Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 48945 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.
kl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 48950 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)
" The European consumer would crawl naked over broken glass to get low fares." Michael O'Leary
Daysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 48819 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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 4, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 48489 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.
U2380 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 48069 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.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 9, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 48011 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?
Daysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 47798 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 11, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 47449 times:
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.
holzmann From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 46752 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 16, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 46443 times:
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.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 46278 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...
aviatorcraig From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 45724 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.
KaiTak747 From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 147 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 45730 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."
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.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 21, posted (8 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 44397 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.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 23, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 43465 times:
Boeing Commercial Airplanes is still headquartered in Seattle, WA.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 24, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 43116 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.
mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, RR: 2 Reply 25, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 43573 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): Boeing maintains that the 777-300ER is as good, if not better, than the A350-1000
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 mileage advantage. Add in a slightly higher seating capacity ~ 4% and the A350-1000 is going to have the upper hand.
But, it will be interesting to see the long term strategy by Boeing. I'm sure they know the 777-300ER dominance will end, but they will have had a nice +10yr run. Not bad results for a stretched derivative.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1785 posts, RR: 57 Reply 28, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 42122 times:
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, so the 777X if and when it get's of the drawing board would be no slouch. But then new products are at their peak when they fly of the ppt, then they get bogged down by reality, delays and not the least that the competitor does not stand still either.
The latter is best exemplified by the RR TXWB vs RR T1000. The TXWB has the "worlds best TSFC" due to being later in design then the T1000 ("rising line" compressor among other things). Guess who will have a rising line compressor all of a sudden? The T1000-TEN which will be available for newer 787s .
There is a good saying: a rolling stone collect no moss .
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 29, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 41828 times:
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 25): The A350-1000 should have a 12% DOW advantage, which should translate into at least a 10% fuel mileage advantage. Add in a slightly higher seating capacity ~ 4% and the A350-1000 is going to have the upper hand.
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 A350-1000 on longer routes.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 30, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 41539 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 20): 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.
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 that time schedule. Of course, EK might have chosen to learn something by the fact that the 747-8i ended up with the characteristics LH preferred over EK shortly after much EK lobbying followed by LH signing up for 25+25 of them!
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21): Nicole Piasecki is an engineer by training and was an engineer at Boeing:
I guess they don't have good classes on "trash talking" at Wharton!
Seems Ms. Piasecki didn't learn that your trash talking needs to at least be plausible.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 28): 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, so the 777X if and when it get's of the drawing board would be no slouch.
I don't think there are any engine technologies available in 2020 that would render the A351 anything near "obsolete" even allowing for windage from the lady engineer turned marketer, and as your posts seem to suggest, it wouldn't be long before such technology would migrate to the A351.
mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, RR: 2 Reply 32, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 40871 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 29): 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 A350-1000 on longer routes.
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, lighter wt materials, etc.
trent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, RR: 2 Reply 33, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 40823 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
That's a pretty strong statement to be making, IMHO.
Indeed! Especially since "obsolete" is only an adjective. So that means the CEO can't even speak English correctly!
BTW, the correct expression is "to make obsolete"...
odwyerpw From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 643 posts, RR: 3 Reply 34, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 40800 times:
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 25): The A350-1000 should have a 12% DOW advantage, which should translate into at least a 10% fuel mileage advantage. Add in a slightly higher seating capacity ~ 4% and the A350-1000 is going to have the upper hand.
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 going to be to gain a 4% capacity advantage over the 77W? Not even talking the 77X which may get a slight stretch...
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 35, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 40768 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): 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"
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 what the other side has done as well. When it comes to marketing trash-talk, both sides have been guilty of over-exaggerating the numbers to make their product appear more favourable. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
What I find curious, however, is that the article mentioned that Ray Conner has "moved away from upholding" the 777X timeline, but a recent post in Randy's Journal quoted Mr Conner as saying that "our timing on a decision to offer that airplane has not changed", in response to the Seattle Times article claiming that Boeing are delaying the 777X. Straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2): Just me, or does this make them look rather pathetic, desperate even?
Just as desperate and pathetic as one Mr John Leahy.
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.
As opposed to an 11 year old design? The A350XWB was launched in 2006, after all, so by the time the A350-1000 EIS in 2017, it'll be 11 years old.
If we're to take program launch dates as the defining factor in the age of a design, then all aircraft are old by the time they enter service. The 777-300ER program, specifically, was launched in 2000, so that aircraft is nowhere near 30 years old!
What's more, the 777-9X is going to be much, much more than a "warmed up" 777-300ER. As it is currently projected, the 777-9X will have a 21% CASM improvement over the 777-300ER, and a 16% improvement in operating costs per seat.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): 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.
I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4543 posts, RR: 28 Reply 37, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 40356 times:
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 touted the virtues of her own products. If that makes someone "pathetic" then I guess there's a lot of pathetic people out there selling stuff.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, RR: 4 Reply 38, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 39695 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37): 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 touted the virtues of her own products. If that makes someone "pathetic" then I guess there's a lot of pathetic people out there selling stuff.
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.
Most sales people are pathetic, I've experienced it first hand. She's no exception. And for the record - I'm no fan of Leahy, either.
Randy Baseler was "my kind" of salesperson, this gentleman had a class. Now the world is turning into the hands of the "young and rebellious", who think they could sell ice to an Eskimo.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 39, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 39306 times:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): "(The 777x)'s going to obsolete the A350-1000 before the A350-1000 is even delivered."
Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article.
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?
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:
Boeing doesn't need to launch the 777X now in order to get it EIS in 2019. Pretty sure lots of preliminary work has already been done. EK wants it earlier, but that was never realistic and EK knows it. However, if the 777X is delayed into the next decade, Boeing is better off with an all new design which could indeed obsolete the A350, and not just the -1000.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4): This is just the mirror of Leahy's early comments about the original A330 vs. 787.
Very well said.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 28): 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, so the 777X if and when it get's of the drawing board would be no slouch. But then new products are at their peak when they fly of the ppt, then they get bogged down by reality, delays and not the least that the competitor does not stand still either. The latter is best exemplified by the RR TXWB vs RR T1000. The TXWB has the "worlds best TSFC" due to being later in design then the T1000 ("rising line" compressor among other things). Guess who will have a rising line compressor all of a sudden? The T1000-TEN which will be available for newer 787s .There is a good saying: a rolling stone collect no moss .
Absolutely. And thanks again for your excellent posts.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): What's more, the 777-9X is going to be much, much more than a "warmed up" 777-300ER
Yes. But there is also a risk here, the 777X will be so close to a new design it will be also close to having the same risks of delays the 787 and A350 had....
autothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1480 posts, RR: 8 Reply 40, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 39167 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): And remember that the A350 has a conventional systems architecture
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-Hydrostatic Actuators (EHAs) and Electrical Backup Hydraulic Actuators (EBHAs),Local Electro-Hydraulic Generation System (LEHGS), also the avionics are connected again over a AFDX-Network and NSS Server System.
Also the avionics suite/radar of the A350 will be the most modern in civil aviation.I don't think Boeing will revamp all avionics and hydraulic systems/electrical systems.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16): main difference between the 77X and A350 will be in the fuselage construction material
The A350 wing is with the 787 the most advanced wing. Will the 777X wings be also equipped with a new trailing-edge high-lift system with an advanced dropped-hinge flap?
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 41, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 37754 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
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 38): 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.
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 burn reference. In fact, in an Air Insight article (see below), Piasecki aknowledges the A320neo would have a meaningful trip and seat fuel advantage over the 737-800. These are the same number every generic Boeing presentation shows, so it's hardly a Piasecki-specific claim.
The numbers Piasecki presented to Air Insight are a clear admission by Boeing the A320neo would have better per-seat fuel burn than the 737NG:
Quoting Piasecki: "The 737 MAX fuel efficiency improvement over the Next-Generation will be 10-12%, we already offer winglets on the plane that we have for the past 10 years, and the fuel burn will be 4% better per seat than the competition"
Boeing claiming 737-800 CASM is lower than the A320neo is very much a number powered by those extra 12 seats and a lot of other assumptions in the analysis (the CASM numbers have strong sensitivity to seat count, the cost of mx and fuel, as well as landing fees). I understand the tendancy to dismiss the claim as rhetoric, but if you ask Boeing for the assumptions behind their public numbers, I believe they will provide them.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 42, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 37735 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 38): 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.
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 A320NEO. The extra seats are pretty key here to why the 738 still works. Sure its a rather limited picture of the two planes that put the 738 in the best light, but it doesn't make it false. Should we claim Airbus is making it all up when they use the A320NEO's best missions vs the 737NG and 737X?
Also when many of the 737NG vs A320NEO comments were made, the A320NEO had a massive jump in list price over the current A320 with no data on actual sales price. So the 737NG still looked quite good for overall lifetime economics. Everyone and thier dog was assuming that Airbus would leverage most of the lower operating costs into higher margins at the bargining table, then they were shocked to see Airbus was still quite agressive in the pricing of the A320NEO. So to use quotes from when the A320NEO was all paper and predictions then to say people are lying when the industry predictions didn't meet what Airbus did... Its not exactly filled with truth itself.
Leahy is confident that the NEO's 60% market share will persist.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): The A350XWB was launched in 2006, after all, so by the time the A350-1000 EIS in 2017, it'll be 11 years old.
Would the date of launch match with the age of the design, EIS would not be 11 years later. The safest way when the age of a design starts counting is when it has EIS...
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 44, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 36666 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): As opposed to an 11 year old design? The A350XWB was launched in 2006, after all, so by the time the A350-1000 EIS in 2017, it'll be 11 years old.
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 year old design (at EIS) is grossly misinterpreting the facts.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): What's more, the 777-9X is going to be much, much more than a "warmed up" 777-300ER.
As was the A350-Mk1. There is only that much you can do with an existing airframe. We have heard that so many times during the days of the A350-Mk1. But sometime people might get the impression here that the laws of physics do not apply to Boeing. But only to it's competitors?
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
On certain missions, if the load factor is good enough, she very well might be, or might even slightly outperform it. But it is still way too early to tell and to make statements like these. On some missions the difference will be negligible imho. And on the majority of the missions for which the aircraft will be used, especially when the load factors are on the low(er) side, the A350-1000 will clearly be the better plane. Basic physics will amke sure of that.
So taking all diverse mission profiles including LF into account I would say and expect the balance would tip the scale mostly in favor of the A350-1000. But there probably will not be that much of a difference. Just as the A350-Mk1 would have come very, very, very close to the airplane what we now know as the B787. Also their the difference was, especially for certain mission profiles, almost negligible, but it was made here on A-net to be like a Grand Canyon. .
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37): Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35):
I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.[/quote]
I'm not.
Agreed.
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39): Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article.
Which is telling of course. No marketing talk can outweigh orders in the end. Even if many orders were placed as part of a hype. Money still talks as opposed to marketing talk.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 40): The A350 wing is with the 787 the most advanced wing. Will the 777X wings be also equipped with a new trailing-edge high-lift system with an advanced dropped-hinge flap?
Too early to tell. For sure the wing will be very advanced. But maybe she is a bit limited because it has to be mounted on the current B777 fuselage. But only real life operation data from airlines will tell how good the A350-1000 and the B777-X will be.
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43): The safest way when the age of a design starts counting is when it has EIS...
Agreed. That is a much better way of qualifying the design age of an airliner.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 45, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 36339 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39): Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article.
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 as replacement for the 777-300ER. An A350 order is not a statement of a lack of faith in the 777.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 40): Will the 777X wings be also equipped with a new trailing-edge high-lift system with an advanced dropped-hinge flap?
It is an all new wing that hasn't been designed yet, so it's too early to tell what features it will have.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44): 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 year old design (at EIS) is grossly misinterpreting the facts.
That's only as valid as calling the 777X a "warmed up 30 year old design", which would only be true if one were to suggest that the original 777-200 is as good as the A350-1000.
The 777-9X is also an ongoing project whose design has not been finalised yet. Calling it a "warmed up 30 year old design" as Daysleeper has is grossly inaccurate.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44): As was the A350-Mk1. There is only that much you can do with an existing airframe. We have heard that so many times during the days of the A350-Mk1. But sometime people might get the impression here that the laws of physics do not apply to Boeing. But only to it's competitors?
I'm not one of those people who thought the A350 Mk 1 would've been a flop. The evidence is right there in the booming A330 sales. If the A350 Mk 1 became reality, it would become a very good competitor to a 787 with 8-abreast seating. The difference, however, is that the 787, being wider than the A350 Mk 1, has the ability to be installed with 9-abreast seating which would reduce its CASM, whereas the A350 Mk 1 could not.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 46, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 36141 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45): Calling it a "warmed up 30 year old design" as Daysleeper has is grossly inaccurate.
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. That too many things are still unknowns, especially since no A350-XWB (whatever version) has flown yet and the B777-X program is still even longer out there on the design tables.
Probably by 2021 we can compare real life data of the two. Then we can start drawing conclusions. Though the orders raked up by that time will also be quite telling. So we are going to have to be very patient about this.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 47, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 35847 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article.
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 as replacement for the 777-300ER. An A350 order is not a statement of a lack of faith in the 777.
True. I was referring to this claim though:
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter): "Boeing maintains that the 777-300ER is as good, if not better, than the A350-1000
(Should have included this part of the article in my post).
I strongly believe we can see both A35J and 777-9X in the same fleet. EK, QR and EY for sure, perhaps UA, AF, KL in the future.
However, only with 10 abreast Y seating in the 777-9X. Therefore, I very much doubt CX and SQ will be among them.
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, RR: 2 Reply 48, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 35060 times:
Quoting kl911 (Reply 1): Does this man really think that airlines executives are stupid or what?
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 buy Boeing stock when management wants to sell them...
parapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1316 posts, RR: 10 Reply 49, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 34116 times:
'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.
This thread should have stopped here. Of course it is just silly marketing talk no more no less and it seems every following post here fully understands this.
