Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete!  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12710 posts, RR: 25
Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 53901 times:

Seems the gloves are off:

"(The 777x)'s going to obsolete the A350-1000 before the A350-1000 is even delivered."
-- Boeing Vice-President of Business Development and Strategic Integration Nicole Piasecki

That's a pretty strong statement to be making, IMHO.

Is it all bluster to hide the fact that the 777X seems to not be coming out on the timeline that the former Boeing exec Jim Albaugh suggested?

Even our a.net arch villian Richard Aboulafia refers to this as "backpeddling", and wonders if Boeing is just saying this to support the presumed decision to wait on the 777X:

In a August letter, Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia refers to what he calls Boeing's "backpedalling", saying: "Boeing maintains that the 777-300ER is as good, if not better, than the A350-1000, and therefore, it can delay the 777X. The 777-300ER may be a superb plane, but the market still prefers newer models."

Personally, it's clear to me that the 777W will be undermined by the A351, and there's no reason to expect that the 777X will "make the A351 obsolete" and that the 777X is being delayed because of the massive hits to the bottom line being taken to get the various 787 derivatives and the MAX out the door.

In other words, talk is cheap!

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...x-end-decade-service-entry-376096/


Inspiration, move me brightly!
283 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinekl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53911 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
"(The 777x)'s going to obsolete the A350-1000 before the A350-1000 is even delivered."
-- Boeing Vice-President of Business Development and Strategic Integration Nicole Piasecki

Does this man really think that airlines executives are stupid or what? You can talk like this to supermarket customers, not to CEO's of airlines... ( Iassume the message was to them since they have to buy the planes)


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53777 times:

Just me, or does this make them look rather pathetic, desperate even?

Do they honestly expect people to believe that a warmed up 30 year old design is going to make a brand new state of the art one obsolete? Competitive it maybe, but better... no way.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 382 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53563 times:

They also said that the 737NG was 2% better than the NEO before they finally rushed to the drawing board to create the MAX

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53447 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Is it all bluster to hide the fact that the 777X seems to not be coming out on the timeline that the former Boeing exec Jim Albaugh suggested?

It can't be. Nobody's trying to hide that...Boeing themselves same right out and said it.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 1):
Does this man really think that airlines executives are stupid or what?

Nicole is a woman.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 1):
You can talk like this to supermarket customers, not to CEO's of airlines...

Slightly in Nicole's defense, several high profile airline CEO's think nothing of talking to all of the OEM's this way. A race to the bottom is sad to see but at least the OEM's didn't start the race.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
Do they honestly expect people to believe that a warmed up 30 year old design is going to make a brand new state of the art one obsolete?

How did we come up with the 777 being a 30 year old design? At absolute best, it's 23 years old (and that's for a model that's no longer in production). Even with rounding, you can't get there from here.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
Just me, or does this make them look rather pathetic, desperate even?

I'm sure it's not just you, but I don't get the vibe of pathetic or desperate, I get the vibe of going way over to the hyperbole side of aircraft marketing...this is a place we've been before. This is just the mirror of Leahy's early comments about the original A330 vs. 787.

Tom.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10106 posts, RR: 97
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
This is just the mirror of Leahy's early comments about the original A330 vs. 787.

  

And that just about wraps up the necessary commentary on this thread...

rgds


User currently offline757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 676 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53225 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):

Agreed, but I think I'm getting some popcorn... this is going to be a fun thread to watch unless it gets locked...   



God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1327 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 53162 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
Just me, or does this make them look rather pathetic, desperate even?

It's just you.  

And it's marketing.



rcair1
User currently offlineU2380 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 53026 times:

Both companies have a history of making comments similar to this. Airbus had the comment about the original A350 and I'm sure a few others. Boeing has this one, various comments they've made about the 748i/A380 and my personal favourite, the supposed 737NG fuel burn advantage over the A320NEO.

It doesn't really achieve much other than getting their name in the media.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12710 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 52968 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 3):
They also said that the 737NG was 2% better than the NEO before they finally rushed to the drawing board to create the MAX

The same thought crossed my head when I was reading the article.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
It can't be. Nobody's trying to hide that...Boeing themselves same right out and said it.

Of course that's true, even us dweebs on a.net know about it, so it would have been safe to presume that I didn't mean "hide" in the literal sense, I meant it in the sense of "to obscure" or "to draw one's attention way from". However you are a technologist like me, so you are forgiven!  
Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
And that just about wraps up the necessary commentary on this thread...

In other words, there is no conceivable way that the 777X with EIS of December 31st, 2019 at 23:59 will render the A350-1000 obsolete?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 52755 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):

How did we come up with the 777 being a 30 year old design? At absolute best, it's 23 years old (and that's for a model that's no longer in production). Even with rounding, you can't get there from here.

Which would be corect if the 77X was available now.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 52407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Nicole Piasecki's comments are not aimed at airline executives. They're aimed at the general public and the purpose of the statement is to keep them confident as it relates to owning or buying Boeing stock.  

And the general public have no idea the 777 will be 30 years old in 2020.



Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
Is it all bluster to hide the fact that the 777X seems to not be coming out on the timeline that the former Boeing exec Jim Albaugh suggested?

If EK and QR really want the 777X by 2017, all they have to do is each place an order for 50.  Smile

[Edited 2012-09-06 12:48:14]

User currently offline707lvr From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 585 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 52363 times:

As Mr. Spock might say, Boeing does not bluster.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 52317 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 10):
Which would be corect if the 77X was available now.

But we measure age of a design by the age of the design...not by availability. The 787 is a ~8 year old design, not a 1 year old design.

Tom.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4800 posts, RR: 40
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 52169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 5):
And that just about wraps up the necessary commentary on this thread...

Indeed. And that says it all.  


User currently offlineholzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 51709 times:

I dunno. Combined with the rumors that have surfaced here and what I read between the lines in the "747-8 Special Edition of Lufthansa Magazin" I think Boeing and Lufthansa are cooking something up. The Magazin keeps referring to a special (50-year) relationship and I personally think there is more to come. Whether DLH is the launch customer for the 787-10 or something else...time will tell.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 51400 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
That's a pretty strong statement to be making, IMHO.

