Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Slows The Pace On 777X. Why?  
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 722 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16064 times:

Hello all,

It's been discussed here I'm sure that the management at Boeing are deciding to hold off on committing so many resources to the 787-10 and the 777x but now it seem like they are pumping the brakes on the 777x program all together and its chafing some of its biggest customers (EK and I'm guessing the anonymous individual is either Walsh w/ BA or QR's CEO). Boeing already has the advantage by already having the majority of the wide-body market share, why would they stall (if they are) and give Airbus and chance to capitalize on the stalling?? Thoughts and ideas??

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...ology/2018972134_boeing777x23.html

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16011 times:

Im sort of glad they slowed this down a bit. I dont think Boeing wants another 787 type fiasco on it's hands. I would rather they do it right.

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 722 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15964 times:

True. But what what expense though?? I also don't want another relapse of the dismal days of the 787 but can Boeing afford to wait?? Do they have something planned that is far more superior than we all think and know to warrant the wait??

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 15939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I can understand some trepidation on Boeing's part, though the article implies Boeing can wait until 2014 to commit and still conceivably make the 2019 EIS.

Airbus has yet to complete firm configuration on the A350-1000, so Boeing is trying to address a moving target. And with the possibility of additional delays to the EIS and/or production rate of the A350-900, that might push the A350-1000 EIS back past the current 2017 date. If that happens, it would give the 777-300ER some extra sales, probably.

Boeing has been studying a Performance Improvement Package for the 777-300ER that could reduce fuel burn by 4% and GE is also working on improvements to the GE90-115B engine. If these are implemented, they'll help shrink the performance gap and would help Boeing sell additional frames if the A350-1000 is delayed further.

I could also see Boeing being a bit worried of seeing a repeat of the 747-8: spend a fair bit of time, personnel and money to overhaul the plane and see it launch to no immediate interest.

Tim Clark can proclaim all he wants to Boeing that he likes the 777X, but he also proclaimed long and loud about the 747-8 and he never ordered it and has subsequently stated he will never order it. So I could see Boeing, in the most politest of ways, suggesting that if EK places a launch order of a few score for the 777X, Boeing would work diligently to bring it to market in 2019.  

[Edited 2012-08-23 10:06:19]

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 722 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15667 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Boeing has been studying a Performance Improvement Package for the 777-300ER that could reduce fuel burn by 4% and GE is also working on improvements to the GE90-115B engine.

Is this similar to what Boeing offered to the 777-200 or 777-LR? If so then that make the most sense. I would venture to guess that with those improvements, should they come to fruition, should compete with the A350-900 when it enters service but then again by that time we should have an idea of what both the 777x and A350 looks like. Let cross our fingers and hope it pans out, I'm sure it will though.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15537 times:

The "anonymous" quote in that Dominic Gates story is really funny because it could only be one of about two people...

[Edited 2012-08-23 11:09:41]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15508 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 4):
Is this similar to what Boeing offered to the 777-200 or 777-LR?

The PiP for the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 were a 2 degree aileron droop, a change to the Ram Air Intake and replacing the existing vortex generators with those used on the 737NG. Evidently all these are already part of the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15454 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I could also see Boeing being a bit worried of seeing a repeat of the 747-8: spend a fair bit of time, personnel and money to overhaul the plane and see it launch to no immediate interest.

When was the last time any variant of the 777 had no immediate interest? IMHO the 777 is the best airplane ever designed and built. It is, and probably always would be, a hot seller.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15295 times:

I'd say do the PIP, get GE to update the engines and skip the new wing/barrel (a new skin and reprofiling ribs basically means new barrel) and systems - Then move on to Y3.

Or Maybe the airlines are wanting more from Boeing on the 787-10 leading down the road of thinking of a 787-10/11 combo with much greater length and new wing, effectively replacing the 777 altogether and allowing the 777 line to run out...

This may be cheaper to R&D and manufacture than the more labour intensive 777 design. The cost of beating the 350-1000 with a 777 based design may be a task too large.


User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2606 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14890 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Airbus has yet to complete firm configuration on the A350-1000, so Boeing is trying to address a moving target.

I concur with you re: the 777X, makes good sense to wait til your competitor shows their hand but why are they backing off the 787-10? Seems that they more or less committed to doing it a couple years ago and yet there's still not even the slightest hint of a launch date


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 722 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14812 times:

Quoting ER757 (Reply 9):
but why are they backing off the 787-10?