And of course any plane 'X' that is bigger (seat capacity) than 'y' can,will and does claim to be more efficient. But of course it's rubbisah (unless you can fill them all). Ryanair should be running 800 seater A380's - lowest seat cost. But they don't do they - no 'cos they couldn't fill it up.
It was, is and will always be 'horses for courses' and everyone knows this - ever her
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 50, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 33469 times:
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 statement. The A-3510 only has about 88 orders, the A-330F only has about 52 orders.
While it is true that neither the B-777-8X, B-777-8XL, or B-777-9X have no orders so far, it is also true they are not offered for sale, yet. I think Boeing is waiting on an engine from the OEMs to further define the new B-777 models.
The B-777X models are still a moving target, as is the A-3510, but to a lesser extent, for final frozen designs.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 51, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 31101 times:
Quoting trent1000 (Reply 33): Indeed! Especially since "obsolete" is only an adjective. So that means the CEO can't even speak English correctly!
1) It's correct English, although unconventional.
2) She's not the CEO.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
I'm not. If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves.
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 38): 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.
That's not false. You just need to know what the 2% referred to.
Quoting autothrust (Reply 40): Will the 777X wings be also equipped with a new trailing-edge high-lift system with an advanced dropped-hinge flap?
Unknown, but they ought to be. If you're going to the trouble of re-winging, you might as well do it right.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 52, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 30511 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45): Quoting frigatebird (Reply 39):
Well, even one of the members of the 777-300ER fanclub (CX) has defected to the A350-1000, as Aboulafia mentioned in the article.
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 as replacement for the 777-300ER. An A350 order is not a statement of a lack of faith in the 777.
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 profitable on routes that the 777-300ER cannot make money on. That said, the aircraft will not be replacing the 77W which will be around for sometime yet. You will however notice that once the A351 joins the CX fleet, there will basically be no further 77Ws delivered. CX are waiting on the 777X as well, and in my opinion woule be very interested in the stretched version. He said that at the moment there are no plans for VLAs in the fleet and that the airline had not even done a recent detailed study on the 748i.
"The short and medium term plans for CX are for the A350 and 777X." Thats straight from the CEO.
KDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 155 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 30266 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 17): 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.
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....."
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 54, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 30018 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 51): If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves.
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 more efficiently. Quite clearly, it has met that goal.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 52): the A350-1000 will have seat costs that even the 777-300ER cannot beat and that it will be profitable on routes that the 777-300ER cannot make money on.
I don't dispute that at all. But whether the 777-9X will match the seat and operating costs of the A350-1000 remains to be seen.
Incidentally, which routes are the 777-300ER not making money on?
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 52): CX are waiting on the 777X as well, and in my opinion woule be very interested in the stretched version. He said that at the moment there are no plans for VLAs in the fleet and that the airline had not even done a recent detailed study on the 748i.
"The short and medium term plans for CX are for the A350 and 777X." Thats straight from the CEO.
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 55, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 29399 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54):
Incidentally, which routes are the 777-300ER not making money on?
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 because the A343 has a 2 class layout, while the 77W has quite a large premium cabin - with AMS not really a premium fare route. Maybe this will change when CX receives more 77W's without first class, but just Y, Y+ and business (AFAIK, they only have 2 of those now)....
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 56, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 29224 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44): Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35):
I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
I'm not.
Agreed.
Did you forget a smiley here?
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 44): For sure the wing will be very advanced. But maybe she is a bit limited because it has to be mounted on the current B777 fuselage. But only real life operation data from airlines will tell how good the A350-1000 and the B777-X will be.
True, but this forum is all about speculation.
I'm willing to bet there will be a lot less discussion of the topic once the actual data is known.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 45): An A350 order is not a statement of a lack of faith in the 777.
An A350-9/10 order is a statement of lack of faith in the 777-2/3-ER.
Ms. Piasecki's comments seem to be designed to take one's attention off that fact.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, RR: 56 Reply 57, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 29032 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54): Incidentally, which routes are the 777-300ER not making money on?
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 'superb' and 'super-efficient' aircraft. If money cannot be made with a 777 then it is not because of the plane but the route itself and such information is never made public. What they have said though is that the 744 is basically not making money on many longhaul flights unless load factors are in the 90s. On a longhaul flight, fuel accounts for 60% of costs and at US$112 a barrel of oil, the 744 struggles with its high fuel burn to make money. In the coming year, the 744 will be pulled off almost all longhauls. By the end of 2013, no CX 744 (passenger models) will fly to Europe and at the moment they only do a single North America (SFO) flight, YVR being recently all 77W.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 58, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 28826 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 51):
If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves.
Why should they be? The A350 is an excellent aircraft.
The comment I was responding to was:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 35): I'm confident that the 777X will be every bit as good as the A350.
If that's true, then it means that a cleansheet design from Airbus can't beat an upgrade from Boeing. Airbus is better than that, from both an engineering and business standpoint.
bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5981 posts, RR: 9 Reply 60, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 28539 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54): 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 more efficiently. Quite clearly, it has met that goal.Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 52):
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 a fan-boy of either company.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 61, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 28517 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 30): 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 that time schedule. Of course, EK might have chosen to learn something by the fact that the 747-8i ended up with the characteristics LH preferred over EK shortly after much EK lobbying followed by LH signing up for 25+25 of them!
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 have been limited to service to LAX and SFO and I expect they felt the planes would have been difficult to re-sell when the 777-300ER+ | A350-1000 | 777-9 became available to handle the mission.
As such, EK is going to either have to take the risks NH did with the 787 and place a large launch order or they're going to have to wait for someone else to do so and then tag on in the back.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 56): An A350-9/10 order is a statement of lack of faith in the 777-2/3-ER.
Yes, CX no longer has faith in the 777-300ER....
....which is why they ordered over a dozen of them last year for service with the airline well into the next decade.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4543 posts, RR: 28 Reply 62, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 27940 times:
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 do in a general sense. There will be areas where it might be superior due to carrying more people or cargo, but I think it risks being another niche aircraft.
As I've said before, I'd love ot be wrong. K**sje had a pic or two of a conceptual 777X that looked absolutely fantastic.
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 their buying and selling is announced well in advance of it happening, do you care to share the evidence which supports your claim? As far as I am aware, only one OEM has executives under investigatioin for manipulating stock price for personal gain, and it isn't Boeing.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 64, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 27773 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 61): Yes, CX no longer has faith in the 777-300ER....
....which is why they ordered over a dozen of them last year for service with the airline well into the next decade.
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 no 777X to order, which is a topic Ms. Piasecki is trying to take our attention away from.
Feel free to draw your own conclusions, but I stand by what I said.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 65, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 27190 times:
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 additional frames of either. So does that mean they have no faith in the A340, even though they still operate A340-300s?
The A380-800 and 747-8 are also available today, and yet CX have not ordered either. Then again, CX did order the 747-8F, so does that mean CX do have faith in the 747-8, but not in the A380-800?
Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): Then again, so is the 777-200ER, yet CX went out and ordered 22 A350-9 along with 26 A350-10...
And so is the A330-300, which is available today and in which CX have 17 on order. But I guess CX have no faith in that plane, either, since CX also ordered the A350-900.
Personally, I think the 777-300ER is the best large long-haul twin on the market today and the A330-300 is the best large medium-haul twin on the market today and CX has faith in both, which is why they have ordered so darn many of them and appear to plan to operate them well into the next decade beside the A350-1000 and A350-900, which I believe will be some of the best large and medium-sized long-haul twins in the market when they enter service.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 66, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 27059 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 65): If they didn't have faith in the plane
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 67, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26940 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 66): and a lack of faith is NOT the same thing as an absence of faith.
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 A350-1000 than the 777-300ER, but then based on what I am hearing out of CX, that's a logical view for them to have at the moment since the A350-1000 has the benefit of projections while the 777-300ER is "saddled" with hard numbers.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 68, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 26818 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 67): Dictionary.com would disagree with that statement
It doesn't disagree, it allows for both deficiency or absence:
Quote:
lack
noun
1. deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary: lack of money; lack of skill.
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 70, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 26316 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 69): Announced in advance? Where?
All Boeing insiders planning to trade Boeing (and certain other) stocks are required to report the planned trade to the corporate secretary in advance of executing the trade. The secretary reports those planned transactions to a 3rd (non-Boeing) party, who determines whether or not that insider has material information at that time and makes the final decision on whether or not the transaction can be executed. The reports are sent to the SEC, from whom they can be requested. You can find the details of Boeing insider trading policy and the process by searching for "PRO-12" on Boeing's website. Look at sections 5-C and 5-D.
After-the-fact, insider trades are posted on Boeing's investor relations website, but are probably easiest to view on other sites, such as Yahoo Finance. http://www.finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=ba
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2485 posts, RR: 35 Reply 71, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 26200 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 70): All Boeing insiders planning to trade Boeing (and certain other) stocks are required to report the planned trade to the corporate secretary in advance of executing the trade. The secretary reports those planned transactions to a 3rd (non-Boeing) party, who determines whether or not that insider has material information at that time and makes the final decision on whether or not the transaction can be executed. The reports are sent to the SEC, from whom they can be requested.
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.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 72, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 26247 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54): 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 more efficiently. Quite clearly, it has met that goal.
How is this? The A350 still isn't even an airplane (physical product yet), how has it beaten the already proven 77W?
CM From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 73, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 26089 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 71): It isn't an announcement where other investors learn they are about to buy or sell.
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 trades by Boeing insiders are documented in advance of the transaction and are reviewable after the fact by all of us who may be concerned something improper has taken place.
I was responding to the accusation a Boeing executive was manipulating stock price in order to then execute a trade for personal gain.
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 48): "they [these remarks] are aimed at manipulations of stock market, motivate the fan boys to buy Boeing stock when management wants to sell them"
We are now 3 days after the manipulative statement hit the press, so I'm simply asking Burkhard to back up his reckless accusation by pointing me to the paper trail of a Piasecki stock sale, which by law must exist.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2485 posts, RR: 35 Reply 76, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 25943 times:
Quoting CM (Reply 73): I was responding to the accusation a Boeing executive was manipulating stock price in order to then execute a trade for personal gain.
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. The rest of us will only become aware well after the fact and only for a very limited number of people who have access to insider information.
Quoting CM (Reply 73): We are now 3 days after the manipulative statement hit the press, so I'm simply asking Burkhard to back up his reckless accusation by pointing me to the paper trail of a Piasecki stock sale, which by law must exist.
Agree, that accusation did not make much sense. If you want to manipulate the market... this is not the way to do it.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 77, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 26030 times:
Quoting mham001 (Reply 74): Has a plane ever been obsolete before EIS?
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 79, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 25795 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 78): But a phantom aircraft that isn't even on offer is already going to obsolete it.....
Rgds
The 773ER (77W) ... this is what I was responding to:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 72): Quoting CXB77L (Reply 54):
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 more efficiently. Quite clearly, it has met that goal.
How is this? The A350 still isn't even an airplane (physical product yet), how has it beaten the already proven 77W?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 80, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 25268 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58): If that's true, then it means that a cleansheet design from Airbus can't beat an upgrade from Boeing.
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 believes that an upgraded 777X can't compete with the A350-1000, it wouldn't be going down that path. As it is, Boeing remain committed to the 777X program, which says to me that they believe that the 777X will be able to hold its own against the A350-1000.
If it's good enough for Boeing, it's good enough for me.
Quoting 135mech (Reply 72): How is this? The A350 still isn't even an airplane (physical product yet), how has it beaten the already proven 77W?
Sure, it's just projections and speculations at this stage, but you only have to look at the extensive updates that Boeing are planning to do to the 777 to know that it'll be a threat to the current 777-300ER.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 81, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 25238 times:
Quoting mercure1 (Reply 32): 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, lighter wt materials, etc.
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%
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 51): I'm not. If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves.
Should they? Boeing will know the A350-1000 specs a priori. Makes it much easier for them to set and beat targets than Airbus, who will be swinging at a paper plane.
Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 52): CX's CEO said last week in a briefing to staff that the A350-1000 will have seat costs that even the 777-300ER
I should hope so! The 77W was introduced in 2003. Its wing and fuselage cross-section were introduced in 1995.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 74): Has a plane ever been obsolete before EIS?
Closest I can think of is the MD-11. Admittedly its superior replacement (A343) was three years down the line, but then again, the A343 was four years after EIS by the 772 (the 77A was introduced two years after the A343, but the 77A was no match for the 343's range).
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58): If that's true, then it means that a cleansheet design from Airbus can't beat an upgrade from Boeing. Airbus is better than that, from both an engineering and business standpoint.
Admittedly, it's a hard comparison. Airbus has only ever made four *completely* cleansheet designs.
The A300/A310, the A320, the A380, and the A350. The A330 and A340 are both heavily based in the A300/310 design. The exterior mold lines of the fuselage (including nose and tail) are identical, as are a number of interior structural features. Admittedly, the systems, wings, and engines are completely different.
As it happens, Boeing *did* upstage Airbus's cleansheet A320 series with their upgraded 737NG series. Boeing thought that the 733/4/5 would compete adequately with the A320, but it turned out not to be the case on a number of levels. So Boeing designed the 73G and proceeded to give the A320 a serious run for its money.
The real name of the game is engines. Engine technology is still rapidly improving. The new Trent XWB is already superior to the Trent 900 installed on the A380 and it's only six years newer. The 77X's GE-9x engines will be newer and even more efficient than the XWB architecture and that may well give Boeing a significant advantage.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 82, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25150 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): 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%
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 could also indicate reduced range and payload.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): Should they? Boeing will know the A350-1000 specs a priori. Makes it much easier for them to set and beat targets than Airbus, who will be swinging at a paper plane.
Boeing still has the 777 TCDS handcuffs on, they can only modify a 777 so much before the FAA and EASA will say that is not longer a 777. Then it is no point doing a 777 upgrade, may as well do a clean sheet design as well. So in my view the 77X will be like the 747-8i, a less than optimum solution, constrained by the previous certification.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): I should hope so! The 77W was introduced in 2003. Its wing and fuselage cross-section were introduced in 1995.
