Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year  
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12594 posts, RR: 34
Posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 21663 times:

Per ATW news (subscription required for full article):

http://atwonline.com/airframes/boein...ely-soon-777x-launch-possible-year

Jim McNerney says that the 787-10 launch will be soon; not much of a surprise there, clearly the 787's team have been busy with other matters for the past few months! It will be a relief to see the 787-10 being launched; I can't remember a variant that has been so much talked about, but not yet launched (well, apart from the A380-900!).

Have the final specs (specifically length) been announced for the -10?

The fact that the 777X launch is only "possible" this year is a bit of a surprise - to me, anyway. I appreciate that launching two major projects in one year is a big challenge, but I had understood that EK is pretty much ready to go and would probably like to announce the launch at this year's Dubai air show.

Presumably we will get more flesh on both of these two stories at the Paris Air Show.

63 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 21128 times:

"soon", "imminent", "possibly"... how many times have we heard this?

Slow news day in the US?


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1911 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 21072 times:

I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.


Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlineflyglobal From Germany, joined Mar 2008, 608 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 20852 times:

Interesting the comment at this stage. First all have been waiting for the 787-10 launch.
Then recently it seemed that the 777x will come through even more soon.

While I have no doubt that the 787-10 was always more ready for launch, I read this step back (in my eyes), that the airlines are still not in agreement about the 777x spec, namely probably an interest conflict between Emirates (the more long range the better - that's why we may read about the 230 plane option) and other (European) customers, who are satisfied with 'reasonable' long haul capability.

Regards

Flyglobal


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 20696 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.

I think it's best to say who ISN'T going to order it, or rather, how many frames EK, BA, and LH will order   

What about DL ordering a replacement for the 744 or 772?



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinefcogafa From United Kingdom, joined May 2008, 884 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 20282 times:

Flightglobal is suggesting that a production increase will be required for the -10. The chief exec is quoted as saying

One thing we don't lack for with the -10X is demand," McNerney says. "Customers want this airplane.


Where would this fit in with BAW's recent acquisitions?


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12594 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20096 times:

The 787-10 would seem to be a good 772/772ER replacement for BA and others.

Incidentally, does anyone know if Boeing has defined the length of the 777-9X yet? I've heard that the -8X will be around (exactly? shorter? longer?) 77W size, but the -9X will be a good bit longer; will Boeing try to bring it as close to the 80m mark as it can? It would appear to me, a lowly enthuasist buying considerably fewer 777s than Emirates, that if they're going to lengthen it, they might as well get as much bang for their buck and push it as close to the 80m as possible.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 20002 times:

The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 759 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 19782 times:

Boeing have recently stated that their current efforts re the 777X are focused upon "getting the business case where we want it to be".
I interpret this as balancing the massive R&D costs of the 777X program against projected sales revenues to deliver a ROI that meets corporate hurdle rates. This does not necessarily imply a conflict over specifications - that could be occuring as a separate issue anyway.
Having such a massive R&D component makes it a much harder decision - much harder than the original decision to launch the 77W/77L.

The market does have some justification to be confused as to just where the 777X has been heading over the past couple of years - there have been many conflicting signals.
Richard Aboulafia (a self confessed Boeing fan) gives an interesting insight into things here in his January newsletter. Its also worth reading this one regarding his comments about the A358 because those comments are equally relevant to the 777-8X - a model which can't be helping the overall business case of the 777X that much.
The non-optimised 8X is going to be surrounded by clean sheet optimised designs - if it could be made more competitive then the overall business case of the 777X program would be far more robust. At the moment it is the 9X that has to do all the heavy lifting to make the 777X case viable - thats an awful lot to ask of one single model to justify that massive R&D price tag.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-04-25 05:24:54]

[Edited 2013-04-25 05:25:32]

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31418 posts, RR: 85
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 19299 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kaitak (Reply 6):
Incidentally, does anyone know if Boeing has defined the length of the 777-9X yet?

Last I heard was 69.4m for the 777-8X and 76.5m for the 777-9X.

The 777-200 family is 63.7m and the 777-300 family is 73.9m, in comparison.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 19118 times:

The 77X is appear to be particularly risky, but Boeing management are going to be in a risk averse frame of mind for the immediate future. Also, as planes get larger, sales volumes shrink, even if the program is profitable. They will be seeing how the larger 748i and A380 programs are going, be keen to aim for something that will be popular enough to guarantee a decent profit in short period of time. The 77X will be a complex project, with new wings and other major development required.
In it's favor, it will have a market segment more or less to itself. The A350 will be too small, the A380 too big, the 748i irrelevant. Important customers are already indicating they are interested. However, it won't be able to rely on the 777X for scales of volume to help make the case for what will be a significant investment, and the 787-10 or even 11 will be available anyway.