I may be wrong but the direction they may be going in may be that they (Boeing management) may be looking to introduce both at roughly the same time. I can see why they would wait as to not repeat the follies of the 787-8 and the 747-8.


User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14750 times:

I think designing a CFRP wing for the 777X is still a challenge. The fact that the 787-9 did not get a wing span increase is an indication for me that engineers have not yet found a good side of body join design.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 14633 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ER757 (Reply 9):
ut why are they backing off the 787-10?
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 10):
I may be wrong but the direction they may be going in may be that they (Boeing management) may be looking to introduce both at roughly the same time.

If their strategy is to bracket the A350-900 with the 787-10X and 777-8X, it would be best to have both EIS at the same time so as to offer the best proposal to RFPs.



Quoting Rheinbote (Reply 11):
I think designing a CFRP wing for the 777X is still a challenge. The fact that the 787-9 did not get a wing span increase is an indication for me that engineers have not yet found a good side of body join design.


The Side of Body join was too strong, originally, so that should not have prevented Boeing from using the longer span.

I think the decision was driven by time and cost. Using the same wing means you don't need to spend resources designing a longer one and it allows the Heavies to produce one set of wings.

[Edited 2012-08-23 14:53:52]

User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2983 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 13483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am reading this with great curiosity as most of it is way over my head. What is the promise/design of the 777X? It would be very kind to explain it to me and would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks VC10X.  



The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
User currently offlinevaus77w From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 12721 times:

Quoting VC10er (Reply 13):
I am reading this with great curiosity as most of it is way over my head. What is the promise/design of the 777X? It would be very kind to explain it to me and would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks VC10X.

Have a read of this article http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...ps-777x-to-challenge-airbus-a350/. Should clarify things for you.


User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12483 times:

Don't forget the reference to the 'black hat' money men in the article. In times of constrained economies and demands for short term returns on investments, the easiest way to make profits and dividends in the short term is for Boeing to do nothing. The 777 in it's current form is makin plenty of money, but a 777X will require a considerable investment. Look at how much effort is required to just tweak the 737.

It's not good for the long term, but long term thinking is not viewed so favourably these days.


User currently offlineredrooster3 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 229 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11292 times:

Randy posted this a couple of hours ago saying that Boeing is still very much committed to the 77X and 787-10X, he even got an answer from the CEO Ray on seattletime's article. See Here.


The only thing you should change about a woman is her last name.
User currently offlinericknroll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11200 times:

We will see how the white hats vs black hats works out..

User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4778 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10745 times:

I think it's underpowered..


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If their strategy is to bracket the A350-900 with the 787-10X and 777-8X, it would be best to have both EIS at the same time so as to offer the best proposal to RFPs.


  

Or at least sufficiently close so that the Sales guys can offer mixed packages, with say 787 family, 777+ and 777X (who knows?); with pricing to suit the customer and delivery to suit the production profiles of the various types.

But, as previously discussed, the No1 requirement is that the 777-8 is really competitve with the A350-1000. Not just hopefully, but really, truly competitive.
The $64 question.

cheers, Bill



Billy
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9995 times:

I have to wonder if learning what's possible (in addition to what's hard) from the 787 makes them respect the coming competition from the A350 more. Nothing to be gained from assuming the other guys won't hit it out of the park.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2693 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9683 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting morrisond (Reply 8):
Or Maybe the airlines are wanting more from Boeing on the 787-10 leading down the road of thinking of a 787-10/11 combo with much greater length and new wing, effectively replacing the 777 altogether and allowing the 777 line to run out...

This may be cheaper to R&D and manufacture than the more labour intensive 777 design. The cost of beating the 350-1000 with a 777 based design may be a task too large.

Why? The 777 is still a very young airframe with lots of unfulfilled potential. The 787 isn't big enough nor capable enough to completely replace the 777. It was never designed to be a 777 replacement in the first place. The more the 787 fuselage is stretched, the more compromised it becomes. The "787-11" will require substantial engineering to make it work. To fit the same number of passengers on the "787-11" as on the 777-9X, it'll have to be substantially longer, given that the 787 has a narrower fuselage cross section. This will require massive engineering work on the main landing gear and "beefing up" various sections of the aircraft to maintain the necessary stiffness, among other things which will add weight. That's not to mention what effects its extreme length will have on its manoeuvrability around airports.

