Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WSJ: Makeover Of 777 Agitates Boeing  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 42633 times:

Seems we have some newish info on the 777x to chew on, courtesy of Jon Ostrower.

If you're not a subscriber, the best thing to do is to hop through Google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ostrower++Makeover+of+777+Agitates+Boeing

Key points:

  • Seems the uber 777x with all new CFRP wings is uber expensive
  • It may cost customers 10-15% more than current 777 models
  • It seems this version, favored by EK, might be more costly than others will pay
  • It seems this version of course is very expensive to develop too
  • Also Boeing is pouring resources into the 787, KC45 and 737MAX right now
  • Boeing wants to avoid outsourcing on the 777x which also constrains internal resources
  • A cheaper metal winged version that would keep 2/3rds of the existing 777 wing is being considered
  • Lars Andersen cleaned out his office and left, Conner asked him to come back as a customer advocate


My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move. It takes so much time and energy to come out with a new model, and once you go through that cost, you're stuck with the results for a long time. My big concern is that the 777x will end up like the A340ng - a good airplane, but half a step behind the A350xwb.

Of course Boeing has all the numbers so it's hard for us to argue, but of course we still will!

It does highlight to me at least the dreadful knock-on costs the 787 is having on future programs. It's really hampering Boeing's ability to come up with an A350 competitor.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
179 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 42406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Already being discussed in Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete! (by Revelation Sep 6 2012 in Civil Aviation).  

User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 42253 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
Already being discussed in Boeing Exec: 777X Will Make A350-100 Obsolete! (by Revelation Sep 6 2012 in Civil Aviation).

I think it's fair this deserves a new thread if for no other reason than the other thread has nearly 300 posts already.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 41681 times:

I also favor this thread, if only because of Revelation's thread title. "Agitate" is a great choice of word.  Smile
Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move.

   I think a mildly warmed-over 777-300ER with the existing wing -- that is, the wing that we keep hearing from inside Boeing is too heavy -- will stand in relation to the A350-1000 exactly as the A330-300 stands in relation to the 787-9 today. That is, once the newer product is widely available, there will be little reason save deep discounting to buy the older, warmed-over product.

The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.

[Edited 2012-09-25 08:42:43]


Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 41388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4282 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 41140 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 40988 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
I am of the opinion Boeing should keep the 77F, 77L and 77W as they are and hang the GE9X engine off them in order to lower the trip fuel burn to either provide more range at current Take-Off weights or allow higher Zero Fuel and Payload weights.

But does the 777 really need more payload-range, especially without more passenger capacity? Tim Clark says he wants that (but I'm not sure I believe him). Does anyone else want that? I think a 8500+ nm GE9X 77W with the current capacity and weights will not be competitive with the A350-1000 on the great bulk of routes. It would only come into its own flying JFK-HKG or DXB-LAX.

It seems to me that reducing weight and increasing passenger capacity are Jobs 1 and 2 to keep the 77W competitive.

Although I suppose a GE9X 77L might finally make LHR-SYD a reality.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 40756 times:

I'm guessing they are also realizing how good the potential 787-10 is going to be. At 69M it's cabin length will be about the same.

Didn't Aspire write that 789 was 3% lighter than Spec? Wouldn't that put the range of 787-10 into the 7000-7200NM range -assuming that weight savings carries over into the 787-10?

With 2020 Engines isn't a range of 7-800- 8,000 NM seemingly possible with 787-10? Just like the 77W has gone from 7250NM since intro to 7930 in less than 8 Years?

Doesn't that totally destroy the 778 business case without doing anything to 787-10 other than PIP's and updated engines?

The 787-10 would be a 251T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

Wouldn't the 787-10 absolutely kill the 778?

[Edited 2012-09-25 10:58:59]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 40615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting avek00 (Reply 5):
That's all well and good, but Boeing's fundamental 777 problem, now more than ever, is that the plane simply costs too much.

Well a 777X with a new CFRP wing will certainly not be cheaper. Per the article, only EK and QR seem ready to spent 10-15% more for a more capable airframe.


By staying with the current design, Boeing can continue to extract production efficiencies out of it, allowing them to lower the Average Sales Price while maintaining margins (or accepting lower margins to drop the ASP even more).

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
But does the 777 really need more payload-range, especially without more passenger capacity?

I expect any ULH operator would appreciate extra payload capability, especially those moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast to improve CASM. At design range, the payload is about 35t - half what it is at MZFW - and the plane is fuel-volume limited.



Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would be a 234T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

I expect the 787-10 would have the same MTOW as the 787-9 - 251t. MZFW is projected to be 193t, which is 12t more than the 787-9.

[Edited 2012-09-25 10:45:25]

User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 40514 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):

I'd say these are at least arguments worth having. There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 40487 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):
The 787-10 would be a 234T (max takeoff weight) aircraft vs a 315T 778 - with basically the same capability?

I expect the 787-10 would have the same MTOW as the 787-9 - 251t. MZFW is projected to be 193t, which is 12t more than the 787-9.

Sorry - Your right - Bad math on my part - still that's a massive difference in weight


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 40492 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
I expect any ULH operator would appreciate extra payload capability, especially those moving from 9-abreast to 10-abreast to improve CASM.

I agree totally. I just think ULH is a very thin branch to stand on if you are too heavy to be competitive on mainstream long-haul. That's why even the CFRP-winged 777-8X seems like a dicey proposition, and I think a re-engined 777-300ER with otherwise minimal change would have exactly the same problem.

I think the 777 has to gain more passenger capacity per pound of weight to have a chance.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 40439 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
I think the 777 has to gain more passenger capacity per pound of weight to have a chance.

So does that pretty much dictate a CFRP wing, possibly even requiring a re-engine as well? Off the top of my head, a lighter wing seems like the only practical way to achieve a substantial gain in pax/lb.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5106 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 40349 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 12):
So does that pretty much dictate a CFRP wing, possibly even requiring a re-engine as well?

I think the stretch (along with changes to make 10Y more comfortable) is the most important thing. But the wing is critical for the stretch for two reasons. First, it will be lighter on its own, counteracting the heavier fuselage weight from the stretch. Second, it will be larger than the existing wing, allowing for lower thrust ratings, which leads (along with new engine tech) to lower fuel consumption, also reducing weight at takeoff.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 40283 times:

Let me see if I get this right at MZFW that leaves the 789 with 153,000 lbs for fuel or 22,500 gallons. At 12T higher MZFW for 787-10 that leaves it with enough lift for 18,617 gallons at MZFW or 17% less, assume a little more drag - but assuming the 789 is at 8500nm doesn't that get the 787-10 over 7,000 NM without increasing Max takeoff weight?

Can they go any higher with Max Takeoff weight without changing structure or gear?


User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 629 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 40283 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):
The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.

Because after everything with the 787, which netted out to buying vendors and building an extra, unplanned FAL, he might just be slightly peeved that the beancounters still can't make an up-front investment in a facility to build huge CFRP wings look attractive, even looking at 787-like scenarios? I might be frustrated, too.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 40199 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 13):
I think the stretch (along with changes to make 10Y more comfortable) is the most important thing. But the wing is critical for the stretch for two reasons. First, it will be lighter on its own, counteracting the heavier fuselage weight from the stretch. Second, it will be larger than the existing wing, allowing for lower thrust ratings, which leads (along with new engine tech) to lower fuel consumption, also reducing weight at takeoff.

Ok that's what I was thinking too - just stretching the fuselage won't do much if anything to reduce the pax/lb ratio. Plus it would just reduce performance to have a stretch without moderate to major wing tweaking.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 39953 times:

An often overlooked problem with derivatives of existing products is that most people compare it to the competition from a competitor. The 777X has to compete with the A350. It also has to compete with the 777-300ER. The development costs of a new derivative would be in the billions. The manufacturing costs of a CFRP wing would be higher than for the aluminum wing on the current 777.

So while there's little doubt that a new airplane would gain in fuel efficiency, the acquisition price also goes up. Boeing sells airplanes based on lifecycle and total ownership & operating costs. More efficient engines are great for the operating costs, but if the acquisition price goes up by 20%, the new derivative starts looking worse.

Boeing was evaluating a new airplane to compete against the A320 NEO as well as a re-engine. The problem with the new airplane is that it was hard to beat the costs of the 737NG.

You can't sit around on old designs forever, but when Sales is having a hard time running numbers for a new derivative that are better than the current airplane, you get the agitation that we are seeing.

That's just my opinion.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 39514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 11):
I just think ULH is a very thin branch to stand on if you are too heavy to be competitive on mainstream long-haul.

I should note that when I say Ultra-Long Haul, I'm not specifically referring to the deep C-Market routes (greater than 800nm) that are the purview of the 777-200LR and A340-500. I'm referring more to deep B-Market routes (6500-8000nm).