Many people on here seem to think the A350 is horrible even compared to the 777, and use a few throw away lines from middle east carriers as being the burden of proof. The main issue with the A350 is that is is not here today, that is what the middle east carriers really want. Given the sort of performance numbers being made available from the OEM to customers, you can make a lot more money with an A350 than you can with a 777, it costs a lot less to operate and maintain long term, on the fuel front, it is in the order of a couple of tonnes an hour difference.
We hardly every fly around with 100% full aircraft, the 777 is most attractive when operated at 100% load factors 10 across etc, no airline operates like that, even if they have the seats on-board.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
flightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 83, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25085 times:
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 84, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 25077 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 80): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 58):
If that's true, then it means that a cleansheet design from Airbus can't beat an upgrade from Boeing.
The 737NG is very competitive against the A320 ...
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 enormous technical leap for Airbus on multiple fronts, at a time when Airbus had much more limited in-house capability than they do now. It's primary purpose was to prove that they could do it. 2) The only meaningful connection between the company that build the A320 and the one that's doing the A350 is that they share the name "Airbus". At the time the A320 was being developed, Airbus was a loose consortium that didn't have nearly the capability they do today.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 51):
I'm not. If it is, Airbus should be ashamed of themselves.
Should they? Boeing will know the A350-1000 specs a priori. Makes it much easier for them to set and beat targets than Airbus,
It makes it easier to *set* targets; it does nothing to help beat them. Airbus is bringing all their best stuff to the A350, a true cleansheet with the 777 squarely in its sights. It shouldn't even be physically possible for the 777X to beat it unless they delay the 777X so long that they get a disruptive engine technology.
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 85, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 24960 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
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%
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. Make that happen, and you'll be shedding a lot of powerplant weight as well (which is double important as lightening parts that have centrifugal components to their design invites a non-linear improvement to energy efficiency).
Quoting zeke (Reply 82): It could also indicate reduced range and payload.
Or a reduction in cruise mach, yes.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): he A330 and A340 are both heavily based in the A300/310 design.
That's a tough claim to prove. It isn't just (literally) every control surface, wing and stabilizer that are different, but even in the fuselage, the differences are large. It's only the very exterior elements of the empenage and frame 41 that were carried over. Even the rear pressure bulkhead is significantly different, as air the placement of a lot of airframe mounted systems.
Quoting zeke (Reply 82): Then it is no point doing a 777 upgrade, may as well do a clean sheet design as well.
Could it not be that a 77X may be a great deal more cost effective to bring to market than a cleansheet Y3 at this time?
Quoting zeke (Reply 82): So in my view the 77X will be like the 747-8i, a less than optimum solution, constrained by the previous certification.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think the 77X will sell in far greater numbers than the 748i, and will show a decent ROI for BCA.
Posting without Talent is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 86, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 24913 times:
Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 85): Could it not be that a 77X may be a great deal more cost effective to bring to market than a cleansheet Y3 at this time?
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 inflation is running at say 3%, and it takes 4 years to develop the 777X, that is a lot of money in today's terms that needs to be made in the future to cover costs. Wait another 10 years, it could be 20%+ more expensive. Are airlines going to see 20%, improvement, no.
I think the 77X is the smart way to go, however I think it would be "dumb" to ask too much of it, get the low hanging fruit.
Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 85): I wouldn't disagree with that, but I think the 77X will sell in far greater numbers than the 748i, and will show a decent ROI for BCA.
What do you call far grater number ? Double ? I do not think they will sell as well as the 787 or A350.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 87, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24826 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 79): The 773ER (77W) ... this is what I was responding to:
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 between one plane that's in service, and another where
a) the vast majority of the parts of its baseline model have been made and it is in final assembly,
b) a programme of weight reduction has been put in place that will see spec weight achieved by frame 18,
c) the baseline engines have run for several years, and flown, and are already beating spec SFC, and
d) the airframe has gone through a wind-tunnel testing programme whose outcome on recent programmes has consistently been an overdelivery of aerodynamic performance against spec.
Which makes me wonder where you see the massive risks to the achievement of a performance on or around spec, which will absolutley clearly produce an economic performance a step change better than the (already excellent) 777-300ER....
The 777X is clearly vapourware at this moment. It absolutely doesn't exist on anything other than powerpoint.
Nevertheless, I at least am respectful enough of the organisation behind it to believe that when the specs DO come out, even before engines run, or parts go into production, Boeing will meet those specs (if not necessarily on the first few airframes)
Operating on the basis that the A350 "doesn't physically exist", or that its specifications are nothing more than "powerpoint" and thus not credible, whether you mean it or not, has the attendant implication that Airbus is clueless when it comes to delivering specifications and the engineers who work there are uniformly useless.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 80): Since Boeing will launch the 777X after the A350-1000, it will have a target to aim for
Knowing it won't make it any easier to hit.....
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 80): they believe that the 777X will be able to hold its own against the A350-1000.
So they should. That's not necessarily the same as "every bit as good as". There are many factors that come into play which enable an airframe to "hold its own" against the competiton
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): 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%
No there isn't
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): Boeing will know the A350-1000 specs a priori. Makes it much easier for them to set and beat targets than Airbus, who will be swinging at a paper plane
No it doesn't
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81): Boeing *did* upstage Airbus's cleansheet A320 series with their upgraded 737NG series
No they didn't.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84): It makes it easier to *set* targets; it does nothing to help beat them
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84): The only meaningful connection between the company that build the A320 and the one that's doing the A350 is that they share the name "Airbus". At the time the A320 was being developed, Airbus was a loose consortium that didn't have nearly the capability they do today.
I must admit that reading some of these posts makes me wonder how Airbus can even make a plane that flies, much less produce competitive airframes that ultimately meet their spec.
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 24722 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 50): 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 statement.
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 A350-1000 has got right now.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 89, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 24694 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting zeke (Reply 82): 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 could also indicate reduced range and payload.
It could also be an indication that fuel burn is lower. According to Rolls-Royce,
Quote: Rolls-Royce has revealed details of its RB3025 concept, rated at 99,500lb (440kN) with a 337cm (132in) fan for the baseline 407-seat 777-9X, giving the powerplant a bypass ratio of 12:1, touting a “better than 10%” improvement in fuel burn over the incumbent GE90-115B engine and 15% better than its Trent 800, says Robert Nuttall, Rolls-Royce vice-president strategic marketing.
The Flightglobal 777X article also mentions that the 777-9X MTOW is projected to be 344,000kg - 8t less than the current 77W. A.netter Lightsaber has mentioned before in these forums that according to structural engineers who worked on the original 777, up to 10t of weight can be shed from the wing. Now, with a small stretch and larger wings, it's fair to say that the 777-9X will not be 10t lighter than the 777-300ER, but particularly when one considers the rumoured use of Al-Li in the fuselage skin, along with wings that, despite being larger, don't weigh more than the current 77W wings (unless a 7m wingspan increase and the greater use of composites in its construction will add 10t) ... I don't believe that the 777-9X will weigh much more, if at all, than the 777-300ER.
As for reduced range and payload ... I don't believe any figures have been released yet, but I find it highly unlikely that a successor to the 777-300ER will be less capable than it.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 84): It shouldn't even be physically possible for the 777X to beat it unless they delay the 777X so long that they get a disruptive engine technology.
Can you tell me what sort of design limitations that the 777X will have, which are inherent to the 777 and cannot be designed around without doing an all new frame, and which affects its performance or operating costs vis a vis the A350XWB? I'm not having a go, I'm genuinely curious. I understand that the 777X will be heavier than the A350, but it's also a larger frame with more seating capability which should reduce its CASM.
Based on my very limited understanding, the design of the wings and engines play the majority of the role in the performance of an aircraft. If the 777X features state-of-the-art wings and engines (which it should, doing any less than that would be suicide), then the key differentiating factor in terms of technological advancement which affects aircraft performance and operating costs between it and the A350 is an Al-Li fueslage skin as opposed to a CFRP one.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 87): So they should. That's not necessarily the same as "every bit as good as". There are many factors that come into play which enable an airframe to "hold its own" against the competiton
Fair point. I may have been a tad optimistic. But until actual figures for the 777X are released, I still think that it has every chance to be as good as it needs to be to compete against the A350XWB. If Boeing believed that the 777X couldn't possibly compete, then there'd be no talk of doing a 777X.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 90, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 24570 times:
Quoting mham001 (Reply 74):
Has a plane ever been obsolete before EIS?
Quoting astuteman (Reply 87): a) the vast majority of the parts of its baseline model have been made and it is in final assembly
Part of my problem with the A351 is it started out being a fair bit different than the A359, and as its design has matured we only hear more and more changes. Its grown a decent bit in MTOW so that it can cover the all payload-range chart of the 773ER where as it couldn't as first offered. Some people here like you say discount everything good about the A350 and that its well on its way to first flight. That said, how can I believe Airbus when they have grown the plane a non-trival amount and they still claim a fairly absurd 25% fuel burn differential that they were back when the A351 was "smaller". I understood it then as Airbus saved a good bit of wieght by right sizing the plane to its new fuel burn where as the 777 is hauling much more plane to haul more fuel.
Now we hear that the 777 can't translate its fuel savings with new wings and engines into meaningful wieght reductions in the same way is... strange. There are limits of course being a update of an existing design, instead of clean sheet, but Boeing then has the option to transfer any savings they can't convert to lower OEW and MTOW into higher payload instead. This is less desirable as the 777LR family is already known for having perhaps too much payload for most of its customers as unless you are flying to the bleeding edge of its range the cargo cubes out pretty early. EK is perhaps one of the few who wouldn't mind more....
That said, for me to really believe that the 777X will put the A351 in the "obsolete" catagory, It *MUST* have the ability to fit 10Y with standard 17.2" seats. It needs that seat count jump to get the CASM into a new class. The custom seats airlines use today to get 10Y is less that popular with them if what I've heard from EK is true. Which is basicly the unique window seat ads cost and complexity to dealing with them in buying and maintaining them. Also improve the experience for the passenger for "free"
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 91, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 24579 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): It could also be an indication that fuel burn is lower. According to Rolls-Royce,
10% lower than the 77W engine is still a higher fuel flow than the A350-1000 engine.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): I don't believe that the 777-9X will weigh much more, if at all, than the 777-300ER.
The 77W is about 40t higher TOW than the A350-1000 on a 12 hr sector.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90): That said, how can I believe Airbus when they have grown the plane a non-trival amount and they still claim a fairly absurd 25% fuel burn differential that they were back when the A351 was "smaller".
And they have a history of being able to grow aircraft in the past, look at the way the A330 has grown over the years. Keep in mind the thrust levels of the engines were dropped down and then bumped back up.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90): Now we hear that the 777 can't translate its fuel savings with new wings and engines into meaningful wieght reductions in the same way is... strange.
I suggest you look back at the threads when the original A350, it was an Al-Li fuselage, new CFRP wings, 9 abreast seating, and new engines, and it apparently could not match the 787.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90): It *MUST* have the ability to fit 10Y with standard 17.2" seats. It needs that seat count jump to get the CASM into a new class
And with all those seats in it, it will carry no cargo, of fly around with empty seats in it over ULH sectors.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 92, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 24493 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 91): Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90):
Now we hear that the 777 can't translate its fuel savings with new wings and engines into meaningful wieght reductions in the same way is... strange.
I suggest you look back at the threads when the original A350, it was an Al-Li fuselage, new CFRP wings, 9 abreast seating, and new engines, and it apparently could not match the 787.
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.
Quoting zeke (Reply 91): And with all those seats in it, it will carry no cargo, of fly around with empty seats in it over ULH sectors.
Yes, clearly massively improving the fuel burn on the 777X over the 777LR will mean that its no better or even worse than the 777LR family is today with 10Y. The 777 with 10Y is a fact today. I'm just saying that for the 777X to really nail the whole package Boeing needs to find that bit of extra room to let airlines do it cheaper and with industry standard Y class comfort instead of either narrowing the seats or cutting out shoulder room.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 93, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 24294 times:
Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 62): K**sje had a pic or two of a conceptual 777X that looked absolutely fantastic.
Yes it did. Too bad he is not active anymore on this beautiful forum.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): Can you tell me what sort of design limitations that the 777X will have, which are inherent to the 777 and cannot be designed around without doing an all new frame, and which affects its performance or operating costs vis a vis the A350XWB? I'm not having a go, I'm genuinely curious
Well, for once it is aerodynamics. Larger wings and a larger fuselage will mean more drag which must be overcome. Probably the wings-fuselage connection is aerodynamically better on all new airframes as well. And then there is the weight of an empty B777-X which for sure will be much heavier then an A350-1000.
Now, if totally full, a B777-9X could even out these disadvantages and might even make (though this is specific per route) more money per seat then a A350-1000. But as Zeke points out, airliners hardly ever fly that mission profile (totally full on maximum range, that is where we all now feel where the B777-9X could have the better performance). So in the normal every day life my guess is that the A350-1000 will be the better choice.
@Tdscanuck & Astuteman: it is always a joy and refreshing to read your posts with your well balanced opinions on matters like these. Highly appreciated. .
DarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 982 posts, RR: 1 Reply 94, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 24280 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 86):
What do you call far grater number ? Double ? I do not think they will sell as well as the 787 or A350.
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 better than a quad of virtually identical capacities. Much as I love the 747s, I really think this is about it for the PAX variants. The 748i may sell up to 100 units, eventually. I'm sure the 77X will do better than that much.
Ruscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1408 posts, RR: 2 Reply 96, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 23967 times:
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 than how "good" the 777X will be.
Fundamentally the 351 has two things working against it
1. The wrong fuselage diameter, which at the bottom end does not allow enough extra width to allow 1 extra seat width compared with the 787, and at the top end does not allow enough extra width to allow the same number of seats acoss as the 777.
2. Airbus took too big a bite with the spread of weights and seating, from 358 to351, and thus the 351 is becoming a very different airplane the the smaller models, and may need more thrust than available, because the weight is proving very difficult to achieve.
I offer this as a possibility, without any first hand knowledge if this is the case.
