Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?  
User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 31501 times:

Jon Ostrower Tweet: WSJ BREAKING: Boeing Board Of Directors Grants Authority To Offer 777X – Source

[Edited 2013-05-01 16:17:00]


[Edited 2013-05-01 16:17:38]

239 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8936 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 31384 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Lets hope so what "took them so long" ? BA ended ordering A350-1000 because it took them too long.

User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 31245 times:

I cant find anything other than this link where he says its gonna happen. Suggesting this claim is true, we should see EK and the likes of ordering it sooner than later.


User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 31120 times:

Follow up:

From https://twitter.com/jonostrower :
[No comment on BoD, but BA says: "We have begun to discuss additional technical, pricing and schedule details with customers regarding" 777X.]

followed by:

[Boeing says “The timing of a decision to launch [777X] will depend on market response during this next phase of our discussions."]

This does not sound like anything we do not already know other than Boeing seems to like this "soft authority to offer" similar to the 787-10.

If everyone is in agreement, lets have moderators take this thread down.

See this thread if anyone feels it has not already been talked about (trick question because it has):

787-10 Launch Soon; 777X "possible" This Year (by kaitak Apr 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)


User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 30939 times:

Scott Hamilton (Leeham News) and Dominic Gates (Seattle Times) are calling this official authority to offer:

-The Boeing board has given the green light for the Commercial Airplanes unit to offer its proposed new 777X widebody jet for sale.
-It means that Boeing’s sales people can go ahead and negotiate tentative deals.
-A formal launch of the program, which means a Boeing committment [Not my typo!] to production, will follow if deals with airlines are pinned down to the Boeing’s board’s satisfaction.
-In the past, Boeing has launched only a few months after management received authority to offer.



User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 30849 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Le Bourget is in roughly six weeks. There are lots of rooms there to have all the airlines that wish to sit down with Boeing and look at pretty mock ups of the 77X. I doubt there will be any firm orders since there's been no launch but I'm sure Boeing could put some info out there about MoUs or something to help build p.r. momentum.

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 30831 times:

Do we know what they will specifically be offering other than a name?

User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1980 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 30806 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 6):
Do we know what they will specifically be offering other than a name?

I suspect that is the subject of the current discussions with the airlines. Boeing looks at the MoUs at the end of the summer (for example) to see if there's enough interest to launch the 77X-8 and/or 8LR alongside the -9.

User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2494 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 30647 times:

WIth any luck they have Emirates wanting to pile drive the industry into the floor mat with the largest airplane order in history in Paris. Would be a nice counterpoint to the 787 saga. Announce the launch in Paris and then have Timbo walk on stage with a check for $25B.

User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 30490 times:

Jon has now added this:

"As far as the cabin goes, Mr. Bair says that Boeing is trying to figure out “what’s the next bold step beyond” the 787, which he notes will be 15-20 years old from its original concept by the time the 777X delivers to airlines. Those familiar with the company's thinking say that taller windows and 787-style dimmers are on the table."

What do you think these changes to the cabin could be? Other than the internal stretching and adding 787 windows what else would you guys like to see?

I would like to see an option for carriers regarding underutilized cargo holds that actually gets chosen this time. Some regional flights are not going to fill the ~46 LD3 positions and an option that puts the lavatories or galleys (or a downstairs disco and a rat pack pool haul with a hot tub) in the cargo hold would definitely be a change of pace. Tell me the new plane I fly in 10 years doesn't look exactly the same as what we have all been flying for the last 10.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 5):
Le Bourget is in roughly six weeks.

Yes it is. We could be getting the formal -10 launch at the airshow and they could informally pitch the 777X alongside as the -10 is as relevant to the 787 as it is to the 777. If all goes well maybe the 777X is launched in EK's backyard at the Dubai airshow in November.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 32279 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 30339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 1):
Lets hope so what "took them so long" ? BA ended ordering A350-1000 because it took them too long.

If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders, I am 110% sure IAG ordered the A350-1000 either because they don't want the 777X or they believe they do, but also want the A350(-1000).

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5508 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 30217 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders, I am 110% sure IAG ordered the A350-1000 either because they don't want the 777X or they believe they do, but also want the A350(-1000).

