Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Delays 777x To Early 2020's  
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 242 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 26734 times:

From Flight Global http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...eline-range-to-early-2020s-378115/

I guess Plan A (Rewing - Rewing profile interior - lower weight - New Engines) or Plan B (Reprofile/clean-up wing - new engines, same weight 2016/17 service entry) never happen now. Compared to 787 Structural Efficiency - a 2020's Large twin based on early 90's structure just may not be weight efficient enough.

Extending into that timeframe gives them time to do a cleansheet/new cross section/electric architecture Super Large Twin.

Here comes the 450 Seat fully composite/non-autoclave Twin 11W !

275 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 26664 times:

Extending into that timeframe means nothing will be decided for years.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21476 posts, RR: 60
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 26658 times:

Your thread title is not accurate based on the article you link.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 26651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm guessing no airlines (I'm looking at you, EK) are ready to commit to launch the program yet.

With the A350-900's first flight planned for less than a year away, I'm guessing said airlines (and Boeing) are being cautious on how to proceed.

If the A350-900 sails through her flight testing and certification program, the 777X will very likely be shelved and Boeing will concentrate on Y3 and just ramp down 777 production to maintenance levels (as they did with the 747 and 767) as demand falls.

If the A350-900 encounters "unknown unknowns" that impart a significant impact to the schedule, Boeing could see another resurgence in 777-300ER orders to cover those new delays that could negate the need for the 777X or airlines could move away from the A350-1000 to the 777X as their next generation large long-haul platform and provide the order foundation to launch the program.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 26599 times:

Reality coming in, we are looking at a 2022/23 service entry. And some time still to decide wether this thing really makes sense - or a totally new plane by 2025/27 would be better.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 26514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If the A350-900 sails through her flight testing and certification program, the 777X will very likely be shelved and Boeing will concentrate on Y3 and just ramp down 777 production to maintenance levels (as they did with the 747 and 767) as demand falls.

That is a plausible scenario. Boeing should have made up her mind already imho but they are hesitating. They seem to adapt more and more on what Airbus is doing (MAX and now B777-X) then on leading the industry. This is not bad news for the A350-XWB program as well.

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Reality coming in, we are looking at a 2022/23 service entry. And some time still to decide whether this thing really makes sense - or a totally new plane by 2025/27 would be better.

It is more realistic since Boeing has quite a lot on its plate. And gives them the chance to make an airplane which has (much?) better chances against the A350-XWB. Totally new from scratch has a lot better chance against the all new A350-XWB.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26123 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 5):
Boeing should have made up her mind already imho but they are hesitating.

While Boeing has been portrayed as being timid as of late, as a stockholder I'd be more concerned if they were committing billions of dollars - in some cases, tens of billions of dollars - on the hope that "if we build it, they will come".

Yes, they're being cautious. They have tens of billions sunk into the 787 and the 747-8 program is in a forward-loss position. They wanted to launch a new narrowbody, but the 787 c**k-ups forced them to go with a re-engine program. Sure, the MAX is selling strong and will only continue to do so, but I believe NSA would have given them a definitive edge in the narrowbody market and start winning customers from Airbus.

If airlines believe, they need to step up to the plate and order.

It's easy to bet with other people's money when you don't need to worry about any losses.  


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26082 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Extending into that timeframe gives them time to do a cleansheet/new cross section/electric architecture Super Large Twin.

What would be the point of that? Part of the reason Boeing decided to do the 747-8 instead of an all new "VLA" is because the market isn't big enough for both Airbus and Boeing. I think if Boeing were to do an A380-sized aircraft (which is what an 11-wide frame would achieve), it would be a financial disaster, even if it manages to make the A380 obsolete (which I don't think would happen).

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 2):
Your thread title is not accurate based on the article you link.

 checkmark 

From the article:

Quote:
"We are looking at the end of the decade, beginning of the next decade, kind of [entry into service], but that's the assumption we're working with,"

He didn't say it was "definitely" delayed to the early 2020s. That's just the headline.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
the 777X will very likely be shelved and Boeing will concentrate on Y3 and just ramp down 777 production to maintenance levels (as they did with the 747 and 767) as demand falls.

... which would be a damn shame, in my view. I guess the reality is that this is a customer driven industry, and that there's no point in launching something if the customers won't buy.

That said, I don't know why EK don't just put their money where their mouth is and sign a firm order for 50 777-9Xs. They've been singing its praises for as long as the 777X has been rumoured, and want Boeing to speed things up, but yet they're not prepared to place an order for them.

Maybe Clark is telling McNerney that "if you launch it, I'll buy it", while McNerney is telling Clark, "if you buy it, I'll launch it". The old "what comes first, the order or the program?" ...

Quoting na (Reply 4):
Reality coming in, we are looking at a 2022/23 service entry. And some time still to decide wether this thing really makes sense - or a totally new plane by 2025/27 would be better.

The original EIS date was 2019. If this article is correct, then that would put the program back to 2020, not 2022/23 as you suggest. As to deciding whether the 777X makes sense, the CEO of Boeing himself issued a statement stating that the company remains "absolutely committed to the 777X". Boeing aren't deciding whether or not to launch the 777X, they're deciding on how far to take the 777X upgrades.

That's not an easy task: EK wants their 777X yesterday, and as good as it can get, regardless of cost, SUH is happy for Boeing to take their time with it but make it cost effective ....

[Edited 2012-10-26 08:52:55]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 26008 times:

I guess all of this guarantee's Boeing will be working on 787-10 launch and 737 MAX between now and 2020. Both pretty big undertakings.

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8876 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 25944 times:

Now the reality of all the claims of how much better the 777X has been portrayed on here is not reflected in the market confidence.


We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 25921 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 7):
That said, I don't know why EK don't just put their money where their mouth is and sign a firm order for 50 777-9Xs.

Tim Clark did state he expected some of the 70 777-300ERs (firm plus options) he ordered last year would instead be delivered as 777Xs. However, with only 3.5 years of production backlog at the current production rate of 100 per year, even if TC exercised his options, he'd take delivery of all 70 before Boeing was ready to switch over to the 777X.

So he needs to place another 50 (or 100).  


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 25835 times:

Does anyone know ballpark numbers for cost of developing the following(my cost and lifetime sales estimates in parenthesis):

777X-New metal wing, interior widening, new engines, stretched----------($6 billion, 400 units)
777X-New composite wing, interior widening, new engines, stretched---($10 billion, 600 units)
Y3----All new with 10Y wider fuselage, two models---------------------------($18 billion, 1000 units)

Keep in mind that Boeing, unlike the past, has to share future demand with Airbus in the 300+ long haul category. For reference, Boeing has sold nearly 500 long haul 772 and 900 long haul 773 so far.