I'm guessing that the Boeing exec might be a Boeing fangirl? I'm sure she's not biased in any way...

Quoting kl911 (Reply 1):
Does this man

Nicole Piasecki is probably not a man.

But it is Seattle, so anything is possible.   

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
Do they honestly expect people to believe that a warmed up 30 year old design is going to make a brand new state of the art one obsolete? Competitive it maybe, but better... no way.

I'll point out that the 737 is well over 30 years old and it's doing very well. What truly makes an aircraft efficient is the engines. The 77X will have newer engines than the A350. The Trent XWB has been in flight tests for some time now. The 77X's engines haven't even been officially named yet, they're so state-of-the-art!

And let's not forget that the 777 is not exactly a relic. At the time it was designed, airframe design and aircraft systems design were very mature technologies, so they don't tend to go obsolete as quickly as you'd think. And remember that the A350 has a conventional systems architecture, just like the 777.

With a new wing, the main difference between the 77X and A350 will be in the fuselage construction material, which winds up not being a *huge* factor.

I'm not saying that the 77X will blow the A350 out of the water. But it also will definitely have its advantages over the A350 in certain market segments and with certain carriers that operate 777's currently.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3790 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 51235 times:

PR trash talk. Gotta love it when the sales team from both sides start doing that. They feel like small time salesmen pitching a new brand of canned sausages to Walmart.

Especially when talking about two airplanes which aren't even close to being built.

If only we could hear more from the engineers than from the marketing idiots from A and B... I guess we don't live in that world anymore.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineaviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 50681 times:

Quoting holzmann (Reply 15):
I dunno. Combined with the rumors that have surfaced here and what I read between the lines in the "747-8 Special Edition of Lufthansa Magazin" I think Boeing and Lufthansa are cooking something up. The Magazin keeps referring to a special (50-year) relationship and I personally think there is more to come. Whether DLH is the launch customer for the 787-10 or something else...time will tell.

Maybe Lufthansa will buy some 777s !!   



707 727 Caravelle Comet Concorde Dash-7 DC-9 DC-10 One-Eleven Trident Tristar Tu-134 VC-10 Viscount plus boring stuff!
User currently offlineKaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 157 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 50687 times:

Slightly off topic, but it is strange that Tim Clarke is pushing so hard to get a 777X delivery date. Flight global states that Emirates wants to start retiring their 77W in 2017. Considering that Emirates received their first 77W in 2004 the oldest would be at most 13 years old. Wouldn't they want to retire the 772 or A340's first?

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
"(The 777x)'s going to obsolete the A350-1000 before the A350-1000 is even delivered."

I'll believe it when I see it  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 50183 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 18):
Maybe Lufthansa will buy some 777s!!     

Their cargo arm already has.  
Quoting KaiTak747 (Reply 19):
Slightly off topic, but it is strange that Tim Clarke is pushing so hard to get a 777X delivery date. Flight global states that Emirates wants to start retiring their 77W in 2017. Considering that Emirates received their first 77W in 2004 the oldest would be at most 13 years old. Wouldn't they want to retire the 772 or A340's first?

EK seems to prefer a 12-year term for their sale and leasebacks of A380-800s and 777-300ERs. I do not know if EK has done this with early 777-300ER deliveries, but if they have, those terms may be expiring around 2017 and EK may prefer to not have to extend them.

The A350-900 will handle 777-200, 777-200ER and A340-300 retirements. Some of the older 777-300ERs may replace the 777-300s.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 49354 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 17):
If only we could hear more from the engineers than from the marketing idiots from A and B... I guess we don't live in that world anymore.

Nicole Piasecki is an engineer by training and was an engineer at Boeing:
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices...aboutus/execprofiles/piasecki.html

Tom.


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 722 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 48876 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
But it is Seattle, so anything is possible.

With her title, dontcha mean Chicago? Or is all of BCA in WA?

[Edited 2012-09-06 17:47:35]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31098 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 48422 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing Commercial Airplanes is still headquartered in Seattle, WA.

Chicago is Boeing's World Headquarters.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5476 posts, RR: 30
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 48073 times:

Isn't sales trash talk fun? If any of these sales guys said anything other than their product was the best, I'd fire them.

Just like it's up to ma and pa to wade through all the "I'm the bestest ever", to decide which econobox is the best, it's up to the airlines to ignore the sales noise and judge for themselves what is best for them based on specs, price, financing or whatever criteria floats their boats.



