling, pushing back the 787-10 is probably a logical move. The A330-300 keeps increasing it's range, so it may be that Boeing wants the 787-10 to be a true B-Market aircraft like the 777-200ER, able to handle both regional and long-haul missions with equal aplomb.

User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17035 times:

Quoting KDAYflyer (Reply 7):
The 777X is going to be first because I think it really needs to be.

Well, that settles it then  



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16864 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Considering the number of A330-300s Airbus is selling,

Might this suggest bringing the 787-10 to market sooner rather than later? Seems like Airbus will sell even more A333's without the -10 in its face.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
pushing back the 787-10 is probably a logical move....Boeing wants the 787-10 to be a true B-Market aircraft like the 777-200ER, able to handle both regional and long-haul missions with equal aplomb.

Do you imply that Boeing will use the time to increase the oft discussed (yet never truly defined) capabilities of the 787-10X with this "delay?" If so, what would they be willing to do? Part of the appeal to the -10X was that as a "simple" stretch, it would offer superior operating economics with minimal investment.

Overall, is Boeing confusing the marketplace (or just us anetters)"again" by this move? Consider the MAX vs. Y1 talk from Boeing management. Up to the AA announcement last summer, Boeing was pretty sure it would go "all new" rather than "re-do."

[Edited 2012-08-15 09:21:59]


DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16135 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
My first feeling was that the potential launch customer is in no hurry to order, therefore launch of the -10 is postponed

They said no new planes will be ordered for 2014, so this date seems likely for a 787-10X launch in the meantime Boeing can focus more on the 777X



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 16017 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 10):
Might this suggest bringing the 787-10 to market sooner rather than later? Seems like Airbus will sell even more A333's without the -10 in its face.

The A350-900 and 787-9 appear to have the entire A340-300 replacement market as well as a fair bit of the 777-200ER replacement market in hand. The 240t A330-300X is going to play in this market, as well, while the 787-9 and 235t A330-300X takes care of the 777-200 replacement market. Airlines buying or taking via lease A330-300Xs are not going to be in the market to replace those planes for a decade, minimum.

I could also see a bit of skepticism on airline's part about Boeing getting the 787-9 into service to the latest schedule as well as meeting their production ramps. So as we've seen with the 777-300ER and the A350-1000, an A330-300X in the hand is worth two 787-10s in the bush.

If Boeing gets the 787-9 into the air next year and the certification looks issue-free and Boeing can push 8 787s a month out of the FALs by mid-year, then I think that might loosen up the airlines and push forward the 787-10X launch if, say, EK commits to 50.



Quoting WarpSpeed (Reply 10):
Do you imply that Boeing will use the time to increase the oft discussed (yet never truly defined) capabilities of the 787-10X with this "delay?" If so, what would they be willing to do? Part of the appeal to the -10X was that as a "simple" stretch, it would offer superior operating economics with minimal investment.

If Boeing has to wait, they might as well put the time to good use.

The A330-300 launched weak, but consistently became more capable over time. So sales were weak to start, but continued to grow as the capabilities of the plane did.

The 787-10X will be like the 777-200ER - launching with strong capabilities that garnered the bulk of orders early in her life. Boeing was only able to gain performance improvements for the 777-200ER via aero tweaks and engine PiPs. As such, over time sales started to drop off and are now a relative trickle. Therefore, the lighter she is and the better the SFC of her engines at EIS, the stronger the product she'll be at launch and the better her sales chances in the first decade-plus, which is when she's most likely to score the bulk of her orders.


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2556 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15034 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 4):
Good news is that the potential launch customer for the -10 has a fairly young widebody fleet and is able to wait as well
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 6):
My first feeling was that the potential launch customer is in no hurry to order, therefore launch of the -10 is postponed

Are you guys talking about LH by any chance?