It will all be very interesting when we finally know the numbers.
dfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 97, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23806 times:
Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 88): Why don't you remind us all, right here right now, how many orders 777-300ER had 5 years before EIS.
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 that isn't available for sale.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 98, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23839 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting zeke (Reply 91): The 77W is about 40t higher TOW than the A350-1000 on a 12 hr sector.
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, remains to be seen. It is the larger aircraft with a larger cabin area than the A350-1000, which may translate to a greater passenger capacity than the A350-1000, at least when you look at Boeing's base configuration against Airbus' base configuration. For airlines that already operate or plan to operate the 77W with 10-abreast seating in Y, the 777-9X's increased capacity will be very attractive.
Weight is only a negative issue if it doesn't translate into more range or more revenue.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 93): Well, for once it is aerodynamics. Larger wings and a larger fuselage will mean more drag which must be overcome. Probably the wings-fuselage connection is aerodynamically better on all new airframes as well. And then there is the weight of an empty B777-X which for sure will be much heavier then an A350-1000.
New wings will help its lift to drag ratio, not hinder it. It may be larger, it may produce more drag, but at the same time, it is also likely to produce more lift than the current wing.
The fact that it has a larger fuselage cross section likely means it'll produce greater form drag, true. But that alone doesn't make an aircraft inefficient. If it did, we'd all be flying in narrowbodies.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 93): Now, if totally full, a B777-9X could even out these disadvantages and might even make (though this is specific per route) more money per seat then a A350-1000.
How do you know it has to be totally full to breach the CASM gap? We don't even know the fuel burn delta between the 777-9X and the A350-1000 yet.
Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 94): 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 better than a quad of virtually identical capacities. Much as I love the 747s, I really think this is about it for the PAX variants. The 748i may sell up to 100 units, eventually. I'm sure the 77X will do better than that much.
Personally, I think the 777-9X can achieve a roughly 40-60 split in sales numbers against A350-1000, but some might think I'm a bit optimistic here ...
I agree it'll do much better than the 747-8 because of the simple fact that it's a twin rather than a quad. If you have a twin that can perform the same mission as a quad with lower fuel burn, then the business case for the quad becomes very difficult to make.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 99, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23784 times:
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 A350-1000 are going to do to the 777-200ER and 777-300ER what the 777-200ER did to the A340-300 and the 777-300ER did to the A340-600.
At best, Boeing can try and do what Airbus is doing with the A330 family to keep it selling against the 787 and raise the weights as much as they can to generate additional revenue to offset the higher fuel costs. But with the spot price of Jet A fuel at around USD 1000 per ton, can an airline charge more than that for a ton of cargo?
Airbus has nothing to offer against the 777-200LR and 777 Freighter. True, they're not large sellers, but if an airline needs that capability, Boeing can charge for it. The 777-200ER has effectively joined the 777-200 and 777-300 in retirement, so if Boeing can extract any production efficiencies by only building the 77F, 77L and 77W they should move to do so. GE should also move their own production lines to only build the GE90-110b and GE90-115b if they can extract any efficiencies out of them as well as concentrate their PiP efforts on those two models.
And then just do what they did with the 767 and 747 - extract as much production efficiency as you can so you can keep your margins as high as you can while winding down the production rate. Boeing should be able to keep the production rate above five per month through the end of the decade, then start dialing it back as necessary. Perhaps eventually move the 777 production to the 787 surge line and turn the 777 line into a second full 787 line.
Then concentrate on Y3. Let Airbus grab the initial A340 and 777 replacement market (as they did with the A330 vis-a-vis the initial 767 replacement market) and then launch Y3 when the bulk of replacements and expansion start to come due and wrack up the sales like the 787 did.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 100, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23547 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 90): That said, how can I believe Airbus when they have grown the plane a non-trival amount and they still claim a fairly absurd 25% fuel burn differential that they were back when the A351 was "smaller".
Emirates (not Airbus) suggested that in their configuration the original A350-1000 would have 21% better fuel burn, but aboutt 10% less payload.
It seems to me that Airbus have sacrificed 2% or so on fuel burn to eradicate the 10% payload difference (at longer ranges)
That may not suit every airline.
But CX, for example, have said the changes make the a350-1000 "irresistible"..
Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 96): 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,
that'll be right......
Quoting Stitch (Reply 99): I still believe Boeing is making a mistake pursuing the 777 Next Generation.
Whilst i don't for one second believe the 777X will "obsolete" the A350-1000, I think it makes a great case for itself. The 777-9X, if it is a 410 seater, has no direct competitor from Airbus as such. The 777-8X, provided it gets near enough to the A350-1000, should prosper as a complement to the 777-9X.
They don't have to be "every bit as good as the A350-1000" in order to have every bit as good a business case...
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 101, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 23457 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 100): The 777-9X, if it is a 410 seater, has no direct competitor from Airbus as such.
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 Class. It will also be only 1.5 meters longer than the A350-1000 - which means one row of Business Class. That is less than the 3.4m between the 787-9 and A350-900, which allows the A350-900 to have the one row of Business Class and the two rows of Economy Class.
I've argued that if Boeing does these planes, the 777-8 needs to be the same 74m length as the 777-300ER, not a 4.5m shrink. And the 777-9 needs to be 80m (putting all 6m forward of the wing if they can to hopefully help with rotation angles and tail strikes).
That way, the 777-8 would have the same cabin length as the A350-1000 with the advantage of being able to fit an additional seat in each row of Business Class and Economy Class. And the 777-9 would offer enough space for an additional 3-4 rows of Business Class or 6 rows of Economy Class over the A350-1000.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 102, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 23348 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 100): Emirates (not Airbus) suggested that in their configuration the original A350-1000 would have 21% better fuel burn, but aboutt 10% less payload.
It seems to me that Airbus have sacrificed 2% or so on fuel burn to eradicate the 10% payload difference (at longer ranges)
That may not suit every airline.
But CX, for example, have said the changes make the a350-1000 "irresistible"..
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 its a very good thing Airbus did it outside of the increased loss of commonality with the A359. With that gap in place it left a decent % of the market with no choice but to keep buying Boeing OR abandon revenue/markets.
What I am saying is why a 777X *could* make a A351 "obsolete" is if they get enough fuel burn reduction to restore a healthy payload advantage, solid passenger capacity advantage, and atleast comparable overall lifetime operating economics. Not saying it will, but that its possible. I also find it funny that many of the same people saying its impossible for the 777X to even match the A351 are the same ones that claim the A330 is as good or better than a 787. So either they are right and a old frame improved can match a new one or they are wrong and and a old frame improved can match a new one. er.....
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 103, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23335 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102): What I am saying is why a 777X *could* make a A351 "obsolete" is if they get enough fuel burn reduction to restore a healthy payload advantage, solid passenger capacity advantage, and atleast comparable overall lifetime operating economics.
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 will be due to the increase in capacity, and not lower operating cost, per se.
Which suggests to me that the 777X will in no way "obsolete" the A350-1000 - if anything they may well end up complementing each other, as some CX posters have suggested up-thread.
Whilst the A350-1000 has lower operating costs, there will always be a place for it.
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 102): I also find it funny that many of the same people saying its impossible for the 777X to even match the A351 are the same ones that claim the A330 is as good or better than a 787
Inconsistency of argument - the very hallmark of many an A-net thread...
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 104, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 23157 times:
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 are the basic fuse structure, some systems and the food carts.
Basically, the savings by keeping the fuse layout, (using new materials), would come from getting a break on certification costs. If they don't, then I can't see them saving a whole lot, if anything.
The thing is, what other way could they go? Regardless of how much of the 777 they use, the new plane will be a very large twin, bigger and lighter than the current 777er, probably a circular fuse about the same diameter, new wing and new engines. They'll probably also spruce up the cockpit and modernize the fly by wire systems, though they are pretty much still state of the art.
There's no reason to get caught up in the sales blather. Even those deepest inside don't have more than a basic clue what they 777x will be or do.
What they do have is a benchmark, which is the -1000, and goals for the 777x...that's about it.
Getting wound up about any comparison between the two is kind of pointless since while there is still room for some changes on the -1000, it's pretty close to set in stone. The 777x is basically not much more than a concept at this point.
For now, we're not much past the flipping coins and throwing darts stage with the 777x...a bit too early in the day for boasting.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 105, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 23064 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 104): Basically, the savings by keeping the fuse layout, (using new materials), would come from getting a break on certification costs. If they don't, then I can't see them saving a whole lot, if anything.
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 and testing has to be redone, but it also means many many other design tasks do not need to be redone.
To me the bigger consideration is whether or not those design tasks should be redone or not. The 777 fuse weighs what it weighs because of the sum of countless design decisions all based around the 777's parameters, not the 777X's. The gain of not redoing those design decisions made for the 777 is in tension with the goal of making the plane good enough for the desired long market life of the 777X. Given that we're not hearing a single word about an all new VLA, 777X will probably have to carry the ball as long as the 777-2/3-ER have been. I have to wonder what reaction you would get from 777 engineers in the early/mid 90s if you told them their design decisions would need to be good enough to compete with an all-new composite airliner in the mid 2010s.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1785 posts, RR: 57 Reply 106, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23016 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 104): Still, it's entertaining to watch the show.
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 ourselves with speculations what might be.
So here a couple of cents ;
- I found the spec of the 777X hard to believe (99klbf for a frame which lifted of at 344t etc) so I started fiddling with some formulas to check it over. It ended up with a quite useful model which can at least show the ballpark of things. I described it in a TechOps thread about A vs B wings, it told (at least me ) there are 2 things which are key to the figures we see for the 777X:
A. The engines gain about 1% TSFC per year according to RR. If the 777X engines get their design freeze 2-3 years later then the 359-1000 (it has it's design freeze now, 2012) they turn out 2-3% better. But then the new stuff will be retrofitted in to the 350-1000 engines eventually, not everything because certain things are overall architecture like BPR and so on. Say that long term you gain 0.5% per year, so the 777X could have engines some 1.5% more efficient if it EIS around 2019-2020.
B. The other key aspect is the 71m wingspan. 70-80% of your start problem is induced drag, a 71m wingspan makes 99klbf possible for a 344t frame if everything else works out dandy. The 71m meter span also helps with the long range cruise drag, which to some 30-40% is induced drag. Downside is, the thing does not fit in 65m gates anymore. How big a drawback that is others know better then I. There are rumors of folding wingttips but that is a lot of complexity, not sure it would be there (maybe an option that no-one orders ).
The 2 things above together with the other data which has been leaked would bring the 777X in the ballpark of the 350-1000 fuel consumption and range wise, at least in theory. It does not bring CFRP maintenance costs or fatigue life however.
Re structure, for all the talk about lighter this and that, my back of the envelope fiddle says it will pretty much compensate for a larger wing and heavier engines, so it will be close to a wash, we will see . So the 777X will be heavier, both empty and TOW for same payload, so it will burn more fuel for the common short and midhaul legs where the above 2 factors do not compensate the weight fully.
Anyway, we will not have the boring situation of today were the only true neck-to-neck is SA and then everone orders 333 and 77W for their fleets. It will be competition all the way to 400 seats and A.net will be fun for years as these programs pan out....
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 107, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 22752 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 105):
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 and testing has to be redone, but it also means many many other design tasks do not need to be redone.
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 moment...but that's just from the recent track records where too good to be true, has turned out to be impossible to achieve.
I do suspect that AlLi will save them significant tooling but they already admit that some adjustments will have to me made.
It's one of those things that hangs on the difference between what they can achieve and the capabilities of the -1000...which I suspect will be a few percentage points....when apples and apples are compared.
It all hinges on whether or not that difference will be single digits or double digits. At this point, not even the Shadow knows.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 106): Anyway, we will not have the boring situation of today were the only true neck-to-neck is SA and then everone orders 333 and 77W for their fleets. It will be competition all the way to 400 seats and A.net will be fun for years as these programs pan out...
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 108, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22651 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): Can you tell me what sort of design limitations that the 777X will have, which are inherent to the 777 and cannot be designed around without doing an all new frame, and which affects its performance or operating costs vis a vis the A350XWB?
The flight control system.
The landing gear.
The empennage (within limits).
The entire avionics architecture.
The fuselage material.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): Based on my very limited understanding, the design of the wings and engines play the majority of the role in the performance of an aircraft.
If you mean "performance = fuel burn" then yes, the wings and engines are the majority (although not a huge majority). If you mean "performance = total cost of ownership" or "performance = payload-range capability" then it's not nearly that simple. And it's the latter that airlines care about.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89): If the 777X features state-of-the-art wings and engines (which it should, doing any less than that would be suicide),
State-of-the-art wings would require an all new flight control system (which would force a major upgrade of many client systems) and rerunning the static strength and fatigue strength tests, as well as capital investment on the scale of the 787. None of that is consistent with the 777X being a derivative; if you're going to go down that road you're better off doing a cleansheet.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 22161 times:
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 easier to mass produce large fuselage sections in CFRP. I think I read that the F35 has the later gen CFRP along with some carbon nanotube materials, lighter yet stronger.
And the Y3 will probably be built inside US unlike the 787, here Charleston may be a key to realise this?
How bad would it be to keep the 77W as it is but do a new wing, widen the cabin and put some Al-Li on it along with new engines? Do the same for the L and F model. It should be faster? They maybe even could use the same XWB RR engines?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 110, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 21924 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Stitch (Reply 101): The 777-9 cabin will be 2 meters longer than the 777-300ER - that is two rows of Economy Class.
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. Zeke has stated before that 777-300ER has 2 more seats in CX configuration than the A350-1000. If the 777-9X has 2 more rows of economy class, that's another 18 seats to give the 777-9X a 20 seat advantage. It is in fact a 2.7 metre stretch, so 3 additional rows could fit.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 101): I've argued that if Boeing does these planes, the 777-8 needs to be the same 74m length as the 777-300ER, not a 4.5m shrink. And the 777-9 needs to be 80m (putting all 6m forward of the wing if they can to hopefully help with rotation angles and tail strikes).