What the...?
25 mercure1 : I suppose the term "as good" can be used loosely. The A350-1000 should have a 12% DOW advantage, which should translate into at least a 10% fuel mile
26 iahmark : LH Cargo will have five 777F delivered starting 2013; these will replace some of their MD11"s.
27 Acheron : Indeed. Though I suspect those who lambasted Leahy for similar comments will either avoid the thread entirely or defend this Executive's comments.[Ed
28 Post contains images ferpe : It is almost all about the engines, the projected 777X ones would have almost 50% higher compression ratios (to use auto speak) then the 350-1000 TXWB
29 DocLightning : Boeing will simply not allow the A350-1000 to have a significant advantage over the 77X. At present it seems that the 77X will outperform the A350-10
30 Post contains images Revelation : EK is free to lobby Boeing to provide a 777X on a schedule that suits EK, but it really does seem like Boeing is just not going to pop out a 777X on
31 BlueSky1976 : It's not you. She is pathetic. Actually, Boeing did start it in the early 1980s with their comments about upcomming A320. Leahy wasn't even on the ho
32 mercure1 : Yes, the 12% comment was wrt the 777-300ER vs A350-1000. It will be interesting to watch Boeing's next move. What will they do for; wing design, ligh
33 trent1000 : Indeed! Especially since "obsolete" is only an adjective. So that means the CEO can't even speak English correctly! BTW, the correct expression is "t
34 odwyerpw : A350-1000 has 9 abreast seating.... 777-300ER has 10 abreast seating in some configurations.... Just how much longer is the fuselage of the A351 goin
35 Post contains images CXB77L : I agree that saying the 777X will make the A350-1000 obsolete is going a bit far. This is nothing but pure marketing talk, and it's no different to w
36 IslandRob : Actually, obsolete is a transitive verb as well as an adjective. So, her usage was grammatical, although not necessarily plausible. Regards. -ir
37 PlanesNTrains : I think that's a little over the top, IMHO. She's a sales person - this is what they do. She didn't call the A350 garbage or anything, she just toute
38 BlueSky1976 : She has history of providing false information in public - see her comments how "737-800 available now is 2% more efficient than A320NEO" for example
39 frigatebird : Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article. Boeing doesn't need
40 autothrust : Not really, the A350 will feature a lot of features of the A380 just with less LRU's. For example only two hydraulics circuits, Electrical-Hydrostati
41 Post contains links CM : The Piasecki quote you are referencing is a CASM comparison of the 737-800 vs the A320neo with a 12 seat difference in the aircraft. It is not a fuel
42 XT6Wagon : and its likely 100% true. The 738 carries more people with less airframe wieght. So on short hops the 738 should beat the per-seat fuel burn of a A32
43 Post contains links rheinwaldner : As a similar piece of news from Leahy is posted currently on Flightglbal.com too, so we could discuss which was more credible... : http://www.flightg
44 Post contains images EPA001 : No it is not. Even today the A350-1000 design work has not been concluded yet. To call the plane which is not even fully designed yet already an 11 y
45 CXB77L : An order for the A350-1000 does not preclude the possibility of a 777-9X order in the future, neither has CX stated that the A350-1000 is to be used
46 EPA001 : Agreed. That is just as not true. That is why we should not overstate the reality. The reality is that both programs are being worked on intensively.
47 frigatebird : True. I was referring to this claim though: (Should have included this part of the article in my post). I strongly believe we can see both A35J and 7
48 Burkhard : No. But these remarks are not aimed at airline execs, and not at a.netters. They are aimed at manipulations of stock market, motivate the fan boys to
49 Post contains images parapente : 'm sure it's not just you, but I don't get the vibe of pathetic or desperate, I get the vibe of going way over to the hyperbole side of aircraft marke
50 KC135TopBoom : Since the A-350-1000 is Airbus's worst selling pax airplane model (bearly outselling the much younger A-330F), I don't have a problem with this Boeing
51 tdscanuck : 1) It's correct English, although unconventional. 2) She's not the CEO. I'm not. If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves. That's not false.
52 CX Flyboy : CX's CEO said last week in a briefing to staff that the A350-1000 will have seat costs that even the 777-300ER cannot beat and that it will be profit
53 KDAYflyer : Ding ding ding...we have a winner!! Looks like both sides are now fully engaged in the war of words, "mines better than yours because....."
54 CXB77L : Why should they be? The A350 is an excellent aircraft. In particular, the -1000 was aimed squarely at being able to do what the 777-300ER can do, but
55 frigatebird : Most likely routes where CX doesn't use the 77W. I can think of AMS, which was served by 744 but will change to A343. That will most likely be becaus
56 Post contains images Revelation : Did you forget a smiley here? True, but this forum is all about speculation. I'm willing to bet there will be a lot less discussion of the topic once
57 CX Flyboy : I meant that the airline with the A350 will manage to launch new routes that the 77W cannot make money on. Cx loves the 77W and refers to it as a 'su
58 tdscanuck : The comment I was responding to was: If that's true, then it means that a cleansheet design from Airbus can't beat an upgrade from Boeing. Airbus is
59 Post contains images EPA001 : Not really I guess. I just agreed with PlanesNTrains here.
60 bobnwa : Shouldn't we wait until both aircraft have flown before making the statement that one is better than the other? This from a neutral party who is not
61 Post contains images Stitch : I don't believe EK was ever serious about the 747-8, even if it had been the short model with the extra 300nm range. EK's need for such a plane would
62 PlanesNTrains : I didn't. I seriously doubt that a warmed-over 777 - no matter how wonderful it ends up being - will meet or exceed what a clean-sheet A350-1000 will
63 Post contains images CM : Quite a bold accusation. Were it to occur, this would be a crime worthy of prison time. Since Boeing executive's stock holdings are published and the
64 Revelation : 777-300ER is available today. Then again, so is the 777-200ER, yet CX went out and ordered 22 A350-9 along with 26 A350-10... And of course there is
65 Stitch : If they didn't have faith in the plane, I would think availability wouldn't matter. The A340-300 and A340-600 were available, but CX didn't order add
66 Revelation : What I said was: and a lack of faith is NOT the same thing as an absence of faith. If we use your absolute interpretation of "faith in the 777", then
67 Stitch : Dictionary.com would disagree with that statement, but w'ever. I will agree that as a long-term future platform, CX appears to have more faith in the