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7031 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14617 times:

Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 13):
Are you guys talking about LH by any chance?

  guilty as charged  



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineairboe From San Marino, joined Jan 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13882 times:

I noticed in the Leeham blog:

[i]
“I am somewhat confused over something here. I was always under the impression that the 787-8 and -9 were supposed to be the A330 killers. Why has it now fallen on the 787-10 to kill the A330-300?”
[i]

        

And he is right!

I believe Boeing has experienced problems in the development og the 789, and then have to postpone the 787-10, and in the meantime harvest more experience.

Expect the 789 to be further delayed.
        



keep it free of the propellers
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4618 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13329 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The A330-300 keeps increasing it's range, so it may be that Boeing wants the 787-10 to be a true B-Market aircraft like the 777-200ER, able to handle both regional and long-haul missions with equal aplomb.

I agree this is a real possibility. Projecting out where they think Airbus is going with the A330 they are starting to realise that the 787-10 inside the present MTOW limit of ~254t is not going to cut it. The changes they have made to the 789 under carriage from that of the 788 is as far as they can go. To make a further change will take time .


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting airboe (Reply 15):
I noticed in the Leeham blog:

Well the 787-9 on it's own should eventually drive the A330-300 from the market, but the A350-900 and 787-10 will accelerate that.

Quoting airboe (Reply 15):
I believe Boeing has experienced problems in the development og the 789, and then have to postpone the 787-10, and in the meantime harvest more experience.

There are no indications of that at the present, but time will tell, I guess.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4618 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 13111 times:

Quoting airboe (Reply 15):
Expect the 789 to be further delayed.

There is no evidence that this is so. Parts are already in production. Whether it's targeted weight can be hit from frame one is still an open question. So far as I know Boeing are saying nothing about whether they are on track on this one.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

787 production is ramping up with no major hiccups and the Everett line will have plenty of experience by then. Boeing has done the smart thing and taken the engineering in-house for the components that were the problem children on the 788, in fact, making them lighter in the process. The hard work is done, 789 will, in all likelihood, debut without major issues.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2223 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9025 times:

And the 787-10X is still an (A.net) wet dream. -10X needs significant work over the -9 which most people haven't grasped. Boeing has enough on its plate right now. I don't 'predict' EIS before 2020 if not 2022, and I don't make predictions.


oh boy!!!
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3328 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8920 times:

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 20):

And the 787-10X is still an (A.net) wet dream. -10X needs significant work over the -9

? It does? Who says? Got a link? Some facts?

More than a few airlines have a use for a straight stretch of the 789.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 8906 times:

IMO the 787-10 needs more capability to be attractive to loyal A333 customers to make the change and retraining etc.

The warmed over A333 is good enough compared to the paper 787-10 we know today, sure it is a generation older but that is no problem seeing how airlines still order 737s..

I am very disappointed that Airbus didn't go neo with A330, engine pips and small tweaks..cheap for a overburdened OEM I guess. And would the A333 be too good the A358 would be dead.

Boeing has it easier, they want to replace the 772, Airbus must weigh A358s future and the current market share at the same time.

IMO Airbus is the one with the worst headache, how go about A330 and A350? The A350 is no 1:1 replacement for the A330 family.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 254 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8684 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
The A330-300 keeps increasing it's range, so it may be that Boeing wants the 787-10 to be a true B-Market aircraft like the 777-200ER, able to handle both regional and long-haul missions with equal aplomb.

That "true B-Market aircraft" already exists: it is called A350-900, and has been selling rather well. I find it doubtful that Boeing will want to position the 787-10 in that market slot...
Also, I don't believe Airbus will continue to increase 330-300 capabilities, to the point where it starts to interfere with 350-900 sales.

Quoting sweair (Reply 22):
how go about A330 and A350? The A350 is no 1:1 replacement for the A330 family.

Neither is the 787-10. The 787-8 is a replacement for the 330-200, the 787-9 is a replacement for the 340-300, but there will not be a direct 330-300 replacement.