So, IMHO, the 777-9X will go ahead, it will have a segment of the market largely to itself, it will be profitable, but it won't be the success the 77W was in terms of volume.


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 18826 times:

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):

Jim McNerney says that the 787-10 launch will be soon; not much of a surprise there

No surprise that he keeps saying it, this has to be the 30th imminent launch of the 787-10

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 2):
I smell launch order at Paris Air Show - BA, IB, Lufthansa perhaps? We shall see.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 4):
think it's best to say who ISN'T going to order it, or rather, how many frames EK, BA, and LH will order

If you care to look through the Anet archives people predicted launch orders for the 787-10 at Paris 2011.



BV
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 18311 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Reply 7):
The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

The 777X is neither risky nor expensive when compared with the other alternative - an all new aircraft. New aircraft programs are inherently risky and costly, as opposed to upgrades to existing platforms.

Based on the proposed specifications, the 777-9X is likely to be a very successful aircraft irrespective of the performance of the A350-1000. These two aircraft are different enough that they could operate alongside each other in the same fleet. The business case for the 777X program is solid, and as much as you wish it to be, it isn't "doomed". To so easily dismiss an aircraft before it has even been designed is pure shortsightedness.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet? Or do we have to wait until they launch it?

User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17989 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet? Or do we have to wait until they launch it?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31418 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 13):
Does anyone know the dimentions of the 787-10 yet?

Last reports are 68.5 to 69 meters in length with the same weights as the 787-9.


User currently offlinehannahpa From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 17294 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):

Wings? Same length too? Or longer? Originally, they were going to have the 787-9 wing at 209ft. Are they going to have that proposed wing for the 787-10?


User currently offlineBoeingVista From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 1584 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16888 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 12):
The 777X is neither risky nor expensive when compared with the other alternative - an all new aircraft. New aircraft programs are inherently risky and costly, as opposed to upgrades to existing platforms.

I think the wing mods make it much like the A340-5/600 program, Boeing may end up with a fair/good aircraft but also it may be outclassed by the new build A350. The 777-9X is also by all accounts very expensive. You can also look at the 747-8 for what happens when you increase wing size.



BV
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16516 times:

Quoting BoeingVista (Reply 18):

The 748 is a great aircraft and its wing is a significant improvement over the 744 wing. What's killing the 748 is the 77W...not its wing. The 77X will just be the final nail into the coffin.



What the...?
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 16327 times:

Quoting hannahpa (Reply 17):
Wings? Same length too? Or longer? Originally, they were going to have the 787-9 wing at 209ft. Are they going to have that proposed wing for the 787-10?

Same wing . MTOW only 3 to 4t more than 789 to achieve the 7100nm range at max passenger load.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5220 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day ago) and read 16220 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Last reports are 68.5 to 69 meters in length with the same weights as the 787-9.

If this refers to MEW it tends to confirm that B expect to bring in the 789 at a lighter weight than expected. The extra length should add about 6 to 7t to the MEW.


User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day ago) and read 15495 times:

Quoting na (Reply 7):

The 777X is a risky program, and very expensive. What if the A3510 overperforms and Airbus launches the A380-900 with unbeatable CASM before the 777X even flies? Then the third 777 generation is doomed, at least its success and lifecycle rather limited. It could become the A340-600 of the 2020s.

It's not *that* risky given it's a redesign based on a highly successful 777, and it's expensive, but only because (needed) improvements are being made to make it more competitive with the A35J. Also, the risks you've associated with A35J and A389 over-performance are highly overstated, as the 77X will be launched (likely with a massive order by EK) and will accumulate enough other orders from current 777 customers to build a significant order book far before it, or the A35J, flies, therefore there's no way competitor over-performance could "doom" the 77X. Customers will be willing to commit to it early on due to the positive experiences and reputation of the 777 on which the redesign is based.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 8):
The market does have some justification to be confused as to just where the 777X has been heading over the past couple of years - there have been many conflicting signals.
Richard Aboulafia (a self confessed Boeing fan) gives an interesting insight into things here in his January newsletter. Its also worth reading this one regarding his comments about the A358 because those comments are equally relevant to the 777-8X - a model which can't be helping the overall business case of the 777X that much.
The non-optimised 8X is going to be surrounded by clean sheet optimised designs - if it could be made more competitive then the overall business case of the 777X program would be far more robust. At the moment it is the 9X that has to do all the heavy lifting to make the 777X case viable - thats an awful lot to ask of one single model to justify that massive R&D price tag.