68 Revelation : It doesn't disagree, it allows for both deficiency or absence:
69 cmf : Announced in advance? Where?
70 Post contains links CM : All Boeing insiders planning to trade Boeing (and certain other) stocks are required to report the planned trade to the corporate secretary in advanc
71 cmf : So it is the standard trading window and pre-clearance process. It isn't an announcement where other investors learn they are about to buy or sell.
72 135mech : How is this? The A350 still isn't even an airplane (physical product yet), how has it beaten the already proven 77W? 135Mech
73 CM : No. I did not mean to imply that other investors can see what a Boeing insider is about to do with their stock. I was merely pointing out all stock t
74 mham001 : Has a plane ever been obsolete before EIS?
75 Post contains images cuban8 : Aviation at its best: "My paper plane is better than your paper plane".
76 Post contains images cmf : I just wanted it to be clear that there is no public announcement. It is an internal process where only a very limited number of people are aware. Th
77 Stitch : A318-800? A340-200? 737-600? 767-400ER?
78 Post contains images astuteman : [ But a phantom aircraft that isn't even on offer is already going to obsolete it..... Rgds
79 135mech : The 773ER (77W) ... this is what I was responding to: [Edited 2012-09-07 13:46:00][Edited 2012-09-07 13:47:37]
80 CXB77L : The 737NG is very competitive against the A320 ... Since Boeing will launch the 777X after the A350-1000, it will have a target to aim for. If Boeing
81 DocLightning : Given the fact that Boeing is going for a >10% reduction in engine thrust, there's a hint right there that weight will drop by 10% Should they? Bo
82 zeke : Not at all, that is an indication that the high lift devices and drag is changing. It could be at the same TOW, could be lower, could be higher. It c
83 flightsimer : To continue... DC-7 Lockheed starliner Bristol Britannia And every prop aircraft built from 50 on...
84 tdscanuck : I was wondering how long it would take for that to come up. There are two reasons that comparison isn't very good. 1) The A320 was an absolutely enor
85 DarkSnowyNight : Not necessarily. There's a lot that can be done with the shape of the wing, and high lift devices to reduce the amount of power req'd for takeoff. Ma
86 zeke : Of course, it is all about trade studies. The longer it takes Boeing to launch either the 77X or Y3, the more expensive the development costs are. If
87 Post contains images astuteman : And I was highlighting that you appear to have studiously ignored the opening premise of the thread. Yet you've seen fit to jump on a comparison betw
88 BlueSky1976 : Not this BS again. Why don't you remind us all, right here right now, how many orders 777-300ER had 5 years before EIS. Hint: MUCH LESS than A350-100
89 Post contains links CXB77L : It could also be an indication that fuel burn is lower. According to Rolls-Royce, http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/Propulsion/
90 Post contains links XT6Wagon : Poster child for getting it wrong http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/brab.php Part of my problem with the A351 is it started out being a fair bit
91 zeke : 10% lower than the 77W engine is still a higher fuel flow than the A350-1000 engine. The 77W is about 40t higher TOW than the A350-1000 on a 12 hr se
92 XT6Wagon : I'm talking A351 XWB Vs A351 XWB and how the model has grown to cover the hole it had left the 773ER when the A351 XWB was first offered. Yes, clearl
93 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes it did. Too bad he is not active anymore on this beautiful forum. Well, for once it is aerodynamics. Larger wings and a larger fuselage will mean
94 DarkSnowyNight : Double? At least. I don't know if it will ever get close to 787 or A35X numbers, but I think there's at least a near certainty that it will sell bett
95 scbriml : Worse than BS again, it's incorrect BS again.
96 Ruscoe : Possibly Piasecki knows something about the 351's likely performance that we don't, and so her comment may be based on problems with the 351, rather t
97 dfambro : Zero, of course. Launch order was Oct 2000 and first delivery April 2004. There were less than 5 years from launch to EIS. You can't order something
98 CXB77L : That the 777-9X is heavier and will most likely consume more fuel per trip is not in dispute. Whether it'll match the A350-1000's seat costs, however
99 Stitch : Unless they have something amazing up their sleeves, I still believe Boeing is making a mistake pursuing the 777 Next Generation. The A350-900 and A35
100 Post contains images astuteman : Emirates (not Airbus) suggested that in their configuration the original A350-1000 would have 21% better fuel burn, but aboutt 10% less payload. It s
101 Stitch : True, but it won't be 410 seats in customer configuration. The 777-9 cabin will be 2 meters longer than the 777-300ER - that is two rows of Economy C
102 XT6Wagon : See, we can argue the 2%, or not, but there are posters here who claim the A351 erased that gap without penalty. Thats my problem. I personaly think
103 Post contains images astuteman : For what its worth, I think Boeing can make the 777X very competitive with the A350-1000, but I tend to agree with Stitch that a large part of that w
104 JoeCanuck : Boeing is essentially talking about an all new airplane...all new engines, wing and fuse materials. About the only things they're planning on keeping
105 Revelation : I think there are a lot more cost savings than that. Tooling comes to mind immediately. "Merely" changing materials does mean a lot of calculations a
106 Post contains images ferpe : I guess that's the point, if everything is set in stone and the competitive difference well articulated I guess many of us would not be enjoying ours
107 JoeCanuck : The tooling only stays the same if the materials properties allow it. I suspect they will end up doing much more retooling than they expect to at the
108 tdscanuck : The flight control system. The landing gear. The empennage (within limits). The entire avionics architecture. The fuselage material. If you mean "per
109 sweair : I guess holding off on the Y3 is because of the current gen CFRP autoclave need. The coming gen that has out of autoclave possibility would make it ea
110 Post contains images CXB77L : Granted that in airline configuration, the 777-9X is very unlikely to have 407 seats. But two additional rows of economy class is at least 18 seats.
111 tdscanuck : It's not technically impossible, just economically impractical. If you put the whole stretch ahead of the wing you'll move the CG well forward. This
112 nasula : You imply that the reason for the slow sales is that the A3510 is a dog instead of the much, much more probable reason(s). It sounds like a fit of th
113 Irishpower : DING, DING, DING---We have a winner.
114 DocLightning : This is a good point. The 737NG (and MAX) have the same basic fuselage mold lines in common with the 731/2. The wings, landing gear, avionics, empenn