User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 259 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 25756 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 11):
Does anyone know ballpark numbers for cost of developing the following(my cost and lifetime sales estimates in parenthesis):

777X-New metal wing, interior widening, new engines, stretched----------($6 billion, 400 units)
777X-New composite wing, interior widening, new engines, stretched---($10 billion, 600 units)
Y3----All new with 10Y wider fuselage, two models---------------------------($18 billion, 1000 units)

What about the cost of the following derivative:

777X-773ER wing + new wingtips, interior widening, new engines, no stretch

Could it be significantly below $5 billion?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25519 times:

Quoting morrisond (Thread starter):
Boeing Delays 777x To Early 2020's  

This would hopefully mean that the eventual 777X becomes an all new aircraft. The point of a derivative would be to develop something to hit the market quickly, but if they're pushed back to the early 2020s anyway, what's the point? They could have a new plane enter service in about the same timeframe.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I'm guessing no airlines (I'm looking at you, EK) are ready to commit to launch the program yet

Why would Boeing commit to them? They've already said the A350-1000 cannot do the job, so if Boeing doesn't do the 777X, what are they going to do other than just keep buying 777s?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If the A350-900 sails through her flight testing and certification program, the 777X will very likely be shelved and Boeing will concentrate on Y3 and just ramp down 777 production to maintenance levels (as they did with the 747 and 767) as demand falls.

To me that seems like the smart thing to do. The 737 MAX and 787 will be bringing in cash and I doubt that 777 demand will fall as far as 767 demand did.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
While Boeing has been portrayed as being timid as of late,

It might be more than portrayal on the commercial side. If they aren't going to use their commitment to the MAX to jump ahead with a new widebody, they could be in a bind later on. If you kick two cans on down the road you'll eventually have to deal with them again at the same time.

Just like Boeing saying "never again" after the 777 ran way overbudget led to the 787, they may be saying the same thing after the 787. It's a smart thing to say, considering the problems, but that attitude may be manifesting itself in the desire for projects that they feel cannot go wrong.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25455 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I'm guessing no airlines (I'm looking at you, EK) are ready to commit to launch the program yet.

BA and UA are probably screaming at Boeing for this, for a 744 replacement down the road. Same potentially with DL.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8876 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25389 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

Why would any airline buy a 777-300ER to cover a short term stop gap with an A350 delay ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 14):
BA and UA are probably screaming at Boeing for this, for a 744 replacement down the road. Same potentially with DL.

If rumors are correct, the 787-10 could join the A380-800 in handling those replacements. Yes, the 787-10 is smaller than the 747-400, but BA is probably the only airline that can increase frequencies at LHR (plus they have LGW).


User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 736 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25294 times:

Boeing really needs to just come up with a true 777 replacement for EIS in mid-2020s.

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9979 posts, RR: 96
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 25241 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 7):
I think if Boeing were to do an A380-sized aircraft (which is what an 11-wide frame would achieve),

As a point of order, the A380 is a comfortable 18-wide frame....  
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
They've already said the A350-1000 cannot do the job

But have they really said that? And what is "the job"? They still have 20 on order and no sign of ditching them...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):
The 737 MAX and 787 will be bringing in cash and I doubt that 777 demand will fall as far as 767 demand did.

I wonder if this is the 787 cash position manifesting itself. I've no doubt it will ultimately be a sensationnal success. But I get the impression that the programme will be a cash sink for some time yet - the 787-9 and -10 both need to be brought to market, and IIRC even Boeing have said the frames they've sold won't be cash positive until at least 2015.

The MAX is also demanding resources, both engineering and financial in that timeframe.

I just wonder if this is the new boss on the street exercising financial prodence, and delaying the outlay for a couple of years..

Rgds

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4705 posts, RR: 38
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 25140 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
But have they really said that? And what is "the job"? They still have 20 on order and no sign of ditching them...

As far as I recall they have stated that a route DXB-LAX at MTOW is not possible with an A350-1000 as we know it today. And I believe Tim Clark have stated that without the maximum sized CFRP-wings, the B777-9X will also fall short of doing that "trick". But the overkill on capacity might hurt the performance on shorter stretches which is why the Boeing executives have not made up their mind yet.

Because the EK version will almost only work properly for EK where other customers might be more tempted to go for the A350-1000 which is most likely more efficient on shorter stretches.

[Edited 2012-10-26 10:47:58]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 25121 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
But have they really said that? And what is "the job"?

Replacing the 777-300ER. They've said that the A350-1000 is basically a larger 777-200ER, which makes sense for them considering that they operate 777s with ten seats across in coach.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
But I get the impression that the programme will be a cash sink for some time yet - the 787-9 and -10 both need to be brought to market, and IIRC even Boeing have said the frames they've sold won't be cash positive until at least 2015.

The MAX is also demanding resources, both engineering and financial in that timeframe.

Both of those will taper off before a new replacement will actually have to be launched.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I just wonder if this is the new boss on the street exercising financial prodence, and delaying the outlay for a couple of years..

...or just making sure they don't mess up.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30623 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 25106 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 15):
Why would any airline buy a 777-300ER to cover a short term stop gap with an A350 delay?

Airbus announced a two-year delay to the A350-800 and A350-1000 EIS to 2017 in June of 2011.

The 777-300ER then went on to have it's best sales year ever with A350 customers like EK, SU, CX, QR, SQ, TG, EY and JJ accounting for half of the orders placed.

And yes, I know not all those airlines are (or were at the time) an A350-1000 customer, but as you have noted on many occasions, most of these contracts offer airlines the flexibility to switch models and CX themselves did so.


Quoting astuteman (Reply 18):
I wonder if this is the 787 cash position manifesting itself.

Boeing just reported another set of great numbers, so they certainly have the cash and credit to move forward. But the new guy may very well be more conservative than his predecessor - and the conservative view may be one currently held by the BoD, as well.

[Edited 2012-10-26 11:05:47]

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24983 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 7):
The original EIS date was 2019. If this article is correct, then that would put the program back to 2020, not 2022/23 as you suggest.

You think that a date set by Boeing 8 (!) years before is remotely exact? Where have you been the last ten years? You´re hopelessly optimistic if you think there wont be at least two years more delay. If it will ever be built, and I see chances are getting lesser, then we´ll see a service entry not before 2022. Bet on it. But, as others said before, a complete replacement of the 777 has just become more likely.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 24737 times:

One interesting note. In the article, McNerney implied only B knows how to build a big CFRP wing.
"...We now know how to do that and I can't think of anyone else who does."