You have made this assertion in 777X Vs 787-11/12 (by morrisond Sep 21 2011 in Civil Aviation), and Tdscanuck pointed out in reply 24 that

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 24):
Either way, they're doing a new wing. So it's a new wing plus a major systems/fuselage redesign if you use the 787 as a base, or just a new wing if you use the 777 as the base. The latter is cheaper and easier.


On the other hand, it has been mentioned by a.netter Lightsaber here before that there is significant weight that could be removed from the current 777's wing:

Boeing To Increase 777+ Wingspan (by flyAUA Jun 21 2011 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 31):
However, the 777 wing, per my rumor mill, is overstrength in sections. Since every chain is only as strong as the weakest link, it is un-needed weight to have something fail earlier than the bulk (except you want a somewhat benign failure mode... so there is no designing to disintegrate at 151% load).

My rumor mill insists Boeing is looking at a tremendous weight reduction in the wing utilizing the new Alcoa aluminum. My rumor mill also insists Boeing will look at different joints to further reduce weight.
Boeing 777-8X And -9X Now In The Pipe Line (by MSN007 Jan 11 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 194):
Per structural and design engineers I know who worked the original 777, 10t should be possible. Their opinion is that the wing went out far heavier than it had to.

With a new wing and perhaps some structural modifications to reduce weight, I don't think the 777-9X, despite being larger, will be much heavier than the 77W, if at all.

Quoting redrooster3 (Reply 16):
Randy posted this a couple of hours ago saying that Boeing is still very much committed to the 77X and 787-10X, he even got an answer from the CEO Ray on seattletime's article. See Here.

  

It's not a question of if, but when the 777X will be built:

Quote:
While the Seattle Times reported this morning that we have slowed down the development process for the 777X, our timing on a decision to offer that airplane has not changed. We are absolutely committed to the 777X and continue to invest the necessary time and resources to ensure we produce a superior airplane for our customers.

I think the Seattle Times article linked to in the OP is a load of hot air ...

Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
I think it's underpowered..

It may look that way due to Boeing's RFP for 100,000lb engines, but I think it's more of an indication that the 777X's wings will be both lighter and more efficient at the same time. There's also a reduced MTOW due to the reduced fuel burn.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4935 posts, RR: 40
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9120 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 21):
I think the Seattle Times article linked to in the OP is a load of hot air ...

I think you are drawing conclusions there which are on the sunny side of life. The article gives details of talks with many leading people in the airliner business. Fact is that Boeing does not want to rush things now. Maybe they are a bit scared or extra careful after losing multiple billions of Dollars due to setbacks in other programs.

On the other hand they still have some time to make up their minds exactly. I would say the article is a wake-up call to Boeing management about setting the priorities for the respective so that the potential customers and the engineering workforce know what will be on the table for the coming 8 years or so. They should show their vision, that is what the article is calling for imho.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2693 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7671 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23):
I think you are drawing conclusions there which are on the sunny side of life. The article gives details of talks with many leading people in the airliner business. Fact is that Boeing does not want to rush things now. Maybe they are a bit scared or extra careful after losing multiple billions of Dollars due to setbacks in other programs.

The fact is that Boeing's CEO gave a categoric denial of the assertion made by the Seattle Times. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise, then it is just a load of hot air designed to provoke a reaction.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that there is no possibility a delay could occur, but as of right now, according to Boeing's CEO, everything is going as planned: a decision on offering this aircraft will happen towards the end of this year or early next year, and EIS in 2019.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 23):
I would say the article is a wake-up call to Boeing management about setting the priorities for the respective so that the potential customers and the engineering workforce know what will be on the table for the coming 8 years or so.

Granted, there seems to be a lot on Boeing's plate for the next 8 years: 787-9, 787-10, 737MAX and 777X. It could mean that something's got to give. However, at the moment, there has yet to be a statement from Boeing which definitively says that one or more of its projects will have to be pushed back.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineRheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1968 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8428 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
The Side of Body join was too strong, originally, so that should not have prevented Boeing from using the longer span.

Do you really believe this? Why did Boeing then put ~140 titanium fittings into the join area reportedly weighing 800lbs? Not to mention the beef-up of the center box.