The BA part of IAG don't need more than ~ 15-hours of endurance. They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W. The caveat may be the need for a 4-class of about 350 seats. This is where the 777-9X could fit. But I don't see the need for the range that it offers.

User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 30090 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
If Boeing really is now starting to seriously negotiate orders

I don't know Stitch. Maybe this is your point but something tells me Boeing offered enough premature details on pricing to IAG to give them a good idea on what was a good deal from Airbus on the A351. If anything I think it gave them an idea of how many/few 351s to order but I think timing was an issue and Airbus was the only one that seemed able to deliver in a time horizon they needed.

I think this just gives them the ability to not have to be launch customer to get the planes they need when they need them and it will give them another couple years to make a decision one way or the other on the 777X or exercising A351/A380 options. A 351 purchase was less risky and gives them more flexibility. So I take option C: they chose not to make a decision and bought an insurance policy instead. But I think we agree it was Boeing's deal to lose and they at least lost most of it by waiting to launch.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
The BA part of IAG don't need more than ~ 15-hours of endurance.

Does IB need more range either? I cannot come up with a city more than 6knm from LHR/MAD that is worth flying to (EZE at 13.4 hours). Dozens of -10s I suspect.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12875 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 30064 times:

Presumably we should now find out the exact dimensions (and seat counts) of the new model?

I see that Boeing is saying that 787-size windows are now on the table; surely that's going to add a hell of a lot to design costs?

User currently offlinebaw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2034 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 29930 times:

I don't want to sound cynical, BUT

Hopefully, Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle and not build the 777-X the same in the same manner. Build the thing like the 777 is now built (I'm talking process) and things will be just fine.

If they had done that with the 787, I wonder if Boeing would be in the position it now finds itself...digging themselves out of a hole.


David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
User currently offlineflyabr From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 29044 times:

What about the authority to offer the 781???

User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1950 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 28653 times:

I have a feeling it won't take too long for a launch order to come out, seeing as how some airlines (EK for example) have been foaming at the mouth for it.

And if that's the case, we might see the 777X launch BEFORE the 787-10.

User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 28357 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 13):
Presumably we should now find out the exact dimensions (and seat counts) of the new model?

I believe we are still looking at a 353-seat, 69.55m 777-8X and a 407-seat, 76.48m 777-9X and an 8LX with 9500nm range all with a 71m wing even though when they asked me I told them to try to make each of them a little bigger.  
Quoting baw716 (Reply 14):
Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle

We all hope so. I am just not sure the 7E7 would have been launched if it had the 777 production model when they decided to launch it. At least the 787 has years to run to gain some upside. I am just as fearful of the 747-8i case study and having them try to make/sell an aircraft that is not remarkably more efficient than the model sized below it nor above it instead of just the model it is replacing. I think the 9x has the makings to be a a rock star.

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):
What about the authority to offer the 781???

I believe the sales team received that in the Fall.

Jon Ostrower quotes Mike Bair that 80-90% of the 777X's efficiency gains come from the new (4th generation) carbon fiber wing and GE engines (both bigger but lighter). Not sure I get how the 787 has three generations of wing technology in it? Also, I have a hard time understanding how a lighter possibly Al-Li fuselage and changes to the empennage are going to amount to more than 10% of the gains. Can these changes make >3% gain in fuel burn with a larger wetted area? Any, even uneducated, thoughts on either of these questions would be appreciated.


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2763 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 28294 times:

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):

What about the authority to offer the 781???

Supposedly was granted late last year. BA's recent order also supposedly includes -10's, pending formal launch.

From what I've heard, Boeing has put most public 787 developments on hold while the grounding/battery issues were resolved (not a good time to be putting out PR about a future development while your current offer is grounded). Also, per an interview last week, they're want to look at a potential production rate increase before they launch it (delivery dates would be part of any formal firm order).

If I were to make a prediction - we'll prolly be close to a formal 787-10 launch at Paris, while also hearing about tentative 777X launch orders then too. Formal 777X launch will then come at the end of the year (maybe Dubai, but prolly a few weeks after).



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently onlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3998 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27676 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W.

Do you think they will still fit in an 8-across Club World staggered seat in the smaller fuselage? Maybe a 7-across to preserve the 21.4" seat? That wouldn't be a big change to your figures though as Y, Y+, and F should not impacted.