That way, the 777-8 would have the same cabin length as the A350-1000 with the advantage of being able to fit an additional seat in each row of Business Class and Economy Class. And the 777-9 would offer enough space for an additional 3-4 rows of Business Class or 6 rows of Economy Class over the A350-1000.
I was under the impression that for CoG reasons, the stretch cannot all be forward of the wing. I remember raising this point before and was told that it would not be possible.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 106): The 2 things above together with the other data which has been leaked would bring the 777X in the ballpark of the 350-1000 fuel consumption and range wise, at least in theory. It does not bring CFRP maintenance costs or fatigue life however.
Thanks for the informative post
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 108): The flight control system.
The landing gear.
The empennage (within limits).
The entire avionics architecture.
The fuselage material.
I understand that the landing gear and the fuselage material cannot be changed cost effectively and that they'll perhaps be heavier than ideal against the A350.
But can you please elaborate on how the others can affect performance? If the 737MAX got a new tailcone, would a slightly redesigned empennage help the 777X? If not, how much would the current empennage hinder the 777X against the A350, then?
Flight control system and avionics - I suppose there are FBW systems and there are FBW systems. How complex would it be to upgrade that? It's not as if the 777 is switching from a hydraulic control system to FBW - the 777 already has FBW.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 108): If you mean "performance = fuel burn" then yes, the wings and engines are the majority (although not a huge majority). If you mean "performance = total cost of ownership" or "performance = payload-range capability" then it's not nearly that simple. And it's the latter that airlines care about.
I did mean "performance" as in fuel burn and payload-range performance, not so much cost of ownership.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 108): State-of-the-art wings would require an all new flight control system (which would force a major upgrade of many client systems) and rerunning the static strength and fatigue strength tests, as well as capital investment on the scale of the 787. None of that is consistent with the 777X being a derivative; if you're going to go down that road you're better off doing a cleansheet.
If they're going to re-wing anyway, doesn't that automatically mean rerunning the tests you mentioned?
Quoting sweair (Reply 109): And the Y3 will probably be built inside US unlike the 787, here Charleston may be a key to realise this?
If by "built" you mean "final assembly", then yes, it should be. As far as I know, Boeing don't have a FAL overseas. No doubt there will be some degree of outsourcing, though, which is nothing new.
Quoting sweair (Reply 109): How bad would it be to keep the 77W as it is but do a new wing, widen the cabin and put some Al-Li on it along with new engines? Do the same for the L and F model. It should be faster? They maybe even could use the same XWB RR engines?
That's precisely the 777X in a nutshell. The 777X won't be using XWBs, RR are developing a new engine (along with GE and PW) in response to Boeing's RFP for 777X engines.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 111, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 21828 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): I was under the impression that for CoG reasons, the stretch cannot all be forward of the wing. I remember raising this point before and was told that it would not be possible.
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 isn't a stability problem but puts far more load on the horizontal stabilizer, which has strength, control power, and trim drag implications.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): But can you please elaborate on how the others can affect performance? If the 737MAX got a new tailcone, would a slightly redesigned empennage help the 777X? If not, how much would the current empennage hinder the 777X against the A350, then?
The 777X is changing length, thrusts, and weights; that means it's very unlikely that the existing empennage has the right tail volume (I suspect the existing one is too big for the 777X) and it's probably overbuilt (heavier than needed). Their choices are then to redo it completely (major R&D, all new tooling, etc.) or accept the compromise. It's not going to be a huge difference (it's almost never a huge difference) but it will be real.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): Flight control system and avionics - I suppose there are FBW systems and there are FBW systems. How complex would it be to upgrade that?
It all depends on what you want to change; changing the software to change how the existing surfaces move is relatively simple. Adding new functions, like cruise flaps or gapped spoilers, may require new FBW computers and actuators. Adding all new surfaces may require an entirely new system (i.e. new wire harnesses, new actuators, new hydrauilcs, new computers, new software, new surfaces), depending on how much extra capability is left in the current system.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): If they're going to re-wing anyway, doesn't that automatically mean rerunning the tests you mentioned?
No. The 737NG and 747-8 re-winged and did not repeat those tests. They were certified by analysis. You can only do that when your scope of change is small enough that you can convince yourself and the regulator that it's within the bounds of your existing analysis tools.
nasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 112, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 21695 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 50):
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 statement. The A-3510 only has about 88 orders, the A-330F only has about 52 orders.
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 the common "Boeing can do wrong sometimes, but Airbus does most of the time" disease.
Could the real reasons be the same reasons why the 787 isn't selling anymore? After all, the A3510 has sold more than the total program of 787 has if we take a look at orders since 2008. Wonder why? Could there be similar reasons at play? If not, I'd LOVE to hear why not.
Irishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 377 posts, RR: 0 Reply 113, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 21255 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11): 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 114, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 21138 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): But can you please elaborate on how the others can affect performance? If the 737MAX got a new tailcone, would a slightly redesigned empennage help the 777X? If not, how much would the current empennage hinder the 777X against the A350, then?
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, empennage, and control surfaces have all changed significantly over the decades. The same can be said of the 748i vs. the 741 (except maybe the landing gear is mostly the same).
Boeing is also discussing replacing the Al from the 777 with Al-Li, which would be a materials change.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 115, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 20874 times:
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 you statement regarding the slow sales of the 787 is true explain why VA couldn't get their hands on the lost Qantas order fast enough.
In respect to the A350-1000, lets hypothesize and say if Boeing were to go to the board tomorrow, get approval by Q1 2013, based solely on the suggested interest from BA, EK, EY and Eva in Taiwan, the 777x program would IMHO cruise past the the A350-1000 in initial sales since A is under more pressure to get the final design frozen, unlike Boeing who has some time to tool and tinker before pulling the trigger on freezing their design.
sonomaflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1177 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (8 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 20853 times:
Quoting nasula (Reply 112): 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 the common "Boeing can do wrong sometimes, but Airbus does most of the time" disease.
Could the real reasons be the same reasons why the 787 isn't selling anymore? After all, the A3510 has sold more than the total program of 787 has if we take a look at orders since 2008. Wonder why? Could there be similar reasons at play? If not, I'd LOVE to hear why not.
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. Additional customers and option conversions won't happen until Boeing gets their manufacturing and delivery process sorted and demonstrate their claimed numbers for the a/c.
I don't think the reasons the 351 hasn't sold are the same reasons there haven't been follow on orders for the 787. The design for the 351 isn't even finalized. Airlines that could use the a/c currently fly and are satisfied with the 77W and are waiting to see the final numbers on the design and the time line for delivery before ordering. That is different than the 787 order issues.
nasula From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, RR: 0 Reply 117, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 20536 times:
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 116): I don't think the reasons the 351 hasn't sold are the same reasons there haven't been follow on orders for the 787. The design for the 351 isn't even finalized. Airlines that could use the a/c currently fly and are satisfied with the 77W and are waiting to see the final numbers on the design and the time line for delivery before ordering. That is different than the 787 order issues.
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 be about availability and the current economic climate. Since 2008 the 787 has sold less than only the 3510 (let alone the whole 350 family). Your Qantas case kind of proves the point. The availability is too long in the future to garner in a lot of orders for the 787, why not the 3510? Of course the current world economics don't help.
But without access to airlines' board rooms, the only thing we can do is speculate and wait. Once the timeframe of availability comes a few years closer we'll know which case it is: Availability or "a dog product".
One could just as well say: "Hey CX - a 777 fan just bought 26 of them even though availability is a long time away. That must prove that it's far superior to the current 777". It sounds just as silly as stating that because it has only outsold the 787 in the last four years, it must be a dog because it hasn't sold in the hundreds even though the product finalisation and delivery is still under progress..
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 118, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20520 times:
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 115): Pardon me if I may, but the 787 is still being sold and pulling in orders
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 definition of "still pulling in orders"......
I'm more than happy that this isn't a reflection of the popularity of the product.
For me it's a function of the delays resulting in the plane being "oversold" relative to its availability and lead-time
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 115): lets hypothesize and say if Boeing were to go to the board tomorrow, .... the 777x program would IMHO cruise past the the A350-1000 in initial sales since A is under more pressure to get the final design frozen, unlike Boeing who has some time to tool and tinker before pulling the trigger on freezing their design
I can't find any way in which this hypothesis makes the remotest sense. Sorry
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 116): Additional customers and option conversions won't happen until Boeing gets their manufacturing and delivery process sorted and demonstrate their claimed numbers for the a/c
They won't happen until the manufacturing and delivery process being sorted brings down the huge backlog and its attendant lead time....
Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 116): I don't think the reasons the 351 hasn't sold are the same reasons there haven't been follow on orders for the 787
The biggest single reason is almost undoubtedly the same.
Lead time.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm pretty sure the 787 orders will start to feed back in when production catches up with the delay to the backlog.
It's no coincidence that the year that the A350-1000's EIS moved from 2015 to 2017, the 777 had its best year by a country mile netting some 200 orders.
This year orders stands at a net of +16 for the year-to-date.
Like the 787, the A350-1000 orders (and A350 generally) will start to feed back in as the lead-time and schedule risk reduce.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 119, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20482 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 110): That's precisely the 777X in a nutshell. The 777X won't be using XWBs, RR are developing a new engine (along with GE and PW) in response to Boeing's RFP for 777X engines.
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, put a new wing on them and engines, I wonder what numbers that would bring. No 380 seat model..
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 120, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 20492 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 118): Like the 787, the A350-1000 orders (and A350 generally) will start to feed back in as the lead-time and schedule risk reduce.
I am sure they will. As usual your remarks are spot-on.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 121, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20488 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 119): 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, put a new wing on them and engines, I wonder what numbers that would bring.
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 reason for this would appear to be that the numbers look like making a better business case with the stretches.
Given that the stretches will add considerably to the programme cost and complexity, it suggests that the baseline lengths produced numbers that Boeing feel aren't good enough, and that better numbers will be required to do the job
Unless you can think of a better reason.
If correct, that would certainly appear to tell us what Boeing think about the A350-1000 as it now stands.
I don't know if you noticed, but the 777X didn't really appear until the A350-1000's specs grew............
More subliminial messages there.....
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 122, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 20458 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 121): I don't know if you noticed, but the 777X didn't really appear until the A350-1000's specs grew............
More subliminial messages there.....
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, the revised product as you say created an uproar.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 123, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 20452 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 87): Quoting 135mech (Reply 79):
The 773ER (77W) ... this is what I was responding to:
And I was highlighting that you appear to have studiously ignored the opening premise of the thread.
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 disecting that!
I made my comment due to the comparison of the 77W to the A350...not the 77X, there is a huge difference.
Airbus makes some excellent aircraft (but so does Boeing) and I have not said anything that would say less. It seems that you think eveyone (from the posts I have read from you) is an Airbus hater...it's not true.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 124, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 20448 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 118): 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 definition of "still pulling in orders"......
I'm more than happy that this isn't a reflection of the popularity of the product.
For me it's a function of the delays resulting in the plane being "oversold" relative to its availability and lead-time
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 still a good figure.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 118): Quoting rotating14 (Reply 115):
lets hypothesize and say if Boeing were to go to the board tomorrow, .... the 777x program would IMHO cruise past the the A350-1000 in initial sales since A is under more pressure to get the final design frozen, unlike Boeing who has some time to tool and tinker before pulling the trigger on freezing their design
I can't find any way in which this hypothesis makes the remotest sense. Sorry
All I was trying to say was that Boeing has more time than Airbus to freeze a design on the 777x program vs the A350-1000.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 125, posted (8 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 20465 times:
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 124): 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 still a good figure.
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 over the next few years
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 124): All I was trying to say was that Boeing has more time than Airbus to freeze a design on the 777x program vs the A350-1000.
For sure.
I just couldn't see it "cruising past the A350-1000 in sales", if for no other reason than the lead-time you allude to..
Quoting 135mech (Reply 123): It seems that you think eveyone (from the posts I have read from you) is an Airbus hater...it's not true.
I just look for consistency of argument that's all.
It's a rare commodity on A-net.
I work very hard to achieve it myself. And I'm conscious that I may not always succeed.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7726 posts, RR: 73 Reply 126, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20295 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 89):
It could also be an indication that fuel burn is lower. According to Rolls-Royce,
Quote:
Rolls-Royce has revealed details of its RB3025 concept, rated at 99,500lb (440kN) with a 337cm (132in) fan for the baseline 407-seat 777-9X, giving the powerplant a bypass ratio of 12:1, touting a “better than 10%” improvement in fuel burn over the incumbent GE90-115B engine and 15% better than its Trent 800, says Robert Nuttall, Rolls-Royce vice-president strategic marketing. http://www.flightglobal.com/Features...sion/
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 this. The 787 overall was around 15% better than a 767, and only about half of that improvement came from better engines. However given the 777X is likely to be used on sectors longer than the 787, the engine improvement would be more noticeable.
I do not think you would say that similar upgrades to an A330 would produce lower costs, we had many threads where people from the USA advocated strongly that no amount of new wing, new engines, improved aerodynamics, and an Al-Li fuselage could result in a competitive machine against the 787. It was even made into parody.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4543 posts, RR: 28 Reply 127, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 20313 times:
Quoting zeke (Reply 126): we had many threads where people from the USA
Yes, the ONLY people who say anything pro-Boeing or anti-Airbus are from the USA. Thanks for stirring the pot.
Quoting zeke (Reply 126): About time for one for the 777X.
That'd put a smile on some faces, now wouldn't it? It's all about tit for tat.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 128, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 20109 times:
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 Iphone and boy did I get lashed. What has happened to people, is marketing so successful in brainwashing its consumers slaves? This materialistic ideal has gone too far IMO.
I rather have feeling for living things than dead products Its the same with car brands, computers.. Its really just dead things carrying a brand that makes the producers wealthy, I don't want to be a tool for some clever marketing.
In a way people do the marketing for a company for free, not even employed or anything and this I feel is sad.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 129, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19776 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 111): Adding new functions, like cruise flaps or gapped spoilers, may require new FBW computers and actuators. Adding all new surfaces may require an entirely new system (i.e. new wire harnesses, new actuators, new hydrauilcs, new computers, new software, new surfaces), depending on how much extra capability is left in the current system.