However it is hard to imagine A cannot to the same when A is already making the A350 wing.

I can think of 2 reasons that B can afford a 777X after 2020.

1. The CFRP body really does NOT have too much advantage over next gen metal.
2. The 777X will have a CFRP body.

After 2020, A380s will have dominated the VLA markets as B has no equals. Airlines will be starting replacing their current fleet with next gen A388s or even A389s, so we can expect A to double their A380 orders by then.
http://www.ausbt.com.au/supersizing-...1-000-seat-airbus-a380-due-by-2020

I would also expect A350 family, which is already at 600 order level, will be much more established and will squeeze the 777 markets. SQ's fleet planning is probably a good glimpse of what is to come.


Here is an armchair suggestion if post 2020 EIS is the goal with the CFRP wing that B claims to be able to do:

An all CFRP, body included, 80m long 777-9X, with some galley and toilets in the cargo area, could arguably take the EK 3 class configuration to 450 pax level. A twin of this size can put a lot of pressure on the 4 holer A388, leaving only the A389 with no equals. Such 777-9X will still have a lot of cargo capacity. Another good thing is that GE90-115B thrust level may be good enough so new engine risk is much mitigated.

An all CFRP 74m long 777-8X, same as the 77W in capacity, will keep the current 77W customers happy.

One wish from the armchair also: use 787 section 41 for 777X  Oops, its it an 787XWB?

Then may be all B needs from the 787 family are the -8, -9 and -10 as is.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1564 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 24173 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

I don't often agree with the entire contents of one of your posts but +1

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
If the A350-900 sails through her flight testing and certification program, the 777X will very likely be shelved and Boeing will concentrate on Y3 and just ramp down 777 production to maintenance levels (as they did with the 747 and 767) as demand falls.

The wild card here is what if A359 sails through flight testing and Airbus decides to move up the schedule of the A351 to 2016 (moving A358 back to 2017) and increase production rates, I can't see it happening but Enders did float this as a thought bubble, this could allow the A350-1000 to chew into 777W sales for 5 years. In this case I think that Boeing would dust off the 777X to reduce risk rather than go Y3.