115 rotating14 : Pardon me if I may, but the 787 is still being sold and pulling in orders, not as much as when it was being offered but still garnering orders. If yo
116 sonomaflyer : I believe Boeing has 824 787's on order (520 for the -8 and 304 for the -9). The airlines that wanted/needed them have already placed their orders. A
117 nasula : Another possibility is pretty much what you also implied in you statement (but perhaps you didn't notice?). I believe the question could just as well
118 astuteman : Pardon me if I may, but 5 years ago the 787 had 910 orders. Today it has 824 and stands at minus 36 for the year to date.... Not exactly the definiti
119 sweair : What my idea was is not the 777X, my idea was to keep the current sizes no stretch or shrink, but do everything else. To lighten the current frames,
120 Post contains images EPA001 : I am sure they will. As usual your remarks are spot-on.
121 Post contains images astuteman : I can only believe that this would be the first option Boeing would have looked at. Currently they appear to have dismissed it. The first obvious rea
122 par13del : Well what exactly was the market that the initial A350-1000 was going after? Boeing apparently saw the initial model as being no threat to the 777W,
123 135mech : I was responding to the comments about the 77W, but was not ignoring the original post, but thank you so much for spending an amazing amount of time
124 rotating14 : I definitely agree with your statement, but as far as scale is concerned 910 to 824 for a delay of 3 ro 4 years (depending on who you talk to) is sti
125 Post contains images astuteman : I don't disagree with that. I suspect the 910 peak was slightly "frothy" anyway. I'm looking forward to seeing 787 sales ease back into the green ove
126 Post contains links zeke : Having considered this comment a little longer, I think it worth mentioning that the engine technology upgrade from the 767 to 787 was greater than t
127 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Yes, the ONLY people who say anything pro-Boeing or anti-Airbus are from the USA. Thanks for stirring the pot. That'd put a smile on some faces, now
128 Post contains images sweair : People make the mistake to involve personal feelings for a company, product or a brand, I think this is sad. I once made the mistake to doubt the Ipho
129 CXB77L : How much impact will the addition of those functions have on the performance of the 777X? The way I look at it, Boeing needs to pull out all stops to
130 sweair : I wonder how things would have been if Airbus launched the A350-1000 instead of the A380 back in 2000, would the 77W have had its time in the sun as i
131 Post contains images 757gb : Agree completely... very well said.
132 CXB77L : The technology would not have been available in 2000 to make the A350-1000 what it is proposed to be at present. So, in short, yes, it would.
133 abba : Now the 350 is at the start of its model life. I can be improved upon. It can loose weight as real life data comes in and parts can be adjusted. And r
134 CXB77L : What makes you think that the 777X won't improve its performance and efficiency over its production cycle just like every other commercial airliner o
135 Revelation : Indeed you do have consistency of argument. The answer is in the name XWB - nothing could fix the fact that the A330 and B787 cross section do not st
136 tdscanuck : A few % if the 787 is any indication. "All the stops" would mean doing a new cleansheet aircraft. And there is no way that that business case closes.
137 sweair : Did you put 787 instead of 777? How much difference will the internal stretching do for the 777? Will a passenger notice? People even complain about
138 Post contains images EPA001 : It should be as wide as the cabin of the A380. That is very comfortable and guarantees a very satisfying travel experience when it comes to seat widt
139 tdscanuck : How does cabin width do anything to guarantee average leg room? Tom.
140 Roseflyer : Well, in 2000 that was the peak of the A340-500 & A340-600 development. Airbus was betting that 4 engines would still prove better for long haul
141 EPA001 : Well I was joking of course. But the average seating configuration in an A380 as they are flying today with several airlines guarantees both. But let
142 abba : Of cause it will - however, as times go on and the product is getting more and more optimized there will be less and less things that can be done. Th
143 EPA001 : That is obvious. Even though the renewed parts on the B777-X program might offer some room for further improvement as well it is clear that a new air
144 sweair : I think if Airbus had gone with a 777-9x sized twin in 2000 instead of the A380 life would be a lot harder for Boeing today, that way the A380 was sor
145 EPA001 : At the time Airbus launched the A340-500/600 program there was no engine available that could do the trick for them to make them twins. So they had t
146 ferpe : There was an engine the size of the GE90-115, RR was the first to demonstrate an engine in this size with the Trent 8115 which B snubbed in favor of
147 Post contains links StickShaker : There is an interesting article on AirInsight regarding Boeings new wide body programs. http://airinsight.com/2012/09/11/boe...e-sporty-game-of-produc
148 sweair : Thank you, finally someone who gets what I was thinking, say Airbus had opted to do a 410 seat twin instead of the A380 back in 2000, I imagine the m
149 Stitch : Considering the 777-200X and 777-300X were themselves in development in 2000, if Airbus had launched a 400-seat twin in 2000, Boeing would have respon
150 CXB77L : Fair point, but weight is just part of the equation. The other important part are the all new engines. Who knows what PiPs will be available? They ar
151 abba : Weight is one thing. Systems another. There is simply limits to how long you can continue to get much out of fine tuning a given architecture. In ord
152 Post contains images astuteman : wonderful thing, hindsight - it's nearly always right....... As the manufacturers have already discussed flowing 777X engine technology back onto the
153 Post contains images EPA001 : Yes they did. And especially the A340-500 is imho without competition when it comes to the best looking large airliner around these days. . As am I.
154 Stitch : But in actual airline configuration, you're not going to get 57 more people into the 777-9 vs. the 777-300ER, you'll (maybe) get 30 - and that is at
155 JoeCanuck : My guess is that one of the hold ups to officially launching the 777x program is they are serioiusly considering a clean sheet replacement...just kee
156 sweair : Maybe they wait for the 2nd gen CFRP that hardens without an autoclave? Carbon nanotube like the F35 has a lot lighter and yet stronger than 787s CFRP
157 Post contains links and images Devilfish : My gut feeling tells me Boeing may use this to accomplish those goals..... . http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...hy-would-boeing-design-a-mid-.htm