IMHO one of the following scenarios will happen:

1. Boeing will end up launching the 787-10, and in response airbus launches a sub-family of "medium"-range 350s. Let's call them the "-600" and the "-700". They would have, respectively, the same length of the -900 and the -1000, and weights and engine ratings close to those found in the -800 and the -900 (the "-700" would also feature the wing and - maybe - main landing gear of the -900). The 330-300 line will wind down and close.

2. Boeing gives up on the -10 and Airbus goes on selling the 330-300 with small improvements for the foreseeable future.
Maybe 350-1000 medium range variant is launched, depending on whether 777-300 (non ER) operators will ask for a direct replacement to be developed.

[Edited 2012-08-16 03:18:13]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29709 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 8357 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TP313 (Reply 23):
That "true B-Market aircraft" already exists: it is called A350-900, and has been selling rather well. I find it doubtful that Boeing will want to position the 787-10 in that market slot...

Boeing looks like they intend to bracket the A350-900 between the 787-10 and the 777-8.



Quoting sweair (Reply 22):
IMO the 787-10 needs more capability to be attractive to loyal A333 customers to make the change and retraining etc.

A 787-10 will carry more people and a heck of a lot more cargo (by volume) and should fly a fair bit farther with both than the 240t A330-300 at a slightly higher TOW with perhaps a slightly lower OEW and burning a fair bit less fuel. What more would an A330-300 operator want?



Quoting TP313 (Reply 23):
Boeing will end up launching the 787-10, and in response airbus launches a sub-family of "medium"-range 350s.

Airbus Spain (CASA) floated the idea of a "Regional A350" using the same airframe with a lower MTOW and de-rated engines (effectively what Boeing did with the 747-400D and will likely do with the 787-8 now that the 787-3 is dead). However, since there will be no reduction in OEW, the Boeing planes should have an advantage in that area.