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 get the 777X as close to parity with the A350-1000 as possible. That 1% or 2% improvement may all add up to something significant when the entire 777X project is taken into account. If they're going to re-wing and re-engine, then they may as well "do it properly", as you put it, and add the new control surfaces if it means there will be a measurable improvement in performance.
Quoting zeke (Reply 126): 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 this.
That's probably because the technology gap between the 767 and 787 is greater than between the 777 and the proposed 777X.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 130, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19780 times:
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 it has now?
757gb From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 645 posts, RR: 2 Reply 131, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 19750 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 128): I rather have feeling for living things than dead products Its the same with car brands, computers.. Its really just dead things carrying a brand that makes the producers wealthy, I don't want to be a tool for some clever marketing.
Agree completely... very well said.
God is The Alpha and The Omega. We come from God. We go towards God. What an Amazing Journey...
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 132, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19646 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting sweair (Reply 130): 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 it has now?
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.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 133, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19591 times:
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 real life date from flight testing might also allow for other improvements. What does that mean for the 777x? Would that also have the same room for improvement so as to keep competitive?
One thing is to be able to match the early 350. What about the more mature 350?
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 134, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 19547 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting abba (Reply 133): 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 real life date from flight testing might also allow for other improvements. What does that mean for the 777x? Would that also have the same room for improvement so as to keep competitive?
One thing is to be able to match the early 350. What about the more mature 350?
What makes you think that the 777X won't improve its performance and efficiency over its production cycle just like every other commercial airliner out there?
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 135, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19509 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 118): For me it's a function of the delays resulting in the plane being "oversold" relative to its availability and lead-time
Indeed you do have consistency of argument.
Quoting zeke (Reply 126): I do not think you would say that similar upgrades to an A330 would produce lower costs, we had many threads where people from the USA advocated strongly that no amount of new wing, new engines, improved aerodynamics, and an Al-Li fuselage could result in a competitive machine against the 787.
The answer is in the name XWB - nothing could fix the fact that the A330 and B787 cross section do not stack up well competitively with the A350XWB and B787. A320 and B737 are competitive with each other in terms of cross section thus both are being re-iterated. 777X is said to be trying to increase internal cross section via thinner walls/panels to try to make 10x more viable.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 136, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19453 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 129): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 111):
Adding new functions, like cruise flaps or gapped spoilers, may require new FBW computers and actuators. Adding all new surfaces may require an entirely new system (i.e. new wire harnesses, new actuators, new hydrauilcs, new computers, new software, new surfaces), depending on how much extra capability is left in the current system.
How much impact will the addition of those functions have on the performance of the 777X?
A few % if the 787 is any indication.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 129): The way I look at it, Boeing needs to pull out all stops to get the 777X as close to parity with the A350-1000 as possible
"All the stops" would mean doing a new cleansheet aircraft. And there is no way that that business case closes.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 137, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19431 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 135):
The answer is in the name XWB - nothing could fix the fact that the A330 and B787 cross section do not stack up well competitively with the A350XWB and B787.
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 3-4-3 in a 747 that is even wider. What would a true 3-4-3 cabin be like in the whiners mind? How wide would it have to be to satisfy the a.netters?
I would rather halve the travel time than have a wider seat..
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 138, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19331 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 137): How wide would it have to be to satisfy the a.netters?
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 width and average leg room. .
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 139, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 19238 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 138): 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 width and average leg room.
How does cabin width do anything to guarantee average leg room?
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8751 posts, RR: 52 Reply 140, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 19192 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 130): 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 it has now?
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 even though they had seen the 777 surpassing the A340 in sales. There's no way they would have launched a brand new twin the size of the A340-600.
In hindsight, Airbus would have been better off betting on the A330 in 1997. Airbus is still trying to play catchup from that move.
The 77L and 77W obsoleting the A345 & A346 was a rare accomplishment in aviation. I think anyone speculating that any airplane will obsolete another is likely showing a biased opinion rather than a legitimate comparison because it is too early to know.
[Edited 2012-09-11 11:47:40]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 141, posted (8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 19152 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 139): How does cabin width do anything to guarantee average leg room?
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's get back on topic since the B777-X and A350-1000 are being discussed here..
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 142, posted (8 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18790 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 134): What makes you think that the 777X won't improve its performance and efficiency over its production cycle just like every other commercial airliner out there?
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. The first time you go over all the parts in order to ensure that they hit 100% - and not 105% - of target you get more weight off than when you go over the same parts for the 10th time. There is most likely more low hanging fruit on the 350 than on the 777 as significant parts on what will become the 777x has been through many such weight saving exercises already.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 143, posted (8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18765 times:
Quoting abba (Reply 142): There is most likely more low hanging fruit on the 350 than on the 777 as significant parts on what will become the 777x has been through many such weight saving exercises already.
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 airframe (like the B787 or the A350) will have more room for further improvements over their lifetime.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 144, posted (8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18790 times:
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 sort of a blessing for Boeing. As for the technology that didnt exist in 2000, I see no one say that the A380 is handcapped by being launched in 2000..
The 77W would probably not sell as well if it had a larger competitor, I did not say it would be made obsolete, that is nonsense of your part IMO.
The 77W has had a grand time the last couple of years, since it lacks any real competitor.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 145, posted (8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18768 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 144): s for the technology that didn't exist in 2000, I see no one say that the A380 is handicapped by being launched in 2000..
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 to go with 4 engines. Boeing's B777-300ER, which turned out to be that phenomenal plane we know it to be today, came later to the market and pioneered the massive twin engine large plane with the GE90-115's. So Airbus basically could not have gone that path at that time with the A340 program.
Of course the A380 is indeed not handicapped in any way since it needs 4 engines.
So now the B777 has the time of its life, and it is well deserved. But that time will come to an end at some point. And that point is the EIS of the A350-1000 which is also the trigger for the B777-X program.
ferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 1785 posts, RR: 57 Reply 146, posted (8 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 18608 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 145): 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.
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 the GE90-115. Thus RR was freed to offer it to any Airbus program, this engine which had been shown to go beyond 110klbf could have been used for a 330-600 sized twin.
It covers Boeings' risk averse approach and the implications it has had for product development along with the current indecision over what to do with a 77W replacement.
...Our perception is that Boeing appears to be stuck in a risk-averse mode, and by failing to execute its original product development strategy has ceded market leadership in key segments to Airbus, despite having them “on the ropes” just a few years ago .....
With regards to launching the 777X ... ...Boeing needs to rapidly have a competitive answer, having lost a key customer to the competition, but appears to have its finger in the air trying to figure out which way the winds are blowing ......
... When two major customers question whether the company has confidence enough in a new design to launch it, and likes what they’ve already been shown enough to place an order, it begs the question of Boeing’s confidence in its ability to deliver on multiple programs ....
Lots of food for thought - I certainly agree that Boeing shouldn't dither on the 777X decision for long.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 148, posted (8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18484 times:
Quoting ferpe (Reply 146): 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 the GE90-115. Thus RR was freed to offer it to any Airbus program, this engine which had been shown to go beyond 110klbf could have been used for a 330-600 sized twin.
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 market would be a bit different today? No 748 and no super sales of the 77W.
Some say the tech back in 2000 was missing to leap the current 77W, I feel that is not correct. Had the 77W met a 777X-9 class competitor in 2006/2007 things could have been a bit different IMO. The 250 A380 sales so far could have been 4-500 sales of the imaginary Airbus 410 seat twin..
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 149, posted (8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 18436 times:
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 responded with the 777-8 and 777-9 instead of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER and they'd be in a duopoly in widebodies like they are in narrowbodies.
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 147): There is an interesting article on AirInsight regarding Boeings new wide body programs.
I'm about as negative about the 777X as I have been about the 747-8 in terms of being able to compete against clean-sheet Airbus airframes. The only way I see a 777X beating an A350 in CASM is by having sufficiently more seats to spread the extra costs over. Hence my belief both the 777-8 and 777-9 are too short and need to be ~75m and ~80m, respectively.
I'm not convinced EK and QR are ready to buy the 777X - at least in the volumes and at the price that will cover the investment to bring them to market. Boeing also will have their hands full getting the 787-9, 787-10 and 737 MAX into production.
Airbus announced an effective two-year delay in the EIS of the A350-1000 and the 777-300ER promptly sold two additional years of production. However, now that an airline can theoretically get an A350-1000 within a year of a 777-300ER, sales for the Boeing have dried up again.
I still think Y3 is where Boeing needs to be, probably with an EIS of 2025. That way they can hit the main wave of 777-300ER and A340-600 replacements as well as any 747-400 operators who are holding on to older planes. Heck, you might even be able to get some first-wave A380-800 replacement orders from SQ and EK.
In the interim, they need to formally cull the 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 models and only offer the 777-200LR, 777 Freighter and 777-300ER. Thin the walls to improve the comfort at 10-abreast in Economy and then get GE to significantly PiP the GE90-11xB with a new fan, contra-rotation, eCore 2, BLISKS, CMC high turbine blades and whatever else they can think of. If they can't PiP it, then have them scale GE9X to 110k and 115k of thrust and sell it not only on new planes, but as a re-engine for existing 77L, 77F and 77W airframes to extend their useful life.
Lowering the trip fuel weight will allow Boeing to increase the ZFW and improve the payload-range chart. It will improve the 777F's economics even more, keeping the A350-900F at bay and could help secure some new 777-200LR orders, keeping the A350-900R at bay. And if it can sell enough 777-300ERs to keep the line running at 4-5 a month for another decade, the business case should be green.
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?
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 147): Lots of food for thought - I certainly agree that Boeing shouldn't dither on the 777X decision for long.
They aren't. Their original timeline was to get board approval for the 777X program either at the end of this year or early next year. The recent statement from Conners has confirmed that the timeline for making a decision on the 777X hasn't changed. I don't understand why there are so many media articles implying the opposite.
As for 'risk averse', I think what they're doing is something that makes economic sense. Rather than being 'risk averse', launching the 777X would cost less than doing an all new aircraft. Doing an all new aircraft at the moment might not give Boeing the best return for investment because I'm not convinced that an all new replacement right now will eclipse the A350XWB. If the technology isn't quite available yet with which the 'Y3' can leap frog the A350, why not launch the 777X which will cost much less than an all new aircraft and grab a decent slice of the 350-400 seat market as well?
Quoting sweair (Reply 144): 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,
It would've had to be an all new aircraft as opposed to an A330/A340 derivative because even the "A336" would not be big enough, and I doubt the A330/A340 frame can be stretched much further. The 305 inch fan of the Trent 8115 would've posed ground clearance problems as well for an "A336". The 777's ability to fit 10-across seating in Y would result in a higher number of seats and a lower CASM.
Now, would Airbus have launched an all new twin? Before the 777-300ER arrived, nobody - and I don't think even Boeing - truly predicted the success that it would become. Airbus had already committed at that stage to launch the A340NG, and fuel was still relatively inexpensive compared to the price it is today. It's very easy to say that in hindsight, they should've launched an all new long range twin, but knowing what they knew then, would it have made economic sense?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 149): I'm about as negative about the 777X as I have been about the 747-8 in terms of being able to compete against clean-sheet Airbus airframes. The only way I see a 777X beating an A350 in CASM is by having sufficiently more seats to spread the extra costs over. Hence my belief both the 777-8 and 777-9 are too short and need to be ~75m and ~80m, respectively.
It does have significantly more seats: 407 v 350 in the OEM standard specifications. If the 777-9X does have 21% better CASM than the 777-300ER as predicted, I'd say it'd get pretty damn close in terms of CASM to the A350.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 151, posted (8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18260 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 150): Fair point, but weight is just part of the equation.
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 order to get beyond a certain point you have to start all over. This is what Boeing plans to do with the wing and perhaps certain other things. And these new things, in turn, can be worked upon. However, there are economic and legal limits as to how much can be changed and maintain the type. So - all in all, even if the 777x might match early 350 the later simply has more potential in it for improvement in efficiency and weight.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 152, posted (8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 18353 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 148): 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 market would be a bit different today?
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 150): 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?
As the manufacturers have already discussed flowing 777X engine technology back onto the 787's engines, it would seem resonable to expect that 777X engine PIP's might also have a positive impact on the A350's engines.....
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 150): It's very easy to say that in hindsight, they should've launched an all new long range twin, but knowing what they knew then, would it have made economic sense?
It could be argued Airbus should have seen it coming,
However, if
a) fuel prices had stayed low, and
b) the Euro has stayed weak against the dollar,
the A340-500 and -600 would have made a lot more sense than they ended up doing.
In hindsight I think I'd agree that not doing "an Airbus 77W/L" was ultimately Airbus's real mistake rather than the A380 (because in truth, and all-new 300 - 350 seater long range twin would have pushed the A380 programme back nearly a decade anyway...)
But back in 1999?
They did give us 2 glorious, beautiful, big 4-holers though, which we can thank our lucky stars we've been around to see.
I for one am glad they did
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 153, posted (8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 18317 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 152): They did give us 2 glorious, beautiful, big 4-holers though, which we can thank our lucky stars we've been around to see.
Yes they did. And especially the A340-500 is imho without competition when it comes to the best looking large airliner around these days. .
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 154, posted (8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 18287 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 150): It does have significantly more seats: 407 v 350 in the OEM standard specifications. If the 777-9X does have 21% better CASM than the 777-300ER as predicted, I'd say it'd get pretty damn close in terms of CASM to the A350.
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 10-abreast. For an airline like CX, which would be 3+3+3, the total is (maybe) 27.
Quoting astuteman (Reply 152): ...the A340-500 and -600 would have made a lot more sense than they ended up doing.
The A340-500 never made sense, IMO. Just far too heavy.
The A340-600, on the other hand, made great sense at the time she was launched as she was a fair bit better than the 747-400 in everything but cabin floorspace and she didn't need as many seats to still offer better CASM.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 155, posted (8 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 18075 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 149): I still think Y3 is where Boeing needs to be, probably with an EIS of 2025. That way they can hit the main wave of 777-300ER and A340-600 replacements as well as any 747-400 operators who are holding on to older planes. Heck, you might even be able to get some first-wave A380-800 replacement orders from SQ and EK.