BV
25 sweair : I think the 777-X is a still born now, in 2020 it will be even harder to put make up on that 30 year old frame. Better to sell as many 777s that is po
26 Post contains images astuteman : Which is a substantially larger wingset than the 787 is endowed with of course... I took that to be "one of those comments", like Leahy's "chinese co
27 Post contains links tomcat : I'd be slightly less confident than McNerney when it comes to designing and build CFRP wings: so far, Boeing commercial aircraft still has to design
28 Post contains images EPA001 : Maybe Boeing did design the wing but it was build by FHI and MHI? Or did they design the wings with FHI and MHI? But surely Boeing must have been inv
29 Post contains images bikerthai : You should see what Boeing is doing right now at their development center near Boeing field. The detailed design an drawing release work may have bee
30 bikerthai : Boeing also had experience with the B2, F-22 wing and the 777 tail. But that technology (fastened composite) was old. The break through resides in ho
31 Stitch : Boeing still oversaw the design, as well as oversaw the processes and tools used to design the wing. So while it was not designed solely by Boeing en
32 airproxx : I don't kinda share you enthusiasm about the A350 program. The flip-side is, imho, that Boeing is indeed adapting more and more on what Airbus is pla
33 flightsimer : You mean like how all the carriers intending on replacing A330s with 787 ended up ordering more A330s as a stop gap aircraft until the 787s could arr
34 EPA001 : I am not so sure that is the case. I see Boeing hesitating and trailing now, and Airbus having a good chance with the A350-1000 in the lead. But if t
35 tomcat : Indeed, at some point of the 787 design, there was for example a significant Spanish armada of stress analysts supporting Boeing in Everett. These Sp
36 Post contains images airproxx : Agreed, but I would add that if Boeing manages to launch a very efficient 77X, the A350 will soon become obsolete, so letting Airbus get an advance o
37 Post contains images Cerecl : And if Airbus launches an very efficient A360 as successor of A330 in 2025, the 787 will soon become obsolete . Despite all the talk about one model
38 Ruscoe : To me the most likely scenario going on at Boeing is that the 350-1000 is an unknown animal with some problems. Depending upon how good the 351 ends u
39 davs5032 : Whatever year they decide to bring the next offering to market, as long as the EIS is post-2020, you'd have to think they'll end up with a new-build.
40 boilerla : IMHO this is Boeing choosing the 78J in favor of the 777x. After talking to LH and others I'm guessing they found the 78J market to be more lucrative,
41 Post contains images scbriml : In what way is it an "unknown animal" and what "problems" does it have?
42 StickShaker : How about a 777X lite (or 77W upgrade). Existing metal wing with enhancements, interior widening - 10 abreast, new engines, no stretch---------($2 bi
43 boilerla : Well, yes of course. That's my point. There's still no authority to offer for the 78J yet even. The 789 assembly has barely begun. The 787 will still
44 StickShaker : I think part of the reason Boeing is hesitating is the lack of positive market feedback to the 777-8X which is proposed as the direct replacement for
45 Darksnowynight : Touche. I see what you're saying, and agree that DXB-LAX may be a problem for the 35J & the 779. But if they optimize it for that, does it run th
46 ricknroll : Given the lack of success of ULH, and the relative lack of buyers for ULH, you get the impression neither B nor A are willing to put up another ULH f
47 morrisond : So the consensus seems to be more like what I suggested in the beginning of the topic. That given the projected EIS Boeing is much more likely to go N
48 scbriml : Clark is right to shout about what EK wants - one thing is guaranteed, if they don't ask for it, they certainly won't get it. If they ask for it they
49 Post contains images sweair : One thing we forget the A350-1000 no matter how good it is will never be able to fill the market on its own, if the 77W can have 40% of the market wit
50 Post contains images astuteman : Just so I can get this straight. Boeing are capable of turning out 7 x 777X a month on top of 13 or so 787's, - 20 in total. But Airbus aren't capabl
51 KarelXWB : Airbus is aiming at a production rate of 10 A350 frames a month (or 120 a year) by the end of 2018. About 40 - 50 of those 120 frames will be a A350-1
52 Post contains images CXB77L : That's just part of it. The other point of doing derivatives is to develop something cost effectively (I wouldn't say cheaply because no commercial a
53 SQ22 : I thought the same. Maybe some updated engines on it and there comes the 777-3 MAX. I think there should be enough interest and demand. In the meanti
54 Post contains images airproxx : Really? So Boeing didn't build a 77W purposely to compete against a fuel guzzler A346 that has never sold well? Interesting... Agreed, but it wasn't
55 cosmofly : How much of a derivative it is if it has a totally new CFRP wing with a lot more lift? The idea is to give A388 a run for its money, not as a 77W rep
56 CXB77L : The 737NG is also a derivative with a totally new wing ... I don't know if my definition is correct technically, but the way I see it, if the design
57 KarelXWB : If a 777X comes close to - let's say 5% - of the A380 CASM then the whalejet orders will have a hard(er) time I think. However, a 777X may also trigg
58 sweair : I just reacted to the all so dominant A350-1000 is a 777 killer, it takes a lot of time to up the build rate, I have a hard time seeing how the A350-1
59 cosmofly : I actually worry about the A380s. My belief is that it will do quite well if left unchecked. A 80m 777-9X may actually beat A388 CASM.
60 Post contains images scbriml : And that's a reason to worry because...?
61 frigatebird : I actually think this good news. When I heard Boeing was thinking about shelving the large CFRP wing for the 777X, sacrificing 3-4% efficiency, I saw
62 Stitch : The 777-8X should be as long as the 777-300ER and the 777-9 should be 79-80m. I know at that point there are worries about tail strikes and take-off
63 Aesma : The original 777 wasn't the 77L/W/F. Those are already what you're talking about.
64 zeke : Correct me if I am wrong, those 77W are for delivery before the pre-delay A350-1000 EIS ? in the CX case how much of that 77W order had to do with pl
65 Post contains images EPA001 : You have got your facts totally wrong here. The A346 was by far the most efficient large civilian airliner when it entered service. It's bad luck wer
66 sweair : But the 77W will still sell well, unlike Zeke I say it is the A330 vs 787 all over again. Tell us again how the 1000 model can cover all of the marke
67 Post contains images cosmofly : In the name of Boeing
68 EPA001 : Oh, and she will continue to sell well even after the A350-1000 is out there. Just like the A330 is indeed still selling extremely strong even now th
69 Flighty : Huge win for Airbus!! If Boeing thinks this will prolong the 777's and 748i's cash yield, I really doubt that. Cynical monopolist move.
70 Post contains images sweair : Yeah but it will again be lost when B goes for the Y3 and that is IMO a much better idea, with CFRP gen2 coming online soon and an engine Gen after t
71 Post contains images EPA001 : That could very well be, but the differences in performance gains are getting smaller and smaller. The differences in economic performance will there
72 tdscanuck : How so? The A350, as a cleansheet, was always going to out do the 777...it was only a question of by how much. Both airframe will be production-rate
73 KarelXWB : It won't happen that soon. Like said above: the A350 production won't reach 10 frames a month until 2018. Every increase of that number is something
74 zeke : I have actually said the same myself, but it will be a little more skewed as these are B/C-market aircraft (77W/A350) where the 787/A330 are more com