I'll have to read the articles more in depth, but I just don't see the 778X's disadvantages as being anywhere near as pronounced as with the A358. Sure, the 778X, like the A358, will be a shrink, and this creates efficiency disadvantages, but you have to account for the fact that the 778X is being stretched by almost 6 meters over the 772. This will actually place it closer to the optimized 77W, than to the non-optimized 772 in terms of size.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 15290 times:

Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length ( so no new engineering needed on length) and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2360 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 23 hours ago) and read 15034 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 23):
Why even bother with the 778 at a new length? Make the 778 - 77W length ( so no new engineering needed on length) and stretch the 779 as close to 80M as possible.

Give the 778 8,500NMish range as a real 77W replacement and the 779 bigger size but less range. Very much like the 789/781 combo

I'd say they are better off taking the 77W/77L approach.


User currently offlineAtlflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 14774 times:

From the Boeing transcript on SeekingAlpha.com (which allows copying up to 400 words as long as they are sourced so this is not violating copyright laws):

Here is the best info directly from the source on their current thinking on the 777x:

W. James McNerney, Jr.

I think we have figured out by and large what airplane to build. We think we know and as you know as well because you know us well, the composite length modified fuselage new engines, okay. And so, the question there is, the question then becomes and we’re sort of in the middle of assessment now, where to assemble it and where to build the major components and we’re in the middle of that process. I mean, obviously, Everett is doing one heck of a job right now, building the current 777 model.


W. James McNerney, Jr.

Well, I think this will be a derivative airplane, a significant derivative airplane. The two new key technologies will be a composite wing, which will be a fourth generation composite wing for us. So this is an example of a game changing technology that we now have good experience with and now have matured and the second will be new engines on the airplane. And our discussions with customers have said that the range and efficiency that this engine wing combination will produce is significant in their minds. And that there’ll be a splitting of value between us and our customers that works for both of us, that’s those are the discussions we’re having right now. We have a lot of confidence that about the executability of this plane and the pricing we think, we can get that will benefit both us and our customers. So we’re pretty far down that evaluation and we’re excited about what we see.


W. James McNerney, Jr.

Composite wings are incredibly efficient as compared to aluminum wings, not only in the way, not only in the aero dynamics, but in the weight on them. And that plus the engines are producing over 90% of the value of this airplane. let me just leave it that way.

And the composite wing, the bigger of composite wing gets the more efficient it becomes and this is a big composite wing.

Thomas Black – Bloomberg News

Okay. And if I could just on the economic versus range some airlines want more range, others want more…

W. James McNerney, Jr.

And so we will have two models that have different capacities, so thick roots versus thinner roots. But range is something that within reason, they’re going to pay for. And that’s what the wing produces and that’s what the new engines produce.