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 keeping it quiet to avoid the NBA/MAX debacle.
With such a radical redesign, much more significant than a relatively simple, (yet still very complex), upgrade for the MAX, they are right on the cusp of essentially building an all new plane anyway. If they replace their current metal with AlLi, Boeing would even be going above and beyond what they did to create the 748.
Such a major change may also put them in a regulatory limbo where they are battling with the FAA about how much recertification would go into the program.
I think what will decide the issue for them is exactly how much weight they can cut with the upgrade. I really don't see engines as a problem. The GE-90's were a big leap but now everybody seems keen on a 100k/lb thrust engine.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 156, posted (8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 17904 times:
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.
Big fat barrels like the 787 only that it would be more of the 747 main deck cross section? Keep the 77W and 77L up to date as far as possible with minimum investments, let it get eaten away by the A350-1000 in the end of the decade and then slam dunk an Y3, greater than ever etc etc The bigger the aircraft the more a bleed-less system saves right?
Devilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, RR: 1 Reply 157, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17706 times:
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 155): 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 keeping it quiet to avoid the NBA/MAX debacle.
With such a radical redesign, much more significant than a relatively simple, (yet still very complex), upgrade for the MAX, they are right on the cusp of essentially building an all new plane anyway. If they replace their current metal with AlLi, Boeing would even be going above and beyond what they did to create the 748.
Such a major change may also put them in a regulatory limbo where they are battling with the FAA about how much recertification would go into the program.
I think what will decide the issue for them is exactly how much weight they can cut with the upgrade. I really don't see engines as a problem. The GE-90's were a big leap but now everybody seems keen on a 100k/lb thrust engine.
My gut feeling tells me Boeing may use this to accomplish those goals.....
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 158, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17677 times:
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 when such a config was legal) and there is no way Boeing would use an airfoil (wing) that thick.
Keesje'sEcoliner is a more reasonable - and probable - take on a dual-deck twin.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 160, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17645 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 158): Not sure why Boeing patented that. You can't certify the plane with no forward door on the main deck
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 patent or engineering or predictive value.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 161, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 17627 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 160): 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 patent or engineering or predictive value.
Good - I was hoping for a four-holer, if not that, six or eight!
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 162, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17619 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Stitch (Reply 154): 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 10-abreast. For an airline like CX, which would be 3+3+3, the total is (maybe) 27.
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.
Nevertheless, I do agree that in an actual airline configuration it's highly unlikely that there will be as many seats. In CX's configuration, there is a 2 seat difference between the A350-1000 and a 777-300ER, so adding 3 more rows of 9-abreast seating would yield an advantage of 29 seats.
I don't understand why there's a perception that some airlines would not go with a 10-abreast Y configuration on the 777X, which would have a wider cabin than the 777-300ER. The wider cabin is to allow the use of the same width seats on the 744 as on the 777X (albeit with narrower aisles). I understand that putting 10 seats across in Y on the current 777 may result in the use of narrower seats which would create a product inconsistency on board, but the wider cabin which makes the use of the same width seats as on a 744 possible would negate that inconsistency.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 155): 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 keeping it quiet to avoid the NBA/MAX debacle.
I would be very surprised if Boeing doesn't launch the 777X within the next 6 months, given that Mr Conner himself stated that Boeing remain committed to building it.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 163, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 17612 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 140): 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 even though they had seen the 777 surpassing the A340 in sales. There's no way they would have launched a brand new twin the size of the A340-600.
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 might succeed the 747-400, which they knew would be starting to leave fleets during the next decade. By 2000, the "Four Engines For Long-Haul" debate was starting to look pretty juvenile and it was becoming obvious that twins were just as safe.
Airbus's A340-300 had sold poorly against Boeing's 777-200ER, but Airbus decided that they could increase the efficiency and size of the A340 by stretching it and mounting larger and more efficient engines. The A340-600 was the solution, with capacity similar to the 747 but much better fuel consumption.
What Airbus *didn't* forsee was that GE would be able to provide a 115,000 lbf engine. A number of 777/747 operators went to Boeing and said that they needed a 747 replacement and they would like it to be a 777. The 777-300 already existed as Boeing's attempt at a 747-100/200 replacement, but most airlines wanted a 747-400 replacement. Boeing and GE balked at the idea of a twin-engined 747-400 replacement (GE was just happy that the GE-90 made 90,000 lbf, already an impressive feat)... and then managed to pull it off. Airbus was *not* thrilled and the A346 did not much better than the A343.
Some say that they should have hung the Trent 8116 under the A330 wing and stretched the A330 to an A336. Perhaps, but I'm not sure if the A330 would have had enough ground clearance for such a large engine.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 164, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 17567 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162): I was referring to the 777-9X v A350-1000, actually.
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 Premium Economy - 8 seats - or two center rows of Economy - 6-8 seats.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162): I don't understand why there's a perception that some airlines would not go with a 10-abreast Y configuration on the 777X, which would have a wider cabin than the 777-300ER...I understand that putting 10 seats across in Y on the current 777 may result in the use of narrower seats which would create a product inconsistency on board, but the wider cabin which makes the use of the same width seats as on a 744 possible would negate that inconsistency.
The key here, IMO, is that the 747-400 is being retired from airline fleets. So the 777X being able to use the same 17.2" wide seat cushion widths as the 747-400 would still make it the narrowest seat cushion width out there (tied with the 787).
So I can understand why customers like SQ and CX prefer 9-abreast on the 777 - and would likely continue to prefer it on the 777X - because the 18" seat cushion width matches what customers flying their A330s and A380s would experience.
And while the standard 17.5" seat cushion width of the A350 is close enough to the 17.2" of the 777X that I don't believe customers would notice, if the airline was willing to shrink the aisles a bit, they could darn near get to 18" on them, as well, and therefore provide what felt like a consistent hard product experience.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 165, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 17450 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 149): The only way I see a 777X beating an A350 in CASM is by having sufficiently more seats to spread the extra costs over. Hence my belief both the 777-8 and 777-9 are too short and need to be ~75m and ~80m, respectively.
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 released any performance specs for this model - only for the 9X. The other issue with stretching the 77W to the 9X or above is that it moves capacity to the right of what is obviously a very sweet spot at 350 seats - might not bother EK but it won't suit everyone.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 149): Lowering the trip fuel weight will allow Boeing to increase the ZFW and improve the payload-range chart. It will improve the 777F's economics even more, keeping the A350-900F at bay and could help secure some new 777-200LR orders, keeping the A350-900R at bay. And if it can sell enough 777-300ERs to keep the line running at 4-5 a month for another decade, the business case should be green.
I think there is still a lot of value to be extracted from the 77W - it is in a far stronger position than the 330 vs the 787 (and the 330 has a long way to run yet).
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 150): As for 'risk averse', I think what they're doing is something that makes economic sense. Rather than being 'risk averse', launching the 777X would cost less than doing an all new aircraft.
Being risk averse can make very good economic sense - it helps you stay in business when others go broke. Unfortunately Boeing were a bit too risk averse for their own good - their problem was that they were very risk averse in committing the capital to develop the 787 so they chose a business model that spread that funding risk across suppliers as program partners. Boeing then failed to identify and manage the subsequent risk to program oversight and the supply chain that occurred as a consequence. Being risk averse in some areas while being risk tolerant in others (or not understanding the risk at all) is not a good combination.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 166, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17309 times:
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 165): 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...
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 and the 787-10 two meters longer.
But I agree that I just don't see the reason for it unless Boeing intends to launch the 777-8LR and 777-8 Freighter and retire the 777-200LR and 777 Freighter. And if they do that, then they orphan those two models.
I still think the best option is NEO the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter.
If they must launch a 777X, then they should keep the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter around and make the 777-8 74m and the 777-9 80m.
And if they can't make an 80m 777-9, then they shouldn't do the 777X.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 167, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17145 times:
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) technology reduces the time required in the curing process by 43%, along with a higher delamination resistance and a higher fibre-matrix adhesion which are achieved through “lower initial resin viscosity”. And the carbon nanotube reinforced polymer (CNRP), which is used on the non-bearing structure of the wings of F-35 from low-rate initial production (LRIP) 4 onwards, a 50% single-walled nanotube (SWNT) CNRP is 17% stronger than the CFRP, yet 30% lighter, according to a study conducted by MITRE."
Maybe the Y3 will have to wait for this kind of technology to makes sense? Engine tech will be on the market by 2019, but will 2nd gen cfrp etc?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 168, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17138 times:
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 Sesto Elemento concept and the Aventador road car. Only one trip to the autoclave is required for the Aventador's shell and the cured shell then serves as a mold for additional carbon parts that are cured with a different process Lamborghini developed, which uses carbon fiber mats impregnated with resin. The result is quicker production times and a reduction an almost ten-fold reduction in costs.
Companies including Boeing, Callaway Clubs and Intel are partners in the lab and it's R&D.
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. Will the new cfrp be available around 2025?
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 36 Reply 170, posted (8 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 16943 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 169): Will the new cfrp be available around 2025?
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 airliner to have out-of autoclave technology components on it. .
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 171, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16717 times:
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, really, really wanted time to do the New Small Airplane and they are in the same position now with the 777x. They have to do something to hold off the competition and there are so many juicy technologies coming down the pike. Do they want to spend more billions on another upgrade, (and the 777x will be the biggest upgrade yet), to enter service around the end of the decade or wait a few more years for some of this new tech to mature a bit and bring out something really new.
Boeing is no doubt working very hard on the research for the 777x, just like they got the MAX mostly sorted while pushing the NSA and will come up with something nifty they can go with if they have to. Alcoa may even have an even lighter ALli coming down the pike.
This is pure speculation, of course, but I just feel that Boeing probably doesn't want to settle for 'good enough'.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 172, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 16576 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 171): but I just feel that Boeing probably doesn't want to settle for 'good enough'.
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 aircraft just to get on par with the A350XWB would simply be a waste of money. In such circumstances, an upgrade to the existing 777 would be much more cost effective, and I don't believe that the 777X will be anything less than an extremely competitive aircraft with the A350XWB.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 173, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16535 times:
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 NB while Boeing will have to divide its resources on two very different programs!? Perhaps that means that the Y3 is never going to be build?
SQ22 From Germany, joined Feb 2012, 90 posts, RR: 0 Reply 174, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 16424 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 172): In such circumstances, an upgrade to the existing 777 would be much more cost effective, and I don't believe that the 777X will be anything less than an extremely competitive aircraft with the A350XWB.
Agreed, it will be like the A330 to the current 787-8, or even better.
Quoting abba (Reply 173): 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 NB while Boeing will have to divide its resources on two very different programs!? Perhaps that means that the Y3 is never going to be build?
I don't think so, I guess first we will see the new NB, thereafter the new WB or vice versa. They will be able to manage this challenge. I think both B and A learned a lot from their latest programmes.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 16410 times:
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, the freighter will have to be good enough to replace the 744F as well.
The 748F will be the only frame that a twin can never replace, it will live for a long time yet. I don't see a double decker from B, it kills the cargo capability.
They have the 787 below the A350 so the Y3 would have to be above it.
Anyway I guess the NSA is still in the works despite the MAX, the MAX is not a long term solution, as size seems to be growing in the NB sector the NSA will be larger than the base model 737. I can see the base model of the NSA being a MAX-8.5 sized frame. However the MAX buys B time to do the NSA.
They could do two programs but have 4-5 years between them.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 176, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 16184 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 175): They could do two programs but have 4-5 years between them.
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 of the OEMs (considering the 757 and 767 as well as the 340 and 330 as one program). If Boeing are going to repeat what they did in the 60'ties again the the 20'ties they will really have to work hard. It should not be forgotten that certification has become much more strict since and that today's aircraft are designed with many more models in mind than back then.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 177, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 16206 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 172): 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 aircraft just to get on par with the A350XWB would simply be a waste of money.
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 of the 747 as this would not only provide more comfort for passengers, it would also allow freight users to directly interline pallets.
(I think they should consider making it even a bit wider so they can match the A350's 17.5" seat cushion width, but at 10-abreast.)
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 357 posts, RR: 2 Reply 178, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16057 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 177): I would expect 74m and 80m lengths with the cabin width at least that of the 747 as this would not only provide more comfort for passengers, it would also allow freight users to directly interline pallets.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 179, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 16041 times:
Quoting 135mech (Reply 178): So would Y3 be a 747 without the hump?
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 370-440 with a 74m -300 model seating 430-500. His plane had a span of 74m, but I'd be interested to see if it could be done with the 68m span of the 747-8.
Yes, such a span would put it in the ICAO Code F / FAA Group VI category, but I fully expect such a plane would have the same ground operating considerations as the 777-300ER so it could use any airport, gate, taxiway and runway that the 77W could, meaning no need for airport infrastructure changes (since the plane has a five bogie undercarriage - but it could use the four-bogie system from the A340-600HGW since it has the same 380t MTOW).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 182, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 15868 times:
Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 181): The A350 economy seat will be 18" wide, the same as the A380.
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 center of an armrest to the center of an armrest of 17.7", which would translate to about 17.5" seat cushion width. In this configuration, aisles are 18.35" wide.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, RR: 20 Reply 183, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 15708 times:
Quoting abba (Reply 176): 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 of the OEMs (considering the 757 and 767 as well as the 340 and 330 as one program).
Your point gets stronger when you include the 727 which was also from the 60s.
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 184, posted (8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15534 times:
Quoting Revelation (Reply 183): Your point gets stronger when you include the 727 which was also from the 60s.
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 which only will be a disadvantage for us as traveling public. Boeing - IMHO - better do either a new Y1 or Y3 this decade rather than saving both for the next.
sweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, RR: 0 Reply 185, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15296 times:
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 they launch the Y3 in 2019 and the NSA in 2025..I did not think a 757/767 sort of undertaking. Howeer I guess an Y3 would depend on 2nd gen CFRP being mature and ready to mass produce etc. They could reuse the electrical achitecture of the 787 at least.