75 sweair : In 2020 the 777 is 30 years old and I think less people will feel that doing a ng/max version is a good idea and vote for the Y3. By 2020 we all shoul
76 zeke : The 77W will be 16...
77 justloveplanes : Perhaps Boeing is realizing that the three year delay to the 787 can't really be recovered from a strategic point of view, the damage is done. Assumin
78 Cerecl : See EPA001's reply in post 65. I tend to think A350 as a A330/A340 replacement. Obviously there will be overlap with Boeing's product so there is com
79 JerseyFlyer : .....which will make it a segment bigger than the A350. Not actually a direct competitor, but it will challenge Airbus to offer something between A35
80 sweair : Airbus has the gap between A321 and A350-800 in the future as well, how long will the A332 live on? And the A358 is a big aircraft compared to A332.
81 Post contains images CXB77L : The thing with the 767-X was that it received almost instant criticism the moment concepts were sent to airlines for evaluation. The reception for th
82 Post contains images scbriml : I keep reading this. What aspects of the -1000 are not finalised that would have any direct impact on Boeing's decision making about the 777X, yet ar
83 Stitch : The A350-1000 makes a better 777-300 replacement than the 777-300ER, so I am of the opinion that we can safely assume 12 are earmarked for that purpo
84 BMI727 : There's a decade and a half or so of development in between. That's not to say the 777X couldn't match the A350-1000 on a per seat cost basis, but it
85 airways1 : On the timescales that we're talking about, the outlook could change significantly. Whilst Airbus and Boeing are currently the only serious companies
86 Stitch : COMAC is already entering it with the C-919, but I don't expect them to sell outside of China and some Chinese client states in Africa for some time d
87 airways1 : Sure, COMAC will need some time to make a name for itself, but with the speed at which China is developing, as well as Asia in general, and with the g
88 Post contains links zeke : You mean these A330s ? They were tied to the A350s http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...es-signs-contract-for-20-a350-xwb/ Not in the current form.
89 rheinwaldner : Never will that happen. No 777 tranformation will ever reach the technology level of the A350. At worst the A350 could always be kept ahead of the 77
90 Post contains images StickShaker : Its an interesting dichotomy, turning a popular 350 seater into a 400 seater to compete with a new 350 seater. As rheinwaldner points out, the 777-9X
91 sweair : So to really win SQ and CX orders the Y3 has the be a comfortable 3-4-3 cabin? Is that all that matters for these airlines? EK wants range and wont ca
92 Post contains links cosmofly : Airbus publication, even if one believes it is unbiased, said A380 has 12% fuel burn per seat advantage over 77W. http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/med
93 seabosdca : The insistence on luxury seating in Y is already having an effect. SQ is having to create Scoot, with 3-4-3 772s and later 3-3-3 789s, to stay compet
94 Post contains images sweair : SQ might end up with its LCC paying the bills in the end
95 Post contains links rheinwaldner : You found a good link. As fuel burn is only the second best figure to measure the overall efficiency, let's use cash operating cost. The cash operati
96 Post contains images MCIGuy : My take away: This all but assures that the 781 is on the horizon and that a Y3 clean sheet will be the reality going forward. I agree with those who
97 Stitch : The bulk of the replacement market right now is A330-300, A340-300, 777-200 and 777-200ER. For ULH (12 hour or more) missions, the A350-900 is going t
98 cosmofly : I am not a fan of Boeing's 76m 777-9X idea. My argument is based on a 80m 777-9X. I am also suggesting the 777-8X should be same lenght as the 77W, n
99 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Airbus also says that the A350-1000 will have a 25% operating cost advantage over the 777-300ER, http://www.noticiaslatamsales.com/en...ore-Appealing
100 AirbusA6 : All the while 'premium' airlines operate A380s with 3-4-3, a 3-4-3- 777 with its current width will be significantly less comfortable, making it hard
101 XT6Wagon : Operators are faced with a hard choice, Making Y class tickets 10% more expensive or put in 10Y in the 777. Its *almost* a normal fit. Thats why many
102 BoeingVista : I thought that at 80m rotation angle becomes a problem for the 777.
103 OldAeroGuy : With a lower wing loading, maybe not.
104 Post contains links LAXDESI : Boeing's website shows the following marketing configuration for 77W: 386 seats(3 class marketing with 4- abreast F, 7-abreast J, 10-abreast Y) 22F,
105 sweair : Seat width, how many passengers aside from people at Airliners.net notice the seat width? IMO the ticket fare is the no 1 priority for most travellers
106 ricknroll : I see what you did there. You compared a 777-9X with a maxed out seating to an A380 without the maxed out seating. The price conscious market has yet
107 sweair : Well maybe its easier to fill a 777-9X than filling a A380? There will still be about 80-100 seats more to fill in a not maxed out A380. Filling over
108 slinky09 : I heard plenty of complaints by people when NZ reconfigured their 777s, in both Y and PE although NZ then subsequently only reconfigured PE to take o
109 Daysleeper : Which is only relevant when comparing operating costs, not CASM as he was. The great thing with the A380 is that it doesn't need the same load as the
110 ricknroll : Not that I know of. I know that they had capacity problems with the 747, in that it couldn't handle the load. The A380 has been good for Australia. T
111 JerseyFlyer : Just like in BA now with 9Y and 8Y+ in its 777s, only a bit tighter all round.
112 JerseyFlyer : Interesting. Maybe with a paper de-rate. But if the "regional specialist" segment gets stronger due to high fuel costs, their potential answer is a "
113 rheinwaldner : Correct, I have heard that before. I agree that airlines have not much incentive to operate larger aircraft, that don't offer notable cost per seat a
114 deltadc9 : We should not forget that Boeing built the outboard portion of the B-2 stealth bomber wing, which is a composite structure. They also built the wings
115 sweair : Are you serious really? So there is only room for 1 OEM in the 777 market? I think the 777 will live on for much longer than the A351 EIS. There is p
116 Post contains images Stitch : Essentially make it's own version of the 787-10 to compete with the 787-10.
117 flipdewaf : I think what Rheinwaldner is trying to say is that there is a large 350 seat market (as seen byt he sales of the 77W over the last few years but if t
118 Post contains links travelhound : Boeing also claims the new 748i has similar CASM to the current 77W. If the A380 is 7% more efficient (CASM) than the 748i and the 777X is 16% more e
119 abba : Certainly not - and we must also add to this that the time a Y3 will be in development might very well coincide with the time the NEO and MAX need re
120 Post contains images EPA001 : Every manufacturer can claim what it wants. The market speaks for itself. And to compare numbers of a proposed airplane of which not even key facts a
121 Daysleeper : When quoting figures such as these it Is worth bearing in mind the different seating density’s the OEMs use when calculating figures. For example,
122 bikerthai : Or they are waiting 'till after they get a multi-year contract with their Engineering Union to make sure there is no disruption during the developmen
123 sweair : The good stuff from the JSF could end up in a Y3, CFRP built with carbon nanotubes and out of autoclave hardening. Sometimes it could pay to delay if
124 Post contains images cosmofly : I was using only SQ configurations of A380 and 77W as reference. May be I should have used KE A380 and EK 77W reference and blow the A380 out of the
125 Roseflyer : You bring up a very good point. Both Airbus and Boeing cheat with numbers in many ways when they compare their models. For that reason, I don’t rea