25 Burkhard : Aircraft are not designed for two years of sales and production, but for 20 at least. Boeing better makes the 77X right so that they can sell it until
26 bikerthai : Do you know what was there before? Aluminum fittings? From a design stand point, it would be foolish to use aluminum fittings connecting two graphite
27 Rheinbote : Before there were no re-inforcement fittings at all. The fittings in question are 'bathtub' shaped titanium fittings inserted left and right into the
28 Stitch : The 787-9 is pretty much a direct-replacement for the 777-200ER if you go 6-abreast in Business and 9-abreast in Economy. They have almost identical
29 Aesma : You can say the same thing about the A330. And the 747 until the 90's. And the 737. And the A320. Etc. Sometimes immediate interest faded after not l
30 Stitch : A 787 is more fuel efficient than an A330, but an A330 is still a very fuel efficient platform. The same applies to the 777 compared to the A350. Yes
31 Burkhard : Very good analysis. agree completely.Maybe some of the airlines which have very small 77W fleets like BA will also replace them soon, but no doubt an
32 Aesma : I'm not talking about replacing planes, I'm talking about new sales. Would the current 777 still sell in a few years if it's not replaced by the 777X
33 Post contains images EPA001 : Why not? The B787 is out there but the A330 is still selling very well, and will be kept up to date and further improved by Airbus. So I do not see a
34 Aesma : Sure, even the 767 is still selling a few frames. But it's not making the news, and is certainly not keeping Boeing market share and revenues high.
35 Post contains images EPA001 : ^^ The first 5 years or so the B777 will not be hurt by the competition entering the market imho. The longer after EIS, the lower the sales will be. F
36 rotating14 : Not mention the backlog for both the 787 and the 330 are very healthy so an alternative would be a 77W or a 763 IMO. I remember Stitch saying that Bo
37 Stitch : The 777 Freighter has no real competition (it lifts almost as much by weight as the 747-400BCF and looks that it could be so efficient that the low a
38 Post contains images CXB77L : I meant the 777-300ER specifically. Apologies for not making that clear. I agree that the 787-9 would make an excellent 777-200ER replacement, despit
39 sweair : What is to say the current A350 schedule will be on target? It might be that A350-1000 and the 777-X will arrive almost at the same time. The A350 has
40 EPA001 : That is highly unlikely. The B777-X program has not even officially started yet. 2019 is at present the absolute earliest year for an EIS, but most l
41 sweair : As noone can tell the future your guess is as good as anyones..
42 cmf : Take it easy there. All guesses are not equal. The data considered before making the guess is very important.
43 sweair : Wise from the last decade of new airplane projects it would not surprise me at all if I am right, we should all be sceptics to the rosy schedules giv
44 cmf : Wise from decades of project management, things happen. But, a project pending go ahead with end of the decade target is very unlikely to catch up wi
45 Post contains images EPA001 : That is most important indeed. That is what we see so often here. . Which would imply that the 2019 date for the B777-X must be taken with at least t
46 Rheinbote : It's a matter of Boeing finance: The 787 program and to lesser extent the 747-8 keep piling up deferred production cost and compensation cost. The KC-
47 Stitch : If current 737 margins are in the 20% range, as some analysts feel they are, then even with these pricing concessions, Boeing's going to see strong p
48 Rheinbote : I share that assumption, but analysts also see see risk that these margins are coming under pressure. The question is how much margin is needed to ba
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...
BA Interested In Boeing Building The 777X posted Thu Apr 26 2012 10:14:04 by redrooster3
Why Did Boeing Build The 727? posted Tue Apr 24 2012 17:45:14 by 727LOVER
Why Aren't The Engines On The NZ 77W Not Black? posted Tue Feb 14 2012 16:58:39 by virginblue4
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
Why Did Boeing Kill The MD90? posted Thu Apr 24 2008 12:48:15 by B767
Boeing Faces Hurdles, Opportunities On The 787 posted Tue Aug 21 2007 21:57:07 by NYC777
Why Has Boeing Discontinued The B757 posted Sun Apr 15 2007 08:24:20 by Chinook747
Boeing To Unveil 787 On The 7/8/07 posted Wed Mar 28 2007 20:02:51 by UAL777UK
Why All The Demand On DL To PTY? posted Sun Dec 17 2006 00:28:27 by OttoPylit
Why Did Boeing Skip The 717? posted Mon May 1 2006 23:45:05 by RootsAir