158 Stitch : Not sure why Boeing patented that. You can't certify the plane with no forward door on the main deck (the 747 gets by thanks to being grandfathered in
159 JoeCanuck : Maybe they're revive the APU as third engine for takeoff concept.
160 tdscanuck : The patent is on the wing location. Other details of the illustration, like where the doors are, are just to make the drawing pretty and have no pate
161 Post contains images Revelation : Good - I was hoping for a four-holer, if not that, six or eight!
162 CXB77L : I was referring to the 777-9X v A350-1000, actually. Per Boeing's standard configuration, the seat difference between the 777-9X and 777-300ER is 42.
163 DocLightning : It was a bit more than that. In 2000, airlines were craving a replacement for the 747-classics that were being retired, as well as an aircraft that m
164 Stitch : Fair enough. The difference in cabin lengths between the A350-1000 and 777-9X looks to be 1.5m in favor of the 777, so that would be one row of Premi
165 StickShaker : I have serious doubts that the 777-8X can compete effectively with the 359 or the 35J and I suspect its case is somewhat weak, Boeing have not releas
166 Stitch : The 777-8 looks to me like an attempt to bracket the A350-900 from above, with the 787-10 bracketing it from below. The 777-8 is about a meter longer
167 sweair : This is from aspire "For example, Australia’s Quickstep which manufactures F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s CFRP parts, says its out-of-autoclave (OoA)
168 Stitch : Lamborghini has a CFRP R&D lab at the University of Washington in Seattle that has developed new composite production techniques used to in the Se
169 sweair : Well maybe it will pay off to hold back on the Y3 a while until this stuff gets mature? But doing the 777-X and then doing an Y3 is not a good idea.
170 Post contains links and images EPA001 : Some parts of the A350-XWB will be composites made out of out-of-autoclave technology. They are only small parts, but the A350-XWB will be the first
171 JoeCanuck : The schedule of the -1000 with dictate the launch schedule for the 777x, just like the NEO dictated the launch schedule for the MAX. Boeing really, re
172 CXB77L : But unless the technology with which Boeing's all new aircraft can supersede even the A350XWB is available, I think going down the path of an all new
173 abba : Bot would it be wise for Boeing to have two frames that need replacement in the next decade? That will allow Airbus to fully concentrate on the next N
174 SQ22 : Agreed, it will be like the A330 to the current 787-8, or even better. I don't think so, I guess first we will see the new NB, thereafter the new WB
175 sweair : I f they go for an all new Y3 it will be larger than the A350-1000, maybe one version about 350 seats and one above 400 seats, a true 10 across cabin,
176 abba : Save for the 60'ties (that gave the world the 747 and the 737) there has not been introduced more than one new program per decade in average by any o
177 Stitch : I would hope Boeing would not just match the A350, but leap-frog it, with Y3. I would expect 74m and 80m lengths with the cabin width at least that o
178 135mech : So would Y3 be a 747 without the hump?
179 Stitch : More or less. The other option is to follow keesje's Ecoliner concept and do a smaller, twin deck aircraft. His Ecoliner-200 was 68m and seated 370-4
180 Aither : 787-8,9,10 777-300ER 777X 747-8... this is getting confusing. Good luck to the fleet planners !
181 Atlflyer : The A350 economy seat will be 18" wide, the same as the A380.[Edited 2012-09-14 10:04:40]
182 Stitch : Not at 9-abreast, at least if they want aisles wider than 16 inches. Airbus PR states seat cushion width is 17.5" and their ACAP shows width from the
183 Revelation : Your point gets stronger when you include the 727 which was also from the 60s.
184 abba : Certainly! I am not saying that it cannot be done. Only that it will be a major challenge that will give Airbus perhaps a too easy run for its money
185 sweair : A380 2000-->A350XWB 2006, not 4 or 5 but 6 years in between.. It can be done but a launch of a program and EIS can have a long time in between.. If
186 Post contains images brindabella : At least one model aimed directly at A350. The "80 metre" model well above. Would agree that B need to offer it as "truly 10-abreast"; however I have
187 abba : That is correct - but do not forget that the 380 so far only exists in one version - namely as an -800. It is highly unlikely that a NSA and a Y3 wil
188 iahmark : Good point...to me I see Boeing have two options: A) The one mentioned here - 777-8X and 9X which could be cheaper but run the risk of being obsolete
189 CXB77L : As do I. However, my point wasn't that Boeing wouldn't build a Y3 to leap-frog the A350, but whether the technology is available right now for Boeing
190 Stitch : If we go with a CFRP 777, it is. If we go with something like the Ecoliner, Airbus proved it can be done with Al and GLARE (the A380). I expect it ca
191 frmrCapCadet : When there are about 400 787/350s flying around we will have an idea of how the P2P/Hub ratios will be affected. And how the results of higher petrole
192 morrisond : Stitch - I agree with you NEO the 777 with Minor Teaks - Call it 777MAX and go on to Y3. The question becomes can they make Y3 big enough to negate t
193 Post contains images mffoda : This is an interesting point? As it was pointed out to me in previous 787/A350 threads... The Trent 1000 & GEnx were a generation behind the XWB
194 Stitch : Not as a single decker. But then, Boeing doesn't really need to worry about the A380 as the market for a single-deck, 10-abreast widebody should be s
195 JoeCanuck : If they use the 787 wing as a template and make the rest out of Al-Li, they MIGHT be able to keep expenses low enough to make the 777x worth the effor
196 morrisond : But can it be efficient enough even if it isn't as big to be the CASM champ and have significantly lower costs? Boeing's argument of frequency vs capa
197 Stitch : I do not believe it has to be the CASM champ to be welcomed by airlines. SQ says the A380 enjoys a significant advantage in CASM over the 777-300ER,
198 flipdewaf : But to be on parity you have to know which stops to pull out not simply all of them, its about the total overall costs not just the fuel burn. Why is
199 CXB77L : Why would a new, CFRP 777 sized Y3 launched today for EIS by 2020 leap frog a similarly sized CFRP A350XWB? I'm not convinced that the technology is
200 morrisond : The 787 at 9W can stretch into the lower reaches of 777 capacity - Engines with 15% more thrust than the 777x exist, and it shouldn't be that hard to
201 StickShaker : The 35J itself will not remain static once it enters service. It will be at the beginning of its life cycle with plenty of upgrades and improvments t
202 astuteman : Why does that become the question? I don't see why you couldn't make a Y3 that could "obsolete" today's A380 But as Stitch said, it is (very) highly