126 bikerthai : You'll have to see the technology incorporated on a smaller scale before you see it on a larger scale of Y3. The fiber placement material and fabrica
127 XT6Wagon : You accuse others of lying with numbers, then do it yourself in epic fashion. The 748i has the same 8F seats. Its missing 6C class seats with 92 vs 9
128 Post contains images sweair : With 362 seats that leaves room for cargo revenue in the 748 that the 525 seat A380 gives up for passenger bags.. There are many ways to make a buck y
129 EPA001 : Except these business class seats take away quite some usable weight out of the MTOW pie. Since they weigh so much, the full cargo hold potential is
130 sweair : So you have the LH figures to show for this opinion?
131 Daysleeper : First of all, I would appreciate you pointing out to me where I accused others of lying - I simply stated that it is worth bearing in mind that OEM
132 Roseflyer : That’s a common A.net myth. In practical terms, a premium biased configuration airplane always has more cargo volume and payload available unless t
133 KarelXWB : I agree but you're forgetting one thing: the A380 has room for improvements, like a stretched fuselage and/or new/upgraded engines. Airbus could rela
134 XT6Wagon : You seem to think a A380 has the same trip cost as a 748i, when it doesn't. Those extra passengers are not free. Again, the A380 isn't selling planes
135 Post contains images Daysleeper : This is going to drag this thread off topic so I'll make this short and sweet. My interpretation of what your saying is that Airlines make money from
136 Stitch : The extra 6t of payload Boeing has found should more than cover the extra weight of those seats, I would think.
137 davs5032 : Are you kidding me? You completely avoided my assertion. I challenge you to show me an example of any single poster on here saying that the A35J will
138 rheinwaldner : Great idea. How would you describe the situation when the 77W ruled alone that market? You see, the number of succesful competing aircraft does not d
139 Post contains images CXB77L : Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did design freeze happen on the A350-1000? I would imagine that at least a portion of CX's A350-1000s will be "pape
140 rheinwaldner : So the 77W market was too small for both manufacturers? What a nonsense to believe that e.g. the A346 just lacked "the room" to sell better. Forget t
141 CXB77L : I didn't disagree that product performance plays a part, what I said was that availability is also important. I also believe that unlike the 77W agai
142 EPA001 : Well, this writing off based on absolutely nothing other then innuendo started even earlier, and was and is done out here a lot more when the A350-10
143 rheinwaldner : Correct but this has nothing to do whether compared aircraft is from the competition or not. Because the 77W is a much more valid base point for a lo
144 CXB77L : Yes, I have seen that too, but that's not the point I'm making. While I don't agree with the assertion that the A350 will be a flop, I also think tha
145 rheinwaldner : Common, these are comparisons between the same type.
146 flipdewaf : How does the seating density of a 365 seat 77W compare to the seating density of a 407 seat 779X? Fred
147 Stitch : The 777-300ER is at 9-abreast vs. 10-abreast in the 777-9X.
148 Post contains links LAXDESI : The latest Boeing marketing literature shows 777-300ER at 386 seats with the following layout: 3 class 4- abreast F, 7-abreast J, 10-abreast Y (22F,
149 Stitch : The May 2011 ACAP shows 368 seats with the following layout: 3 Class 6-abreast F, 7-abreast J, 9-abreast Y (22F | 70J | 276Y)
150 BMI727 : How many of those airlines would be willing to give up seats to replace 77Ws with A350s before the early 2020s? Emirates apparently isn't. There's go
151 KarelXWB : Not the entire fleet of course, but EK is already seeking a replacement for the oldest 77W's by 2017.
152 BMI727 : They've already said that the A350-1000 is basically a super 777-200ER to them. If Boeing doesn't have a 777X by that time, which they probably won't
153 KarelXWB : I'm not entirely sure about that but we will see by then.
154 ricknroll : I think the problem that Boeing is debating right now is not how good can it be, but how much ROI do they get for it. The interesting information is
155 EPA001 : Which is funny since the A350-1000 can do virtually everything what the B77W can, and does it presumably with 25% less fuel burn. But what the A350-1
156 sweair : No the thing is the A350-1000 is a reduction in EKs eyes, a reduction of capacity (10 across) in the 77W. The A350-1000 is not a perfect 1:1 replacem
157 BMI727 : Except carry ten seats per row in coach. Not if they want those extra seats. Of course airlines needing extra seats is a big part of the appeal for a
158 Roseflyer : The polishing is completely different. Boeing is comparing models based on their same set of assumptions. It’s an apples to apples comparison. Airb
159 KarelXWB : I'm sure EK has some 77W routes which can be replaced by the A350-1000 because they don't need all the seats. Or do you believe that all 77W's are 10
160 KarelXWB : +1 Every airline has other variables. Only they can calculate the best frame for their routes.
161 BMI727 : There are some. Probably not enough to warrant Boeing building a 777X to keep 777 orders from completely drying up. If they weren't close to filled t
162 Post contains images KarelXWB : I agree. Like said, I don't think that EK should replace the entire 77W fleet by the new A351. And besides that: I believe Boeing will build the 777X
163 rheinwaldner : When I said that the 77X will not close the effiency gap I have considered the lack of accuracy of these comparisons already. The delta is so large t
164 par13del : Key for this one is the range, there are smaller a/c that have the range of the 777W, so if the capacity is not needed why fly the larger a/c? To som
165 astuteman : If it's so much about money and nothing else, maybe one day we'll all be flying around in 10-across A350's...... And Boeing are whiter than white of
166 sweair : Are you really that surprised? Seems like finances is the only thing airlines care about today, half of them fighting for their life. A global financ
167 Post contains images par13del : Well, earlier in the same post he did state the comment below, either he is confused or being fair to both sides
168 Stitch : It is 37 per a 2008 statement from EK VP-Route and Fleet Planning Richard Jewsbury [77W = 354 / A35J = 317].
169 sweair : Wow that certainly makes a difference, as everyone is talking about 350 seats in the A350.. EK wouldn't be the most generous with space either..only
170 KarelXWB : I'm not following, the Airbus website says 350 seats? 317 seats sounds like the A350-900.
171 ncfc99 : If the EK 77W fleet consistantly runs at 90%+ LF, the 77X makes alot of sense over the 35J. However, given the overall EK fleet size, they could easi
172 sweair : You know LH puts 368 seats on the 748 and Boeing markets 460 seats..
173 KarelXWB : I see what you mean now. The 77W has a standard layout of 386 seats and EK only uses 358 of them. They would apply the same to the A351.
174 sweair : With the X model EK could put closer to 380 seats in the 777, but only 317 seats in a A351, that must be wrong somewhere? 330 seats maybe?
175 Stitch : The A350's narrower cabin means Emirates must remove 1 seat per row in both Business Class and Economy Class compared to the 777-300ER. This works ou
176 Daysleeper : It might not be spacious, but the A350 CAN do 10 across in Y, and as the cabins are almost exactly the same length then it can accommodate just as ma
177 sweair : I now understand what EK was complaining about, your post makes it quite clear. The 777-X would only add to EKs liking I guess.
178 LAXDESI : I think the breakdown is 6J and 31Y additional seats for B77W over A350-1000 in EK layout--assuming A350-1000 layout with 6-abreast J and 9-abreast Y
179 EPA001 : I never said that. That is what you make of it. Which are two very different things. No, EK was not complaining about that. They knew that when they