Quoting morrisond (Reply 14):
Can they go any higher with Max Takeoff weight without changing structure or gear?

I've heard that the landing gear limit is 254t. Once Boeing has the 787-9 in production and test, they might be able to find some more out of it. I would expect the hard limit would be the tire loading / pavement loading.

GE is working on a 68,000 pound thrust variant of the GEnx2B for the 787-10X, so that might be to support higher TOWs or it could be to improve field performance for the 787-9 and 787-10 at 252t.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4614 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 39461 times:

Ferpe did some work ups on the 787-10 based on the Aspire article ( see .Boeing Posts Updated 787 Characteristics reply 44 ) It appears that it's OEW will be about 130.5t Assuming 3% better fuel than base , the same MTOW as the 789 and a little more drag than the 789 its range with max passenger load will be ~7300nm. Max payload based on belly cargo density of 160kg/m3 is ~ 50t with a range of ~5300nm. This is based on a PIANO X simulation.

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 38734 times:

So a 3T bump could get it over 7500nm? That's impressive and makes it very hard for Boeing to justify doing the 777X at least the 8.

Stitch has the right Idea continue with PIP's and make GE (at there cost) develop a new version of the GE90 that could be used on the rest of the 777 family as well for service entry by 2016-17 - it won't be as good as the A351 but it should tide most over to Y3 in the early 2020's.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 38528 times:

One of the known issues with 777 is its high manufacturing cost. Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787? The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

The barrel production is now industrialized and will only improve over time. Focusing resource on a product line with leading technologies and a long term future should make Boeing more competitive over the long run. From an opportunity cost standpoint, another year or 2 of sustained 787 development by the engineering team can also give the 787 family much more lead than having the a significant portion of the team put down the 787 and relearn the 777.

In the near term, the 777 industrialization establishments still have advantage over 787 and thus can be milked for another 5-10 years while the 787 industrialization catches up. Given the only reason the 777 math works is because it is 10-abreast capable, a stopgap option with more optimized wing and re-engine may be justified.


User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2226 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 38212 times:

Does anyone know when we will see the concept drawings for the 777-8X and 777-9X?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1449 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 38133 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
One of the known issues with 777 is its high manufacturing cost. Would it make more sense to spend the money and time to market resources on a CFRP wing not for the 777 but for the 787? The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

I think you hit the nail on the head - if doing a CFRP wing, do it for the future platform (787) rather than the legacy one (777). I doubt the expense of doing a CFRP wing for the 787 will be any more than it would take to re-work the 777 wing with a CFRP design. That makes a lot of sense given the much greater upside to the 787 platform.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 38066 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 21):
The current 787 wing will support -8, -9 and -10. The new wing can extend the family to -10LR/HGW, -11 and even -12.

I've heard the 787 wing is good for 290t (with strengthening, of course). So if Boeing does pursue higher-weight 787 models, the existing wing should be good for it and at that point, increasing the span out to the original 63m (or even 65m) could be worth pursuing.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 22):
Does anyone know when we will see the concept drawings for the 777-8X and 777-9X?

I expect once Boeing decides on what to do, they'll start posting artist conceptions.