203 flipdewaf : Not really. Per plane. Per seat? Why use different metrics? Thats confusing. The seats arn't the advantage, the reduction in CASM is the advantage, t
204 Stitch : Saj Ahmad at Strategic Aero Research put out a new piece at his site on the 777X. As the site requires a paid membership, he's also been Tweeting [@St
205 Post contains links and images rotating14 : I just came across an article that basically says the samething. Looks as though Boeing is holding off on the 777x until further notice while moving
206 rheinwaldner : They costly things from this list are applicable to the 777X as well. And even more so. Not always. Otherwise no new design would ever take off again
207 Stitch : I do think the 787-10X is more important to Boeing than the 777X in the near-term. There are plenty of A330-300s coming up for replacement or coming
208 frigatebird : I wasn't aware QR actually reduced its order for A35J's. I do know EY did though. There are rumors QR may drop its order for A358's, taking 787-9s in
209 Stitch : Yes, it was Etihad. So I guess they're the one with concerns.
210 DocLightning : They have, but they already have A350's on order and both PMUA and PMCO's 777 fleets are getting a bit long in the tooth, so this is Airbus's order t
211 Post contains links and images CXB77L : Who said it isn't going to be lower? And even if it's not, CASM isn't the be all and end all of aircraft purchasing decisions. It is but a part of an
212 rheinwaldner : Who said it has going to be the same? Coming close to the capacity of the A351 would be more than enough... 777-9X is also a heavily stretched versio
213 sweair : The 787 is the mid size WB for Boeing, the Y2. They had or have the Y1 for NB and Y3 for VLAs. There is not a snowballs chance in hell they would repl
214 rheinwaldner : The A300 was a mid size, short range WB from Airbus. After an upgrade, not more extensive than planned for the 777X (in fact the 777X as a cfrp/alu h
215 morrisond : Exactly and why I think it ludicruss to invest Billions in Upgradeing 777 Barel Based designs when they are only marginally wider than a 787. If you
216 CXB77L : How, then, will it compete with the A350-1000? The 777-9X is a mere 2.7m stretch from the 777-300. Then perhaps you can enlighten us as to why Boeing
217 Post contains images EPA001 : Which of course by itself is a stretch by 10.2 meters from the baseline B777. .
218 EPA001 : But that is a target. It is not a fact. And all new airliners are overweight. We have seen that with the A346, the A380, the B787, the B748, etc,etc.
219 rheinwaldner : Not talking about that has not much meaning, as well as talking about the 777X has much meaning. Boeing did recently launch an aircraft, about which
220 Post contains images CM : Amazing. We've reached the point where aircraft capable of flying 14 hour missions with full pax are now considered "medium range" The 777 wing faile
221 rotating14 : I agree with that. But my comment was directed towards the possibility that a major Arab carrier may defect from the A350 camp because (insert reason
222 Post contains images neutrino : Everything is relative!
223 Roseflyer : I'm a little shocked by the implication that the A330 is a scaled up higher MTOW A300 derivative. What commonality do those airplanes share? Scaling
224 tdscanuck : The ULF test tells you where the weakest point was, not how overengineered the whole wing is in general. It's conceivable (though unlikely) that some
225 zeke : They share the same cross section, that is about it. Systems and parts wise they are different, they are not on the same TCDS, and do not share the s
226 tdscanuck : Boeing and Airbus both use the ICAO rules for interior configuration and cargo when they're doing the marketing stuff. Thanks to market drift, the IC
227 Post contains images brindabella : IMO it would be strange if all new/major upgrades at B were not aiming towards "787s - big ones or small ones; but all 787s at heart". That is, the 7
228 zeke : Which ICAO SARPs are you referring to ? I assume Annex 9 ? it does not say how a manufacturer can market an aircraft. Boeing, Airbus, ATR, Bombardier
229 scbriml : Well, the 737MAX isn't and the 777X won't be. Maybe for the 777 replacement (Y3), but not the 777X.
230 Post contains links CXB77L : The 777-300 stretch was envisaged as part of the original 777 design, with a brief to replace the 747 Classics. I would argue that both the 777-200 a
231 Post contains images astuteman : From my seat, this statement is fundamentally, as in, completely, incorrect. ALL of the Boeing talk was of the NSA. Boeing said all of their customer
232 rheinwaldner : List the changes between A300 and A330. You will see that the list stops not earlier than the list of changes between 777 and the intended 777X. At l
233 morrisond : It's time to Skip the 777X and Build the 787X, a supersized widened (11W) 787 using 787 Nose, avionics, basic architecture, wing design (albeit enlarg
234 tdscanuck : The 777 production infrastructure and supply chain is well established. The 787 and A350 are still ramping and are consuming a significant fraction o
235 morrisond : I meant an additional $5-10 Billion - I'm assuming 777x is a $5 -10 Billion project when all said, Y3 $5-10 Billion on top of that. It wouldn't be rig
236 Post contains links CXB77L : Fair point. I was mainly referring to the time post-A320neo launch, when Boeing were still "committed" to launching the NSA. The airlines told them o
237 zeke : That is your opinion, it is not a fact. The larger span 777X wing maybe heavier than todays wing. It is likely however for the engine and landing gea
238 ricknroll : When you look at the huge scope of the 777 changes proposed, compared to the relatively minor changes to the A320 NEO and 727MAX, does the proposed t
239 morrisond : Then how can you Argue that an Barrel only marginally wider (15" - 777 vs 787) but heavier be the way to go either? If you are talking about getting
240 tdscanuck : I can't tell. There are so many projections running around at cross purposes and I don't put much stock in any of the schedules at least until the th
241 JoeCanuck : That's where my pesos are going if I was betting would be where they get their composite wing. The more of the 787 they can use, the shorter the lead
242 XT6Wagon : people seem to be ignoring that a composite wing is as much or more about cost to build as it is operational performance. AL wings are just insanely
243 Post contains images Acheron : Now that's something I'd like to see
244 Zkpilot : I highly doubt that considering that the entire nose+avionics weighs about that.
245 ricknroll : Does that mean we could be seeing a composite wing for the A380 if it works for the 777?
246 XT6Wagon : At 30/year or less production rate? I don't think it makes sense. Who knows though when/if the A380 will see a major revision, as the design costs mi