180 BMI727 : The A330 will offer about 23.1 inches per seat with nine across (I'll lump aisles in for this since they should be about equivalent), while a 767 wit
181 ncfc99 : Firstly LAXDESI, I enjoy reading your cost/revenue comparison post so please keep up the good work. its educated this intersted ametuer on costs invo
182 LAXDESI : In the comparative analysis, I assume the smaller aircraft(A351) has 100% LF, and the larger aircraft(b777-9X) can sell 70% of the additional capacit
183 Post contains images Stitch : The 777 offers about 1cm more per seat in 10-abreast than the A330 does at 9-abreast. Considering how a number of folks on this forum have noted the
184 TP313 : So that supposes an effective LF of about 95% for the 777-9X? Or am I wrong?
185 LAXDESI : It does assume a very high LF(about 90%) relative to 317 seat A350-1000 in EK configuration. Most routes do not approach LFs anywhere near the above
186 TP313 : Well using your fuel burn and passenger revenue estimates, I calculated that the 777-9X needs to sit about 15 more passengers to be on a par to a 350
187 Post contains links ferpe : Given what happened on the 320neo vs 737 what can drive B to not wait until 2020 or even later with the 777X would be some major customers voting with
188 Post contains links ferpe : Re post 187 his is the thread that is recommended to go on: United Replacing B747 By A350-1000? (by AF185 Oct 31 2012 in Civil Aviation)
189 sweair : But for EK it is a huge difference, 317 vs 360+ seats in the A350 vs 777-9X, I never looked at how a typical customer layout would be in real life. Ma
190 KarelXWB : Of course, Tim Clark already said that EK has a great interest in the 777X. But that was not the point, the point was that there will be no 777X avai
191 ricknroll : The existing size of the 77W is suitable for airlines just as it is, why make it bigger if there is no need to make it bigger. The 777-8X is supposed
192 Post contains images astuteman : No. What I am surprised at is that people really see it as digital as that. And considering how many dismiss it as unnoticeable, maybe 10-abreast in
193 ferpe : Of course then can replace the 77W on the thinner routes and EK shifting newer 77W onto those with higher loadfactors. The problem for Boeing is that
194 Post contains links KarelXWB : That's indeed the real life story. I also think that many A350-900's will have less than 300 seats. I'm a little bit confused about the A351 seat cou
195 XT6Wagon : In a charter class configuration perhaps. The 777 of today "cheats" to get 10Y and its wider inside. I've personaly said from the time the XWB width
196 rheinwaldner : Airbus called it COC per seat. Cash operating cost. Published on the respective slide from the beginning...
197 scbriml : Well, the physical dimensions are not going to change and there's only so much room for maneuver in terms of galley and toilet positioning, so I don'
198 su184 : I think Boeing should be more prepared this time and not make the same U-turn they did with 737MAX, after months of denial and publicity that they'll
199 flipdewaf : From what I remember from university, airbus used COCs (Cash Operating Costs) and DOCs (Direct Operating Costs) COCs are what is required to run the
200 Roseflyer : I haven't seen Boeing publishing numbers on how much better than 777x or 77W is over the A350. If you have seen them, I'll gladly poke holes in that
201 Areopagus : It's because of the curvature of the A330's cabin walls. The first time I flew in an A330, I rode in a center-block seat, wishing I could have a wind
202 rheinwaldner : I takes a healthy portion of bias not to believe that the A351 could beat the 77W by more than 16%... If the A351 would achieve less than that Airbus
203 7BOEING7 : Back in 1995 at the Dubai Airshow Boeing had a mock up of a A330 sidewall and overhead on the 777 that was on static display showing both the vertica
204 Post contains links ricknroll : People keep talking about the technical aspects, but keep ignoring the Boeing internal financial and political aspects of this issue. http://seattleti
205 Stitch : There should be no financial constraints for Boeing to undertake the 737 MAX, 787-10 and 777X at the same time. They're going to deliver over 1000 ai
206 ricknroll : Financial constraints such as this. "After a period when Boeing overspent by billions of dollars on the much-troubled 787 Dreamliner program, Wall Str
207 BMI727 : My suspicion is that they've looked at the easy stuff they thought the 777X would entail for entry into service later this decade and have started to
208 7BOEING7 : First 600 is closer to the actual numbr and 50 of those (787's) they won't make any money on. I think they were just hoping to break even and prevent
209 sunrisevalley : What do they have to complain about ! A dividend of 2.4% at a 30% payout ratio. Clearly cash is being conserved. Stock price up 12% for the year. Giv
210 AngMoh : I thought the number is closer to 525? The 737 and 777 are cash cows, but the 748 and 787 are still losing money. One the other hand, the 737 Max is
211 ricknroll : But they will be getting cash. The 787 costs are already sunk, they won't be shutting the line down, but they will get a lot more cash from the progr
212 AngMoh : The 787 is still net negative: - It still cost more to manufacture than what they are sold for - Money coming in today is still used for cost of sale
213 StickShaker : There's your financial constraint - the Board of Directors. After the appalling execution of the 787 program and the flawed strategy of the 748 progr
214 7BOEING7 : Time will tell--check back in 15 yearss.
215 rheinwaldner : Good post! I agree with everything and want just make a remark about this sentence. What your write might probobaly not something easy to achieve bec
216 sweair : The 748 will return its cost with time as a freighter, as there is no real competitor this is a sure deal for B, but the Russian engineering caused it
217 Post contains images CXB77L : That's one way of looking at it. Alternatively, instead of letting 777 sales slow to a dwindle sometime in the next decade, why not design an update
218 Roseflyer : Sonic Cruiser.
219 Stitch : I guess it depends on how you define "rejected". The BoD never granted Authority to Offer to a number of projects that had advanced to the stage wher
220 cosmofly : Sonic cruiser? If it is only in par with 351, customers may still move towards the CFRP A350 for other advantages reasons. Major 77W users CX and SQ
221 astuteman : It may well, be, but it IS representative of the respective cabin sizes.... All that that shows is that Boeing's 777-300ER standard configuration is
222 ricknroll : I don't see how that could be possible, if you look at the time it will take to bring the MAX to market, with it's much smaller scope for change. The
223 Stitch : That does sound like it might have been a reason. If he pushed the CEO and/or BoD too hard... Shades of Scott Forstall at Apple, perhaps...[Edited 20
224 ferpe : It could be, it could also be the other way around. Albaugh was brought in from defence to clean out a mess that was ultimately created from a to con
225 StickShaker : 2012 - NSA 1970's - 747 trijet 1970's - 727-300 1980's - 767 Hunchback of Mukilteo I don't know if these all got as far as being presented to the Boa
226 ricknroll : Interesting.
227 BMI727 : Because such an update might sell decently enough, but not be particularly competitive compared to the A350. I'd envision a 777X as maybe making airl
228 CXB77L : Thanks for that. That would be my definition of a rejection as well. Alternatively, the extra capacity offered by the 777-9X might make it more attra
229 sweair : But if the 787-10 could be beefed up some in MTOW to add range wouldn't this be a good 772/ER replacement? It would only need some 7200-500nm range re
230 ricknroll : If you "save" a model, that means it's harder to justify the one left. You are instantly selling less of these planes, and they will be very expensiv