25 davs5032 : I highly doubt the 787 can be stretched that far...IMO a hypothetical -11 would be the maximum, and I don't even think that would be efficient enough
26 silentbob : Interesting post, the first thing that came to mind was pretty much the same as cosmofly: It may be "good to go" up to 290t, but why not create an op
27 sunrisevalley : near 7600nm
28 LAXDESI : My back of the envelope calculations suggest that B77W-NEO(minimal change except engines) in EK configuration with a 6% lower fuel should burn about 7
29 LHCVG : Yep good points from cosmo. I will add this to your follow-up: the axing of the 787-3 shows us that it's better to go with a wing optimized for highe
30 Stitch : That is why I suggested Boeing might increase span to 63 or 65 meters. The 787 wing is brand-new, so there is no reason to change it beyond span.
31 flylku : An airline's willingness to support a higher up front cost in order to save more on fuel over the 20-30 year life of the aircraft depends on their lon
32 cosmofly : Boeing may also elect to lengthen and strengthen the MLG to accommodate bigger fan size and more rotation angle for longer fuselage.[Edited 2012-09-2
33 JAAlbert : The 350 is a clean sheet design. Even with a wing re-do isn't the 777X going to be substantially cheaper to create than designing and building a clean
34 seabosdca : Absolutely, but it will also allow for fewer years and fewer frames over which to amortize the development cost.
35 sunrisevalley : There is no shortage, except of oil that can be prospected for, extracted and sold for $60 to $70 a barrel that leaves something for the shareholders
36 mffoda : Bingo! It makes one wonder if people really watch the same news! ??
37 zeke : Aspire tends to post a lot of positive Boeing news on their blogs, invariably a lot of it is not true in hindsight. Trying to work out what is and is
38 justloveplanes : This has some merit for solidifying sales in the medium term and perhaps lengthening the deployment window to bridge to a real Y3. Part of Boeings re
39 Revelation : Really? The tone of the article is that the current 777 is widely accepted and that it's a cash cow for Boeing. Interesting - I thought the CFRP tech
40 tdscanuck : I'm not sure the world has autoclaves big enough to take 777 wings...that leaves you with two equally unattractive options: 1) Build new bigger autoc
41 morrisond : Aren't they going to be Hinged? Big Piano Hinge in the middle - Presto problem solved only need an Autoclave half the size - Just kidding
42 justloveplanes : They are going to need Why not make the autoclaves big enough for Y1 (two wings at a time) and Y3? Spread the cost over two programs. Maybe partner wi
43 rheinwaldner : This is indeed worrying. It indicates that the reward for a large investment is not there. I interpret it like that: - Small upgrade -> investment
44 Post contains images CXB77L : That would be my concern as well. If Boeing doesn't do enough to make the 777X competitive with the A350XWB, then I think they'd just be wasting mone
45 runzel : Is it not possible to make a CFRP wing to met the requirements of 777 derivatives AND further developments of the 787? Another question if you please
46 Irishpower : The bigger question is between both EK and QR Boeing could potentially sell over 100 new frames to them. Will Boeing still move forward with the CFRP
47 Post contains images ferpe : I don't understand where this notion of the 787 architecture can not be made into a 77W modern replacement comes from. It is only 12 cm narrower then
48 rheinwaldner : Cost is the disadvantage of just about everything (except free wifi in McDonalds). And it is one of the two the key drivers for the scope. The other
49 faro : Given the heinous escalation in R&D costs between successive generations of widebody airliners, it may be doubtful whether we may ever again have
50 Aesma : I can already imagine the youtube video Airbus would make !
51 CXB77L : I'm not saying that it physically can't be done, but what I am saying is that it would require significant resources into modifying the 787 into one
52 scbriml : EK's profitability and business model are different to those of other airlines. They're happy to pay a premium for the biggest and best 777X in the s
53 rheinwaldner : This is wrong. As simple as that. In worst case it would be equally complex and costly. Adding a new, large composite wing to the 787 and stretching
54 Post contains images EPA001 : Good analysis. It brings Boeing to the same point of choice which Airbus made when they changed the A350-1000. After making it more capable, especial
55 Revelation : Autoclaves are about delivering high pressure and temperature, and delivering it uniformly. I can certainly see the cost for these things being huge
56 sunrisevalley : It seems to me that EK want to be able to be sure that they can dispatch an aircraft on any day to any destination without having to reduce the load
57 Stitch : Looking at it with hindsight, yes, but at the time, it was (and remains, in many cases) a prudent decision. The 777-300ER had just entered revenue se