The NSA would probably be a Al-Li design as the NB get bashed around a lot more.
brindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 186, posted (8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15143 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 175): 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, the freighter will have to be good enough to replace the 744F as well.
The 748F will be the only frame that a twin can never replace, it will live for a long time yet. I don't see a double decker from B, it kills the cargo capability.
Quoting sweair (Reply 175): They have the 787 below the A350 so the Y3 would have to be above it.
At least one model aimed directly at A350. The "80 metre" model well above.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 177): (I think they should consider making it even a bit wider so they can match the A350's 17.5" seat cushion width, but at 10-abreast.)
Would agree that B need to offer it as "truly 10-abreast"; however I have to say that I've had a flight with EK and one with Scoot at 10-abreast which weren;t too bad. (as opposed to a cattle-class A330 trip at 9-abreast).
cheers, Bill
abba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, RR: 0 Reply 187, posted (8 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 14771 times:
Quoting sweair (Reply 185): 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..
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 will come in less than two versions. For that very reason you can add at least 2 years to the 6.
The other option is to follow keesje's Ecoliner concept and do a smaller, twin deck aircraft. His Ecoliner-200 was 68m and seated 370-440 with a 74m -300 model seating 430-500. His plane had a span of 74m, but I'd be interested to see if it could be done with the 68m span of the 747-8.
Yes, such a span would put it in the ICAO Code F / FAA Group VI category, but I fully expect such a plane would have the same ground operating considerations as the 777-300ER so it could use any airport, gate, taxiway and runway that the 77W could, meaning no need for airport infrastructure changes (since the plane has a five bogie undercarriage - but it could use the four-bogie system from the A340-600HGW since it has the same 380t MTOW).
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 soon since the 350 will only get better with time, updates and the fact that its newer technology from the ground up.
B) The long Term:, making a new wing and span a competitive 787-10 and 11 which will cover 310 thru 370+ seat markets; they won't be that expensive to develop since they are spinoffs of the 787 program...and replacing the 777 with a double decker twin (aka Ecoliner) for the 400-490+ passenger market)
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 189, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13762 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Stitch (Reply 177): I would hope Boeing would not just match the A350, but leap-frog it, with Y3.
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 to do so should they decide to embark on such a project.
Quoting iahmark (Reply 188): The one mentioned here - 777-8X and 9X which could be cheaper but run the risk of being obsolete soon since the 350 will only get better with time, updates and the fact that its newer technology from the ground up.
The 777X is also likely to get "better with time" via PIPs from their engine manufacturer(s). Also, the 777X engines are going to be newer than the Trent XWBs powering the A350XWB. Whatever the engine manufacturers come up with, the 777X's engines are going to be at least on par with the A350XWB in terms TSFC.
Quoting iahmark (Reply 188): The long Term:, making a new wing and span a competitive 787-10 and 11 which will cover 310 thru 370+ seat markets
I don't believe a "787-11" will ever become reality. For a 787-11 to be competitive, it will require new wings, a redesign of the main landing gear to cope with the added weight that a new wing brings, and "beefing up" various sections of the fuselage to maintain the necessary stiffness.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 190, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 13650 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 189): 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 to do so should they decide to embark on such a project.
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 can be done with CFRP, but I think such an endeavor would benefit from a bit more time in the process and fabrication realms.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 189): I don't believe a "787-11" will ever become reality. For a 787-11 to be competitive, it will require new wings, a redesign of the main landing gear to cope with the added weight that a new wing brings, and "beefing up" various sections of the fuselage to maintain the necessary stiffness.
The issue with a 787-11 or 787-12 is that Airbus can directly match it with an A350-1100 or A350-1200. As such, I agree with you that it is unlikely to see service.
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 191, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 13537 times:
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 petroleum prices affect the world economy and aviation. At this point I think Boeing is wise to limit investments to no more than a new wing and engine for the 777.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 192, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 13229 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 166): I still think the best option is NEO the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777 Freighter.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 177): 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 of the 747 as this would not only provide more comfort for passengers, it would also allow freight users to directly interline pallets.
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 the A380 or potential A380-9 with XWB engines?
They may not get to the same capacity as A380 but would a twin hole 10-11W twin Engine 450 Passenger Single Deck Y3 be efficient enough (and have lower maintenance costs) to negate the A380.
Announce it soon and that may be the end of A380 sales. Do what the 777 did to the A340 and the 767 /330 did to the 3/4 Holers from the 60's 70's and 80's.
Would they have to go to a BWB(or some other configuration with advanced aerodynamics) to get enough efficiency and enough lift with GE90 Thrust levels 115Tlbs? Or could they do with the old Tube and wing - albeit probably an 80M long one?
mffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 908 posts, RR: 0 Reply 193, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 13170 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 192): The question becomes can they make Y3 big enough to negate the A380 or potential A380-9 with XWB engines?
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 engine... So, now that 777X engines are now just starting their development stage with the three major OEM's? Can we expect the same level of upgrades?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 194, posted (8 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 13183 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 192): The question becomes can they make Y3 big enough to negate the A380 or potential A380-9 with XWB engines?
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 significantly larger than for the A380 family.
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5045 posts, RR: 29 Reply 195, posted (8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 13152 times:
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 effort.
Feature creep would kill any realistic business case.
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 196, posted (8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 13138 times:
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 capacity winning the day? So an airline orders 3 Y3 for every 2 A389 it would have otherwise ordered.
Even if it is only 425 seats - Could it beat a 600 seat A380-900 with same technology engines?
Will structural and aerodynamic efficiency improved enough by the early 2020's to beat the A380 tube and wing and the fact that 2 engines are simpler/cheaper to maintain?
If they are going to do a new tube they might as well go 11W Y - 10W Y+ and 8W Bus class in a staggered config 2-4-2
Advanced composites/engineering should allow them to come up with an cross section that doesn't have the same frontal area as a simple circle like 777 cross section so the drag penalty is not too great to go 11W.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 197, posted (8 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 13128 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 196): But can it be efficient enough even if it isn't as big to be the CASM champ and have significantly lower costs?
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, and yet SQ has not replaced all of their 777s with A380s.
It just has to be better than the 777-300ER and A350-1000.
Moving to 11 abreast would have an interior cabin width of about 21 feet, so the external fuselage would be about 22 feet wide. The advantage of a simple circle is it's easier to pressurize and tends to stand up better to pressurization cycles. CFRP and new AL alloys could allow a more ovoid shape to minimize the "wasted space" of the crown and hold, but the extra reinforcement to support it might be more than just making it a circle and live with the wested space.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1525 posts, RR: 1 Reply 198, posted (8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12790 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 129): The way I look at it, Boeing needs to pull out all stops to get the 777X as close to parity with the A350-1000 as possible.
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.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 162): Nevertheless, I do agree that in an actual airline configuration it's highly unlikely that there will be as many seats. In CX's configuration, there is a 2 seat difference between the A350-1000 and a 777-300ER, so adding 3 more rows of 9-abreast seating would yield an advantage of 29 seats.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, RR: 4 Reply 199, posted (8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 12744 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Stitch (Reply 190): If we go with a CFRP 777, it is.
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 available right now for Boeing to supersede the A350XWB as yet.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 192): The question becomes can they make Y3 big enough to negate the A380 or potential A380-9 with XWB engines?
Why would they need to? The Y3 is planned to be a 747/777 replacement. I don't believe it was ever planned as a competitor to the A380. I believe the Y3 will be a twin, the base line model being roughly equivalent in size to a 777-300ER and a stretched model to be equivalent to the 747-8.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 198): Why is 29 extra seats to fill up an advantage?
Isn't it obvious? Increased revenue potential and reduced CASM. Part of the reason that the 777-9X is reported to have a 21% advantage in fuel burn per seat (and 16% cash operating per seat advantage) over the 777-300ER is the extra seats it will have. If extra seats is not an advantage, no one would be buying A380s.
Obviously, there will be missions that don't require that added capacity, but as long as there are those that do, the 777-9X will sell.
morrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 200, posted (8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 12693 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 199): Why would they need to? The Y3 is planned to be a 747/777 replacement. I don't believe it was ever planned as a competitor to the A380. I believe the Y3 will be a twin, the base line model being roughly equivalent in size to a 777-300ER and a stretched model to be equivalent to the 747-8.
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 push them a bit - why not use that thrust class in a new larger Y3?
I'm not arguing to make Y3 as big as A388/389 I'm wondering with tech that could be available in early 2020's could you not make an super-sized 11W twin (bigger than A351) as efficient as a projected A389 on a per seat basis or CAsm or whatever you choose so that when Airlines go shopping there is no reason to go for a 4 hole A389 other than if they are super slot restricted - However a 450+ seat Y3 should give them plenty - and go for frequency over capacity?
The small Y3 would be 773 sized and the larger with same or larger capacity than 748.
StickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 622 posts, RR: 3 Reply 201, posted (8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 12572 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 199): I'm not convinced that the technology is available right now for Boeing to supersede the A350XWB as yet.
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 to come whereas the 777X is analogous to the 737NG.
Look how far the 330 has come since 1992.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, RR: 96 Reply 202, posted (8 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 12589 times:
Quoting morrisond (Reply 192): The question becomes can they make Y3 big enough to negate the A380 or potential A380-9 with XWB engines?
Why does that become the question?
Quoting morrisond (Reply 192): They may not get to the same capacity as A380 but would a twin hole 10-11W twin Engine 450 Passenger Single Deck Y3 be efficient enough (and have lower maintenance costs) to negate the A380.
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 improbable that you can make a single-deck twin-aisle "tube-with-wings" that will be capable of "obsoleting" the potential that the A380 has (e.g. a -900 with comparable engine technology).
More significantly, I'm not sure why you'd want to try.
The plane, like any plane, should stand on its own merit.
Per seat?
Why use different metrics? Thats confusing.
The seats arn't the advantage, the reduction in CASM is the advantage, the extra seats are the risk required to realise the advantage.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 199): Part of the reason that the 777-9X is reported to have a 21% advantage in fuel burn per seat (and 16% cash operating per seat advantage) over the 777-300ER is the extra seats it will have.
I think we all realise that the newer 777-9X will be better than the 77W, the real issue is how it will stack up against the A350-1000.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 199): If extra seats is not an advantage, no one would be buying A380s.
Extra seats are not the advantage, what those extra seats can bring is the advantage but it comes at a risk. The advantage the A380 brings is the lower CASM than competitors but the risk is having to take those seats no matter what. The risk of the 777-9X vs the A350-1000 is that those extra seats have to be carried at extra cost no matter what but the advantage of CASM? For the 777-9X to offset its inherent higher risk (trip cost) its CASM should be lower than that of the A350-1000.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 204, posted (8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 12382 times:
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 [@StratAero] a fair bit of the article for the general public.
Based on his Tweets, Boeing has already assembled a new "Working Together" airline consulting group for the 777X with the GE9X as the sole powerplant. Boeing is looking at a mid-2014 ATO for the 777X with an Arab airline as the launch customer and expects the knowledge gained in the design tweaks for the 787-9 will allow them to significantly improve the 777X.
As to who that customer could be, I'm thinking QR. They have expressed interest in the 777X and if I am interpreting Saj's Tweets correctly, they're worried the A350 EIS will slip even more and that they reduced their order for the A350-1000 not due to slot constraints, but because they feel the plane is "maxed out" in terms of wing loading and won't be able to grow it's weights.
I would also expect QR is worried about the power of EK wields as the 800-pound guerilla. EK already has a strong presence between Europe and Asia/India and their tie-up with QF will likely put them in a dominant position on the Kangaroo Route, as well. And they've been waiting years for their 787s (and will now be waiting for their A350s) while EK keeps piling on A330s and 777s.
rotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 378 posts, RR: 0 Reply 205, posted (8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 12298 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 204): 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 [@StratAero] a fair bit of the article for the general public.
Based on his Tweets, Boeing has already assembled a new "Working Together" airline consulting group for the 777X with the GE9X as the sole powerplant. Boeing is looking at a mid-2014 ATO for the 777X with an Arab airline as the launch customer and expects the knowledge gained in the design tweaks for the 787-9 will allow them to significantly improve the 777X.
As to who that customer could be, I'm thinking QR. They have expressed interest in the 777X and if I am interpreting Saj's Tweets correctly, they're worried the A350 EIS will slip even more and that they reduced their order for the A350-1000 not due to slot constraints, but because they feel the plane is "maxed out" in terms of wing loading and won't be able to grow it's weights.
I would also expect QR is worried about the power of EK wields as the 800-pound guerilla. EK already has a strong presence between Europe and Asia/India and their tie-up with QF will likely put them in a dominant position on the Kangaroo Route, as well. And they've been waiting years for their 787s (and will now be waiting for their A350s) while EK keeps piling on A330s and 777s.
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 forward with the 787-10. Interesting that the "Advisory Board" includes the likes of United and Delta. As much as folks on this site want to believe that UA will not under any circumstance cancel or furlough the A350 delivery, it looks UA could order the 777x if it fits their time frame and specs.
rheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2066 posts, RR: 6 Reply 206, posted (8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 12266 times:
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 189): For a 787-11 to be competitive, it will require new wings, a redesign of the main landing gear to cope with the added weight that a new wing brings, and "beefing up" various sections of the fuselage to maintain the necessary stiffness.
They costly things from this list are applicable to the 777X as well. And even more so.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10477 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 4977 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 800 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 321 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9142 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Feb 2009, 645 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3594 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3196 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2012, 147 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 605 posts, 
From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1418 posts, 
.
.
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1710 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 422 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2004, 643 posts, 
From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2195 posts, 
From US Virgin Islands, joined Apr 2011, 75 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4249 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6341 posts, 
Did you forget a smiley here? 
From Kiribati, joined Sep 2009, 207 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1551 posts, 
From Finland, joined Sep 2010, 44 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1087 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4429 posts, 
.
From South Korea, joined Oct 2004, 789 posts,