247 tdscanuck : I'm pretty sure they all do that...not just for weight savings, but it's really the only rational way to do wing skins in the days of CNC mills. The
248 rheinwaldner : I don't see the need to leave the 787 cross section for a 77W replacement. I am also not sure whether it is time to make a large, high performance ve
249 morrisond : I don't see a need to leave the 787 cross section either - but I already tried that argument - My main argument now is that it's silly to invest so m
250 holzmann : I can't access it as I am not a paying member, but the WSJ website is featuring a front-page video about this. Makeover of 777 Agitates Boeing As it s
251 holzmann : Well, posting the WSJ link didn't work. Sorry. Adding a tinyurl: tinyurl.com/bt5ljmq[Edited 2012-09-24 09:22:50]
252 Stitch : Interesting article. EK is willing to pay 10-15% more for the "top of the line" 777X with all the latest updates, and in fact expected some of the 50
253 Post contains links scbriml : It's a well known issue and, for me at least, your link is paid subscription. This TinyURL shows me the full article: http://tinyurl.com/d5jhfvy Tim
254 Stitch : Even if the "ultimate edition" 777X is 10% more expensive to purchase, the 5% better annual operating economics should more than cover that price over
255 rotating14 : What I don't seem to get it why Boeing is bowing to the price curve to accommodate other carriers?? If they want a premium product and see the value,
256 astuteman : Personally I doubt that. A 777X could be in service before the end of the decade (just). But it is only 7 years to 2020, and Boeing also have to get
257 morrisond : Easy answer 777+ with PIP's and updated engines around 2016-2017 keeps the line at 100 per year until Y3 in 2020/21
258 scbriml : Well, it's a balance between much higher development costs (at a time when Boeing is still digesting the 787 and 748 cost and schedule overruns) for
259 frmrCapCadet : Thanks for the link to this article. It all makes more sense now. Although I suspect we shoulda/kinda knew.
260 ferpe : It was a very good article, one of the more informative and sensible in a while. I can understand Boeings problem, ideally if you would like to make a
261 Post contains images EPA001 : Yeah, the A350-1000 will be a lot tougher nut to crack if Boeing goes for the Al-Li wing instead of the CFRP wing. So much for facts on the B777-X pr
262 Stitch : CX needs double that to replace their 777-300 family (both in service and on order), so the 777X may still be under consideration.
263 Post contains images ferpe : Of course it is, especially if they need bigger planes for part of their route structure. Interesting times ahead and interesting that Hazey is crowi
264 Post contains images EPA001 : I agree. I personally expect many major airlines to order both the A350-1000 and the B777-X, whatever it will look like and from whatever material it
265 Post contains links mffoda : I agree with this part of your statement: " it is still in the phase of changing configurations and materials to be used. So to speculate about it's
266 Post contains images Stitch : The 777-300ER is to the A350-1000 what the 777-200 is to the A330-300 - a larger and more capable airframe, but incurring a significant weight penalt
267 Post contains links ricknroll : So this previous topic Boeing Slows The Pace On 777X. Why? (by rotating14 Aug 23 2012 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=5546433 was not so far off the mark.
268 rheinwaldner : Ok, I said roughly... Which could mean that a enlarged 787-based aircraft could also have EIS in 2022... But why should a 787 derivative take more ti
269 Post contains links ferpe : This is already covered in the A350 prototype thread: A350 Prototypes Production Thread Part 5 (by mffoda Aug 24 2012 in Civil Aviation) Champion sho
270 zeke : Of course it is, so are the 60+ A350 options etc already negotiated.
271 rheinwaldner : If I read the article above I sense some silo mentality within Boeing. The whole discussion is program-centric. In this case 777-centric. The underlyi
272 Post contains links JerseyFlyer : An article by Jon Ostrower in WSJ on-line 24 Sept suggests that the 777X is at best currently "only a paper airplane": Of particular interest: "Emirat
273 Post contains links and images CXB77L : Unless I'm very much mistaken, the 787 has yet to meet its specified weight targets. Early frames are also heavier than they should be, which is why
274 zeke : You missed the point. The 787 is mainly being built by robots with prepreg tape, the quality and composition of the machine produced tape is highly u
275 scbriml : They did have with the whole Yellowstone Project concept. When the 787 was announced with its four-year launch-to-EIS schedule, the more strident fan
276 CXB77L : But that is what I was referring to when I said ... I don't recall ever saying that current 777 operators won't order A350s. What I did say is that c
277 rheinwaldner : How on earth do you know that? The 787 cross section by design can be stretched as any other (even when accepting Zeke's objections about the complex
278 abba : I still fear that Boeing pushes too much work into the future. I believe that it is highly unlikely that the 737 and the 777 will get any more incarn
279 Stitch : If Airbus can stretch the A340 to 75m, I see no reason why Boeing can't stretch the 787 that distance. And it's been said that reinforcing a CFRP stru
280 morrisond : Good point Stitch. The 787-10 will already be 69m. A 787-11 with a new stronger/longer center section to support a longer wing with more chord and lar
281 CXB77L : I doubt that very much. If you read that thread I linked to in that post, the reasons were explained there. But only the 777 is facing an all new com
282 zeke : Boeing have the manufacturing process under control, it is all automated, there is no magic bullet to reduce the weight. The 777X is not offed for sa
283 Post contains links frigatebird : Since this thread is nearly 300 posts long, I've suggested the moderators to lock this thread and continue the discussion here: WSJ: Makeover Of 777 A
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...
Will A380 Experience Help Make A350 A Success? posted Fri Dec 14 2007 04:24:24 by MBJ2000
First 737s With New Boeing Sky Interior Will Be... posted Tue Jul 13 2010 20:31:50 by RobK
744 Replacement - How Will The A350-10 Do? posted Fri May 30 2008 04:14:08 by CHRISBA777ER
Will The A350 Be Delayed? posted Sat Apr 5 2008 04:30:50 by ENU
Avianca/ocean Air Will Order A350 Soon! posted Mon Mar 10 2008 14:36:51 by Danimarroquin
Freedom Air Will Make Its Debut To IND In Feb. posted Thu Dec 6 2007 18:56:50 by RampGuy
Boeing: 'Asia Boom Will Survive 787 Delay' posted Thu Nov 8 2007 04:35:36 by EI321
Will The A350 Be Introduced Early? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 14:54:34 by B777A340Fan
Will The A350 Also Have Elect.chromatic Window Pnl posted Tue Dec 19 2006 22:59:09 by AutoThrust
Would A Boeing Y3 With A 'Hump' Make Sense? posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:55:31 by JAM747