58 morrisond : When they launched they 787 they had every intention of launching Y3 which would have replaced the 777/748 series. It's time to follow the original ga
59 tdscanuck : They just sank billions into the 747-8 which, thanks to the -8F, looks like it will be just fine. And the customers are screaming for something that
60 Post contains images art : To me it sounds like a new 777 would require funds and engineering resources that could be better spent on other projects while winning few sales (an
61 LHCVG : IIRC from a doc on Burt Rutan a few years ago, scaling up autoclaves is indeed expensive, and the very largest autoclaves possible at any given time
62 Post contains images tistpaa727 : Industries such as the newspaper and magazine industry rested on their laurels because their cash cows (classifieds) were doing so well they were to
63 Revelation : The utopian Y1/Y2/Y3 plan probably didn't allow for Y2 taking twice as much time and more than twice as much money as planned, and leaving in its wak
64 Stitch : Considering the suits were the ones who made many of the decisions to outsource much of the design, fabrication and assembly of Y2 that caused that p
65 morrisond : Sorry I should have said skip the 777X do a 777 NEO (for delivery earlier than 777X - by 2016/17 and start work on Y3 which they should be able to do
66 Revelation : Agreed, but that doesn't mean the power of the purse string has been given to the pocket protector crowd. It seems it's an all new bunch of suit wear
67 Post contains images deltadc9 : Have not posted in exactly 5 years but had to put in my two cents worth. I never precieved the Yellowstone plan to be all that concrete. Just a gener
68 Post contains images ferpe : To be fair to the 350-800 it is not a frame in the 787-8 or 333-200 class, it is pretty firmly in the middle between the 787-8 and the 788-9. The cab
69 seabosdca : Sounds like it could be useful to airlines with unique performance requirements like SA and IB... and not much of anyone else.
70 ferpe : It is good enough to make sense if you have and Airbus DA fleet espcially other 350 models, there was quite a detailed discussion about it in a threa
71 Stitch : And that is because, IMO, Airbus has dimensioned the A350 to be able to serve as a 777-300ER and A340-600 replacement. rheinwaldner believes Boeing s
72 LHCVG : Exactly. Each has a specific target in mind, and they made a conscious decision to keep it small (787) and optimize it for the larger category (A350)
73 LAXDESI : Can someone explain what is meant by quote below from the WSJ article suggesting a new metal wing that retains two-thirds of the current wing? Quote:
74 scbriml : Wait, this is flawed thinking IMHO. Which airlines are going to buy these 500 777neos when they know a far superior plane will be along in just five
75 Post contains images Revelation : Glad to roust you! Agree it makes sense, outside of those nasty questions about how to pay for three all-new frames back to back, whether they will m
76 Stitch : I'm guessing they're looking at new wingtips extensions? Airlines bought hundreds of A330s and 777s when they could have waited five years for a 787
77 scbriml : Unfortunately that was mainly once the airlines realised they were going to have to wait a damn site longer than five years to get their orders deliv
78 SEPilot : It seems that Boeing is on the horns of a dilemma. They can either make the 777 competitive with the A3510, or they can abandon the market for any pas
79 tdscanuck : Nobody mass produces autoclaves at that scale...they're custom machines or, at best, ultra-low run. There's probably about a dozen on the entire plan
80 Post contains links ferpe : Well some key ingredients are present, let's hope they have learned something by now cause there seems to be no lack of b..lls on the other end (thin
81 Post contains images Stitch : And yet in 2005, Airbus was effectively ready to abandon the market for planes between (roughly) 300 and 500 seats by moving forward with an "A330-20
82 SEPilot : Well, they started with the 707 in the 60's, and spent more than the company's net worth (and far more than they expected) developing it. In the 60's
83 Stitch : The first duty of the Board of Directors is to protect the investment the stockholders have made in the company. To treat that money like they're in
84 Post contains images cosmofly : If indeed an enhanced metal wing is only 3-4% behind, I can see why Boeing is having a hard time justifying the CFRP wing. I must imagine a 80m 787X
85 SEPilot : You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that the entire airline business, which includes airlines as well as building airliners, is the highe
86 Post contains images seabosdca : Just thinking about potential 787HGW variants... it's been interesting to watch the tenor of discussion over the past few years. In 2006 and 2007, bef
87 ricknroll : So many companies discover that with outsourcing. You can't outsource risk. You still own it, but you lose sight of it.