231 StickShaker : In terms of NPV it is not allways that simple - a basic low cost upgrade may yield more profit despite the lower sales volumes. As you increase your
232 rheinwaldner : The Boeing 7J7 was also pushed forward with much confidence, just like the 77X today... Will you remember them the day the 787 will grow into a 350 s
233 sweair : So you honestly think Boeing would give up the 777 for a 787? Hey they have a perfect weapon in the 777, the 787 and A350 being 9 Y cabins. Doing a 1
234 Stitch : The 787-9 is Boeing's replacement for the 777-200 and 777-200ER. The MD-95 had already been given ATO by McD's board and had orders when Boeing took
235 StickShaker : Back around 2007 (before the 787 program fell in a hole) Boeing were considering a long haul HGW version of the 787-10 with upgraded wings, engines a
236 sweair : IMO the 787-10 HGW would only need higher MTOW so it could take on more fuel for above 7000nm range. Nut if the current 10 is maxed out on MTOW this m
237 travelhound : The 787-11 and 787-12 would make the industry that sits behind the 777 redundant. Considering Boeing are still investing in the 777 line I suspect th
238 sweair : But how would a new alloy like Al-Li impact? New tooling needed? The wings would have to be made in state? Modernization ahead of the Y3 perhaps, it
239 LAXDESI : FWIW, for equivalent capability, my calculations suggest that 9-abreast platforms are more efficient upto 370-380 seats(3 class marketing). 10-abreas
240 sweair : Hence my idea of keeping the current 77W as it is, but upgrade it as planned, it will have the 10Y to fight the competitors (787/A350), does it reall
241 LAXDESI : I expect to see one longer 777X model than 77W. How about 777-9X(78-80m, 8000nm) and 777-8X(77W length of 74m, 8500nm).
242 LAXDESI : 77W length 777-9X(CFRP wings, new engines, internal widening) in EK configuration(358 seats) easily beats the A351(317 seats) in net operating revenu
243 sunrisevalley : I had noticed that too; a change from 2x daily of one 77W and one 77L. This seems to go through to the middle of 2013 The 77W takes over before Chris
244 BMI727 : ...but if they need the capacity, they'll keep buying the 777 more or less as is for a longer time, so Boeing would have room to keep that production
245 morrisond : Boeing has a 10+ year development gap from 2016ish to 737 replacement in the mid/late 2020's, it would be much wiser to spend it on 777/748i replaceme
246 Post contains images morrisond : And before anyone says they don't have the resources to do the above - a 777NEO would need minimal Boeing resources let GE keep the exclusive but they
247 cosmofly : It depends on what the 777-9X really is. The topic is a post 2020 version and we assume an all new CFRP wing and stretch and I am not sure it is any
248 StickShaker : Thanks for that LAXDESI - much needed technical input at this stage. In terms of creating a long haul aircraft in the 320-350 seat market I think the
249 rheinwaldner : Agreed, I am on your side regarding A350 vs A380. But let´s say it would around 18%-20% vs the 77W. In that case it would still be better than the 7
250 Post contains links sweair : Brave last words? Who is this guy and is he usually this blunt? http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com/2012/11/05/a350-1000-777x/
251 morrisond : I would agree as well, I think it was Kessje who pointed out in another thread that if they did bump 781 to 270 tonnes the only significant technologi
252 flipdewaf : Interesting, the only story on this entire website is this one. Maybe it's some disgruntled A.net fanboy? Fred
253 LAXDESI : Leeham is reporting that Boeing presented ideas for 777-8X(350 seats), 777-8LX(LR version), and 777-9X(8,500nm, 407 seats) at the recently held custom
254 sunrisevalley : The 789 gear required Boeing to increase the upper clearance in the landing gear bay. Not sure how much further they can go. The 789 gear is 10" wide
255 Post contains images scbriml : Saj Ahmad? He's an impartial, expert analyst. No, he's just the biggest Airbus hater on the internet.
256 morrisond : Interesting - what was the original Max TOW of the 789? I wonder if the 10" wider gear gives them the ability to go to 270 Tonnes and not exceed pave
257 sunrisevalley : where would they find room for th The 788 gear is good for its 227t MTOW but clearly cannot make it to the 789's 251t. If my memory is right about 25
258 sweair : Looking at body fairings Airbus has these huge bulges and Boeing seems to like their a lot smaller, is this from the different gear size goals? Even t
259 Post contains links tarheelwings : According to this article, Boeing is almost certain to offer folding wingtips on the 777x http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019614451_
260 Stitch : At launch, the 7E7-9 MTOW was 227t (what the 787-8's MTOW is today). It was raised to 245t in 2006 (mostly due to customer request, who wanted better
261 ricknroll : I think that was always the case. The article to me seems to be more a strategic leak by the engineers to keep the pressure on the board to keep the
262 Post contains links StickShaker : An article in Reuters suggesting at least a years delay before launching the 777X program. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-boeing-777x-idUSBRE
263 ricknroll : Again, they mention the internal political struggle between the "engineers" and the money men.
264 Post contains links NYC777 : Nope, according this article, launch is expected around 2014: http://www.strategicaeroresearch.com...2/09/19/boeing-sharpens-777x-path/
265 KarelXWB : That is not a reliable source.
266 Post contains images EPA001 : I also would trust a report from Reuters much much more then anything what is reported on strategicaeroresearch.com.
267 Post contains links Stitch : Well 2014 would be a "year's delay" as many thought 2013 was the expected launch date. In other news, Boeing is now formally talking to airlines about
268 Post contains links CXB77L : Granted. I agree with that, but I would use that argument to support the development of a heavily revised 777X over an all new aircraft, because I do
269 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not not sure how that's possible. The opportunity existed right up until the time that Boeing committed to the MAX. And the reason they did that
270 scbriml : You do know about the 737MAX, don't you? And why "hopefully"?
271 rheinwaldner : The lesson learned from the 748i teaches us that this is not the "new sweet spot". It rather seems to be the most bitter spot in the landscape...
272 Post contains images CXB77L : They can still do the NSA. I've always envisaged the 737MAX as a short term solution, and the final update for the long-serving 737 family. Boeing we
273 Cerecl : I think one can be reasonably sure that A32X NG will launch shortly after NSA if Boeing does pull the trigger first. Plus, if past experience is any
274 scbriml : Having U-turned on the MAX, I don't see Boeing doing anything other than milking the 737 cow for all that it's worth (as they should). The only way I
275 Post contains images EPA001 : Lovely response. . I agree. With Boeing following the move Airbus has made in the NB-market, just as John Leahy predicted publicly several times, bot
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...
Boeing 64% Discount To WN For MAX. Wow! posted Fri May 18 2012 10:22:59 by ebbuk
Boeing Sends Proposals To 25 Airlines For The 748 posted Sun May 6 2012 05:17:58 by oykie
Boeing 787 N787BX To Shannon posted Sun Apr 1 2012 01:59:10 by airsmiles
FT: Boeing Offers 500m To AI Re: 787 Delay posted Wed Mar 14 2012 11:13:57 by yeogeo
1000th Boeing 777 - Construction To Start Shortly posted Fri Dec 23 2011 14:08:41 by BMIFlyer
GLG: Boeing Narrow Body To Slide To 25% Markt Shae posted Wed Sep 1 2010 21:17:46 by cosmofly
Boeing 787-8 Limited To 250 Seats posted Thu Jul 22 2010 05:51:13 by 328JET
KLM663 Boeing 737 Amsterdam To Houston posted Sun Jan 31 2010 20:50:20 by TrnsWrld
Boeing 767 NG To Fill 787-3/767 Gap <5000NM posted Tue Jan 12 2010 02:23:37 by Keesje
Boeing 787 Good To Go For First Flight. posted Thu Dec 10 2009 17:15:16 by NYC777