25 davs5032 : You're probably right, but ultimately time will tell. By placing it where it's proposed to be, they gain some of the 77Ws CASM efficiency, while stil
26 YTZ : If the 778 can't be competitive with the 351 on CASM, there's no point offering it. Might as well offer the 778LX and sell that as an airplane with 7
27 davs5032 : Good points. I'm in full agreement that the 778 won't be competitive with the A35J, as you said, the 779 was always intended to go up against the A35
28 tortugamon : I would go one step further: Even with a competitive CASM, a 778 that enters the market 4 years after the 351 and has identical capacity would still
29 tortugamon : Other than LH and maybe UA and TK can anyone come up with another airline who would be very interested in the 351 before 2020 that hasn't already orde
30 BoeingVista : I can agree with all of this but the wing did add significant weight to the aircraft.
31 CXB77L : What made the A340-500 uncompetitive wasn't only the wings, but rather that it had two more engines than the 777. The 747-8's increase in wing size h
32 PHX787 : Ill probably put money on NH taking some frames along with maybe SQ.
33 Post contains links and images ferpe : There is clear evidence B are making sure the 777-9X has the payload-range to get EKs acceptance, B have not said it but Flightglobal talked with the
34 parapente : Reply 34. Seems a good analysis. Boeing have listened and changed. However the calculations only work if you have gone 17" x10 across and are already
35 Ronaldo747 : I see a 777-8F will rather be a 744F replacement like the today's 777F is a 742F replacement. The 777-8F will not have the 747-8F payload capacity.
36 Post contains images StickShaker : Yes but the wing and engines are optimised for the larger 777-9X rather than the 8X producing extra weight and drag. The degree of disadvantage impos
37 JerseyFlyer : A rather similar enhancement to the most recent iteration of the A350-1000 which appears to have worked out well.
38 tortugamon : NH - They do not operate Airbus wide body aircraft (I realize BA didn't either). Their 7 777-300s will have high cycles come late this decade but I t
39 CXB77L : Thanks for that, and I look forward to your updated analysis. I am however concerned about a heavier 777-9X burning more fuel than anticipated. I hop
40 scbriml : There's no "almost certain" about it. A significantly heavier plane WILL burn more fuel.
41 morrisond : What about Optimizing the wing for the 778 with the 778 at 77W length and give it a 8,500-9,000 NM range then stretching the 779 as much as possible w
42 tortugamon : This sounds completely reasonable to me. I really like it. A completely optimized 77W with new wings, engine. and all of the fixings. They know there
43 sweair : My guess is they will make the 777-9 and the 777-8L/F, same wings, engines etc As little differences as possible to keep costs down. Then enhance the
44 JoeCanuck : That makes the most sense to me. It's all about the -9 and whatever they can get out of the -8 will be bonus...and the -8 will never see the light of
45 sweair : The freighter and L will have a decent market combined, the non L would have very little market IMO. If they can find som more range in the 787-10 it
46 StickShaker : I agree - Boeing would have considered all available options and no doubt have good reasons for choosing their current 777X strategy. Nonetheless I s
47 PHX787 : I'm being an idiot here but let me make sure i'm on the right page- UC is undercarrage, right?
48 sunrisevalley : If it had been 2 or 3-years earlier it would have taken a number of 77E orders by virtue of its better efficiency above about 1500nm. It would have b
49 sweair : I think we can calculate the 77L+F as one sale? Its the same basic frame.
50 motorhussy : Yes, the AKL-YVR sector springs to mind. NZ longhaul should be 77W, 77L and 789 in my opinion.
51 tortugamon : This is a great point. I had thought the figure was 2000nm but the vast majority of 77E routes are longer than that anyway. Hard to believe when the
52 sunrisevalley : True , but its airframe efficiency and resultant fuel burn largely overcomes this extra weight.
53 Stitch : The 777-200LR was a bit of a chicken-and-egg model. Boeing sold it on the merits of range and most 77E operators didn't need that range so they didn't
54 davs5032 : It's understandable to question of optimizing the largest member of the family to the detriment of smaller members, but that strategy worked out just
55 CXB77L : I think part of what hindered the 77L sales was the fact that the 77W had so much better cost per seat. If the 77L and the 77E were launched at the s
56 rj777 : Supposedly today is Boeing's annual shareholders' meeting in Chicago. Will we see the launch of a 787-10 or 77X? Stay tuned!
57 sunrisevalley : Ferpes load/range tables do not support this assertion . Based on a common calculation methodology the -8X has ~ a 300nm range advantage , the fuel b
58 Post contains images ferpe : When seeing these figures we shall realize the different status of the projects, 35J is 2 years from EIS (we hope ) and -8X is still a rubber plane.
59 FriendlySkies : Wasn't part of the proposed study a thinner sidewall to improve seat width in a 10 abreast config?
60 pnwtraveler : Better and thinner insulation and a more efficient sidewall design was definitely mentioned. Whether this actually makes it into the aircraft or not
61 Post contains links tortugamon : Yes. By increasing the sidewalls by about 4" the seat widths could reach 17.4" in 10-abreast seating. However, I believe ferpe's point was that even
62 Post contains links ferpe : For those that like to understand more of the GE9X and it's latest adjustments I have now updated the GE9X Tech/Ops thread with the uprated engine vs
63 Post contains links ferpe : Ooops, that was the link to one of the tables (the one for the updated engine), here the link to the thread about the GE9X: GE9X Analysis (by ferpe Ma
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...
QR As The Launch 787-10 Customer? posted Tue Nov 13 2012 21:49:05 by rotating14
SIA Launch Customer Of The 787-10? posted Mon Oct 22 2012 09:21:07 by mffoda
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming Soon posted Fri Sep 28 2012 11:02:05 by WarpSpeed
EVA Interested In 787-10/777X posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:41:32 by kaitak
John Leahy Hints At A389 Launch This Year posted Thu Sep 22 2011 03:07:45 by 76er
Thai WB Order For 30 787/350 Due This Year posted Tue Nov 9 2010 16:37:32 by QFA787380
Air China And CX New Cargo JV To Launch This Year posted Thu Aug 27 2009 07:51:06 by OP3000
Why Didn't Boeing Launch The 787-10 With Others.? posted Wed Jun 4 2008 09:43:54 by EA772LR
PIA Planning To Launch Gatwick This Year posted Thu Mar 27 2008 10:09:24 by 777way
Well, It's Been A Year, Still No 787-10 posted Wed May 23 2007 10:54:33 by MCIGuy