88 rheinwaldner : With the MAX, the 777X and the especially the 748 Yellowstone has been burried. I would have been a convincing product setup. But the current band-ai
89 LAXDESI : 777-9X(metal wing) with 4% fuel burn penalty should work for operators like EK with 10-abreast Y and 7 abreast J over A351. It may even work for oper
90 ferpe : It could be lower that that, ref my answer below to Tom. I get the tips, the 77W lack span and area. At 350t and 65m it's span and wing loading is ve
91 TP313 : That + 10% more passengers + high degree of commonality with previous 777 versions, would make a pretty good case for the "777X-cheap" over the 350-1
92 JoeCanuck : I've come over to the group that thinks the 777-8x is DOA. It's an answer to a question nobody has asked. The 9x has the potential to carve out a nic
93 scbriml : In very nearly half a decade since 2007, the 748F has chalked up sales of just four aircraft.
94 Post contains images Stitch : I wonder how much problem a longer span really would have, within reason, of course. At 68m, the 747-8's span is 3m wider than the 747-400 and it doe
95 ytz : Any thoughts on internal stretching as it was termed before? Seems to me that Boeing could really make a huge difference, at least for its sales pitch
96 StickShaker : If Boeing procede with the 777-8X then it could be in serious danger of becoming the 350-800 of the 777X lineup - underperforming, unloved and unwant
97 deltadc9 : If you look at Yellowstone as a guidline of a 3 model product line, Y1 is the new 737 and whatever replaces it, Y2 is the 787. The problem is replaci
98 Post contains images CXB77L : With the "787X", you're adding capacity and payload/range. To do that, you need to increase the MTOW. You need higher thrust engines which may be lar
99 Roseflyer : I’ve mostly stayed out of this thread, but I’m getting tired of reading that there is a possibility of the 787 legitimately reaching the capacity
100 tdscanuck : The initial product of almost every major Boeing design has been a flop, by that perspective. The initial 707, the 727-100, the 737-100, the 747-100,
101 Stitch : Boeing had been shopping larger 747s since the EIS of the 777-300. Even as they started work on the 777-300ER, they were also pitching the 747X and 7
102 Post contains links cosmofly : Boeing must have learnt a lot since the launch of 787 and today's knowledge base is vastly different than yesterday's. My guess is this is what is ag
103 seabosdca : I think this has more to do with delivery dates and lack of slots than the product, just as with the A350-1000 and its lack of orders. (As opposed to
104 Stitch : Since it's also going to be a straight stretch of the 787-9, I can see potential customers wanting to wait and see how the 787-9 meets her numbers du
105 ferpe : If you mean the 787-10 B has been labeled it as a simple stretch as it has the same MTOW as the 787-9. I agree you need to upgrade the pacs as you ha
106 Post contains links Roseflyer : The 787-10 hasn't been launched and Boeing is not putting the resources behind getting it launched in the near term, hence the statement that it is s
107 rheinwaldner : Here is my first question. Like a miracle the 777X would achieve exactly the same - with less MTOW. There is no explanation, why that should work out
108 scbriml : Of course, but four sales in five years is one heck of a trough. The depressed cargo market and the seemingly never ending financial crisis don't len
109 Stitch : The 15 frame HX MoU and 4 frame UN MoU are worth about two years of production on top of the three-plus years they have in the passenger and freighter
110 Post contains images CXB77L : Thank you for the informative post. Those are indeed interesting tidbits. But while I get the point that technology is ever increasing exponentially,
111 deltadc9 : I wonder if Boeing is intentionally letting Airbus pull the trigger on a clean sheet narrowbody first, as with the 350, so they can leapfrog them both
112 rheinwaldner : It is not my idea, that the 787 should have been designed as replacement of the 77W. You lay words into may mouth. It is not my idea that the 787-10
113 Roseflyer : My assumption is not flawed. First off hydraulic, electrical, pneumatic, etc power by 10% is not equivalent to 10% increase in capacity. It is closer
114 LAXDESI : The WSJ article suggests that Boeing may be leaning towards larger span metal wings(keeping 2/3rd of current wing), which is likely to result in 4% hi
115 Stitch : Well the 777X is only going to really work with 10-abreast Economy seating. The real issue I see for the 777 and the 777X is that modern Business Cla
116 Post contains images CXB77L : Then perhaps you can explain what you mean by because if it was a "mistake" for Boeing not to design the 787 with the 77W replacement market in mind,
117 tdscanuck : I think you misunderstood Roseflyer. Clean sheets are typically built to handle 10% increase *without major redesign*. So, for example, the 737-700 b
118 LAXDESI : Is that feasible and likely? EK and AF both have 7-abreast J seats in 77W, which would continue to make 777-9X attractive to them even without the fo