25 TP313 : I agree, but Boeing would only be able to do that if they keep the -10 a simple stretch. If they grow its weight into "true B-Market aircraft", as yo
26 JerseyFlyer : I think the A350-1000 "lite" concept is interesting in that it would essentially be a "simple stretch" of the A350-900 and so much easier to do than a
27 KDAYflyer : This will be great to see if the trend continues into production.
28 vaus77w : But that's what the A350-1000XWB was originally, a simple stretch of the 900. However the ME carriers complained to AIrbus they wanted more range to
29 CXB77L : The A350-1000 "lite", if it were to be produced, would be an excellent 777-300 'A' replacement, although admittedly that is a very small market and a
30 Post contains images astuteman : A plane that will have paid for itself by the time they can get hold of a 787-10? Apart from that, you make a good point.... ??? The A350-1000 was NE
31 Post contains images ferpe : The big question for any 350-950 (a 900 with the 1000 fuselage) would be how much lower OEW it would have then the -1000. Indications are the spec OEW
32 Post contains images ferpe : I think it makes sense for B to delay the 787-10 and focus on the 777X. They own the 300+, 6000nm+ segment today and risk leaving the -1000 alone to l
33 frigatebird : How much is the difference between a 773 and a 77W? As soon as the 77W had its EIS, the 773 stopped selling and was eventually removed from Boeing's
34 TP313 : Well, the very same point can be made when comparing the 787-10 to the 350-900. And you might well be right, for that would pretty much explain Boein
35 vaus77w : Oh right I must have remembered incorrectly. My bad.
36 parapente : Frankly reply 1 seems to answer this question best. "Boeing has plenty of time to do the -10. They have years of full production runs of the 787 and s
37 Stitch : 10 tons in terms of OEW and 50 tons in terms of TOW.
38 Post contains links and images Pellegrine : Looks like I was right Mr. Wagon : Boeing Slows The Pace On 777X. Why? (by rotating14 Aug 23 2012 in Civil Aviation) Your links, facts, and guillotin
39 sweair : The 787-10 is replacing the 772? Is it really 1:1? It lacks the range IMO. Maybe they will do a ER version in the future like the 772 got?
40 rotating14 : I believe the -10 is a supplement to the -9. Carriers who want more capacity and less range than the -9 will IMHO order the -10. I could and may well
41 CXB77L : The 787-10X seems to be aimed at the mid range 777-200 'A' replacement, along with the A330-300 replacement market. The 787-9 appears to be the 777-2
42 Post contains links and images Stitch : Boeing dismissed that article - http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archive.../2012/08/absolutely_committed.html The 787-10 looks to be designed to serve th
43 phxa340 : Is it possible that Boeing hasn't really slowed down developement or pushed anything back, but instead some influential (And loud and sometimes abrasi
44 Post contains images rotating14 : I think that is very much the case. But on the flip side they should know if they want a first class product its not going to be slapped together and
45 Post contains images Stitch : If I was Boeing, I would not be committing to the 787-10X (or the 777X) if EK was the one doing the jawing unless they backed up the talk with a large
46 LH707330 : TC wanted the originally-proposed 748i with the 3 meter stretch and the 8300 nm range so EK could do a n/s DXB-LAX mission with a full payload. LH di
47 Post contains images Stitch : I continue to believe that EK was never serious about the 747-8 because it would have had a "shelf life" in the fleet of a handful of years to servic
48 SQ22 : Do you think by doing this, there wouldnt have been not only a 747-8 but maybe a 747-9 too flying around?
49 Stitch : I'm inclined to think LH would have accepted the shorter model.
50 LH707330 : I doubt LH would be thrilled about that if the bird weighs the same and has fewer seats and extra range that is useless to them. If the 744/748 trip
51 Stitch : LH long expressed strong interest in a 747 larger than the 747-400. Also, consider that the 747-8 has fewer Economy seats than the 747-400 thanks to
52 beeweel15 : Will the 777x have more engine choices or will they stick to just one type. Would love to RR engines on it.
53 Stitch : Boeing is said to have issued RFPs to GE, Rolls-Royce and Pratt.
54 Revelation : Some here claim that Boeing's recent catastrophes called 747-8 and 787-8 were "historical" and "guidance" but here we see differently.
55 EPA001 : Even though I would expect GE to be the favourite here. Is there enough room for two or even three types of engines on the B777-X program? Meaning, w
56 sweair : A single engine option I am sure is not the best way to sell more planes, some airlines just refuse to buy a certain engine makers products. This migh
57 EPA001 : Well, maybe so. But it never hurt the B77W/L? Those types combined are by far the most successful versions of the B777, and they are only available w
58 Stitch : When Boeing started work on what would become the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter, both CX and AA wanted RR power and when GE landed the exclu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Biman To Receive First 777 By Next Month? posted Sun Nov 1 2009 08:25:11 by NA
N787BA Moving To The Paint Hanger posted Tue Jul 28 2009 12:30:57 by CFBFrame
Could The 787-3 Be Boeing's Answer To The A333? posted Thu May 21 2009 11:00:55 by Stitch
AirTran Moving To The HHH Terminal At MSP posted Fri Apr 28 2006 06:28:45 by Pilottim747
787-10 Back On The Table As Answer To A330-300 posted Mon Dec 20 2010 11:45:03 by dtw9
QF CEO Joyce: Prefers 787-10 To A350/777 posted Fri Oct 22 2010 15:20:50 by QFA787380
787-9 (& 787-10) Moving Up-Market? posted Mon May 24 2010 13:06:31 by Stitch
No 787-10 Due To Potential 777 Improvements posted Wed Apr 21 2010 11:19:05 by CFBFrame
SQ Looks To Order The A350X - Wither The 787-10? posted Wed Dec 20 2006 15:26:45 by Stitch
787-10 Moved Up To 2010? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 06:09:44 by AeroWesty