119 cosmofly : I do not believe that there is any argument that an 777X should be done. The argument is about metal or CFRP wing. So the discussion is really about
120 LAXDESI : It is being reported that Boeing is likely to offer 323 seat B787-10 soon, which should affect A359 prospects as many carriers/routes don't need the
121 Stitch : Yes, airlines who will continue with 7-abreast Business Class will benefit from the 777X, however many customers consider that kind of product to be
122 cosmofly : I am a believer of -10 and I believe B should launch it asap, even ahead of the 777X. However I have a hard time seeing Boeing, which is choked by th
123 Stitch : I want to believe that Boeing has developed the 787-9 and 787-10 in parallel the past few years (since pushing the 787-9 MTOW to the point that the 78
124 CXB77L : Boeing's strategy to counter the A350-900 appears to be enveloping it from both ends - the 787-9 at the lower end, and the 777-8X at the other. Wheth
125 rheinwaldner : I don´t disagree. The first A350´s have been planned as a new family, though the scope was more or less the same as for the 777X. But we definitive
126 CXB77L : In the highly unlikely event that they decide not to launch the 777X, then the only other alternative would be to go with an all new aircraft to repl
127 Revelation : SUH has described Boeing as being "gun-shy" on the 777X due to the 787 fiasco, and personally I don't blame Boeing if they are. Other than keeping Ti
128 rheinwaldner : Me too.
129 SEPilot : This is one of the reports that have led me to question whether or not Boeing has the same courage (for want of a better word) to tackle huge risks t
130 flylku : Agreed. The low hanging fruit - the oil that cost almost nothing to find - has been exploited. Now we drop pipe 10,000 feet to the bottom of the ocea
131 Stitch : I would expect that it's the 747-8 that is causing Boeing more worry than the 787. That program is in a forward-loss position at the moment because B
132 ferpe : It is pretty clear it will, the present 77W has a pretty high drag when flying legs when it need to be filled to MTOW. The wing is on the small side
133 tdscanuck : Spars are made using a very similar process. As far as I know, they use the same autoclaves but that's just because they're there...if you were just
134 Revelation : Ok, got it now. Thanks for the answers!
135 cosmofly : Even if true, may be for Boeing's part only. As a project, the 787X can use the A350 engines which mitigate schedule risks substantially.
136 tdscanuck : Well, yes, but since it's Boeing that has to launch the plane (or not), isn't that the part that matters? Tom.
137 ricknroll : It is not highly unlikey at all. Short term thinking due to the current economic conditions is dominating much capital planning at the moment. Everyb
138 ferpe : In Boeings defense I can understand they want to take the max time available to make the right decision, whatever they decide they have then pulled th
139 JoeCanuck : Bottom line is there really isn't a rush for the 777x and they can afford to take their time. Once in a while, they float the 777x idea as something t
140 astuteman : Nobody "mass" produces autoclaves. The Petrochem industry, though, does build pressure vessels as big as, or bigger than, these autoclaves on a very
141 Post contains images CXB77L : Fair point. However, Boeing have stated that they remain 'absolutely committed' to the 777X program, so unless there is a sudden and drastic change t
142 PW100 : To be fair though, those are usually sititng vertical. That completely changes the dynamics of homogeneous condition control throughout the pressure
143 astuteman : They are. But you've made the point. IMO it's the condition control that is the crucial technology in an autoclave, not the pressure vessel aspects p
144 Post contains images Stitch : Since EK is the largest buyer of 777-300ERs, I still think just slapping GE9X engines on the plane would be sufficient, as that would give EK the abil
145 Revelation : It seems then that Boeing senior management is a bit wrong-footed on their messaging both internally and externally. The external messaging from Conn
146 tdscanuck : In addition to horizontal vs. vertical, how many of the petrochem autoclaves have full-diameter doors? Tom.
147 Post contains images astuteman : Not many Rgds
148 LAXDESI : Minimal change, perhaps with internal widening, 77W-NEO can not be ruled out as a low risk/decent reward option. One would think this option should e
149 cosmofly : I also believe Boeing should go as big as it can with the following optimization constraints: - Larger wing but not heavier wing - Same fan size but
150 PW100 : Wouldn't they need a 110k engine at minimum to do just that? I'm not sure if the GEnX would scale to 110k? I'm inclined to think not - at least not w
151 Stitch : GE is already working on the GE9X, which will see an improved version of the GEnx compressor combined with a second generation of the advanced eCore
152 ricknroll : Possibly not, but what is GE to make of the mixed messages coming out of Boeing at the moment. GE is very strict on making an ROI, it doesn't like ma
153 Stitch : Whether the GE9X is the only engine that hangs off the current 777 or the only engine that hangs off the 777X, GE is going to continue to be the sole
154 ricknroll : Sure, the issue is, do they want to invest in a significant upgrade of that engine when they don't know if that investment will pay off. At the moment
155 cosmofly : If Boeing decides to keep the wing metal and extend the length of the fuse, the thrust requirement may not be reduced, but Boeing sure needs a state
156 Stitch : Well if they don't launch the GE9X, then they're going to be dependent mainly on the 777 Freighter, as I don't expect the 777-200LR or 777-300ER to s
157 tdscanuck : Given current backlogs, I'm not sure that's such a problem. 777-200LR: 58 orders / 54 delivered = 4 backlog 777-300ER: 619 ordered / 355 delivered =
158 ricknroll : A hard nosed CFO might decide that the 737MAX and 787 are where the near term profits are. The 737 has a loyal customer base, with good short and long
159 Stitch : Well Boeing could do the reverse of the LR777 deal - help fund the GE9X and then take some of the revenues.
160 JoeCanuck : They have the same relationship with the -10. Boeing management has shown themselves to be pragmatic when they have to be...hence, the MAX, when they
161 135mech : Sir, The 707 development was started in the early 50's, not the 60's. Also, the 50's were significant for 2 airframes, the 707 and the KC-135, which
162 Post contains links Revelation : Yes, and the common ancestor of all of these, as well as the mighty B-52 (that is still serving in the USAF and will be for decades to come), is the
163 LHCVG : With all due respect, the 748i is quite great enough. It was explicitly built to shoe in under the A380 and supposedly offer better economics in a sm
164 ricknroll : Maybe Boeing is waiting for GE to come up with some development cash again? They have done it once What upside is involved in building a plane with so
165 JoeCanuck : The problem with the plane is what it cost to develop...and what it took away from the 787 program, which was a lot more than they expected. Part of
166 cosmofly : The A380F was about to be born and who knows, the 400F number game might not have stopped it. IMO, changing window size was a wasted effort.
167 LHCVG : I was referring to the pax version, in terms of being built as a variant of the 748F, but if you want to debate the merits of the 748 program, I won'
168 tdscanuck : None. If the orders it has now are all it will ever get, I think even Boeing will admit they shouldn't have done it. But I doubt that the orders it h
169 XT6Wagon : While the 777 window belt proved to be harder than Boeing expected, it will save Boeing and their customers both money using the newer and more common
170 Post contains images ricknroll : I'm using the benefit of hindsight here.
171 Post contains images Stitch : I've long argued the same, but the 777F turned out to be better than expected and is close enough to the 747-400F family that I think it would have m
172 rheinwaldner : Dream on. Not a single A380 would have sold since a long time if that would be true.... While the carriers certainly like the idea, they obviously do
173 Post contains images SQ22 : Thanks, well noted.
174 cosmofly : It was done during a time when resources were very constrained and it was unnecessary direct cost as well as opportunity cost. 777 commonality was de
175 XT6Wagon : Today it might not be that horrible to get a 747-400 window or parts for it. 10 years from now? 20 years from now? Not to mention the assembly itself
176 CXB77L : It is more efficient per trip and useful for carriers that don't need as many seats. It can also be more efficient per seat if carriers configure the
177 rheinwaldner : Efficiency is the ratio between reward and effort. So a trip as reward is meaningless.... The most efficient trip you get by flying a Cessna 150... O
178 ferpe : There is a way to avoid all this crap about how many seats the 748 holds vs 380, compared their costs per m2 flown as proposed by Wingedmigrator. For
179 Post contains images 135mech : Great, thank you! One of the few books I don't yet have!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Assembly Of The First Boeing 777 Freighter (video) posted Tue Feb 24 2009 10:20:07 by McSteve
WSJ: Lack Of Seats, Galleys Delays Boeing + Airbus posted Fri Aug 8 2008 02:18:10 by Robffm2
Boeing Begins Use Of 777 Moving Line Assembly posted Wed Nov 8 2006 18:31:51 by NYC777
The Making Of A Japan Airlines Boeing 777 posted Sat Sep 13 2003 20:27:52 by Wolfy
Boeing Has Completed 90% Of 777-300ER Design posted Tue Jun 11 2002 16:44:59 by Singapore_Air
Air France Takes Delivery Of Its 200th Boeing posted Sun Dec 12 2010 13:53:13 by FlySSC
EK: 787 Problems Slow Development Of 777 Upgrade posted Mon Dec 6 2010 00:27:45 by mdword1959
Video Of The New Boeing 787 Window Shades posted Wed Jun 24 2009 07:45:14 by GetYourFlyx
Gust Of Wind Pushes Boeing 737-800 (Video) posted Sun Aug 3 2008 10:27:56 by Amritpal
QR Announces Delay Of 777 Delieveries posted Fri Jun 27 2008 22:43:46 by QatarA340