A 10Y, 9Y+, 8ClubWorld, and 4F 777-9X should have 48 more seats or 292 vs ~340. IMO there is definitely room if the economics beat the 351, costs are competitive with the 388, customers are content with 10 abreast in Y, and its delivered without significant delay to plan. Lots of hurdles but they can do it for sure.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 14860 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 27580 times:

Quoting flyabr (Reply 15):
What about the authority to offer the 781???

October last year.

Close, but no cigar http://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 358 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 26624 times:

It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph


The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 26481 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
It looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph


I was hoping that the 777-8x would have the 2 versions that have been floating around here on A.net. As much as many on here will disagree with me, I can see, from a certain standpoint, the aim that Boeing has with the 8x being pitted against the 351. What worries me in the EIS for it. 2021 is too late in my humble opinion, assuming things go according to plan.

User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 1004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 26356 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 21):
t looks like just the 9X and 8LX will be offered in that order according to aviation week......5th paragraph

Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.

User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1973 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 26202 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 22):
What worries me in the EIS for it. 2021 is too late in my humble opinion, assuming things go according to plan.

2021 is an ideal EIS for many carriers, who use their 777s between North America and Asia (Delta, American, United). I'm sure advances in wing and engine technology, as well as usage of the advanced alloys pitched by Alcoa will make it at least on par, if not better, than A350-1000.

One thing is for sure - 777-8X will sell in far greater numbers than 777-200LR. Not everyone will need the 400-seater -9X will be.

Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
25 Post contains images rotating14 : You forgot Qantas in that mix.
26 Stitch : BA won't be able to fit Club World at 2+4+2 in an A350. The A350-1000's cabin is also only about a half-meter longer than the 777-300ER, so BA will e
27 Navion : This comment is already outdated as Boeing has brought or bought big parts of the chain "in house" on the 787. The well-performing partners are still
28 StickShaker : This is interesting - has the standard 8X been dropped ? Are there any other sources to confirm this ? Regards, StickShaker
29 JAAlbert : Love, love the proposal to increase window size! I think it makes a big difference. Any news on cabin width? I recall reading that Boeing was trying t
30 Post contains images KarelXWB : Was it ever official?
31 Bogi : "Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?" No, but certainly a plethora of words can explain what that is.
32 SEPilot : From what I have read the standard 8X offers absolutely no advantage over the A3510 (except a bit more weight capacity), and will burn more fuel. Why
33 YTZ : Makes sense. The 777-8X wouldn't really be all that competitive with the A350-1000.
34 KarelXWB : Also from Jon Ostrower on Twitter: This matches exactly what I said in some previous threads: there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor
35 morrisond : At what point do the economics on a A351 vs. 778LR cross? When does the extra revenue from extra Cargo on the 778 offset the extra fuel burn? I'm assu
36 zeke : What killed the A340-600 ???????????? it was not that ability to lift cargo..........
37 tortugamon : Agreed. Especially when they were already planning a range expanding 323 seat -10X. I had a hard time understanding the difference between the 8X and
38 KarelXWB : Correct, and that won't change much but the current generation ULH planes are also relatively small. The range of the LR (9400nm) combined with the a
39 BigJKU : I also would not be shocked if the 777 freighter in this incarnation was the basis for at least one run of USAF tankers (order to be in 3 groups) whe
40 sunrisevalley : To get into the ballpark , take a look at the 77L load/range chart and move the MZFW line up to ~230t and to the right by about 1000nm. so far as the
41 Post contains links and images KarelXWB :
42 Post contains links tortugamon : I ran across this quote from this Jefferies analyst Howard Rubel today in Bloomberg: "Our industry order estimates had factored about 200-250 launch o
43 Post contains links rotating14 : This might be wishful thinking but SAA could make a good candidate. Maybe the 8LX, the 9x, not so much. Also PR might be on the upper end of 20 or so
44 Stitch : Newspaper reports state that SAA have already decided on the A350.
45 StickShaker : No doubt that is what has killed it. The 8X had a very cool reception from airlines right from the start The 350 seat segment is not that small (the
46 BlueSky1976 : Boeing will not need to do this. 787-10 will be excellent aircraft for North America - Europe, North - South America, intra-Asia, as well as Europe -
47 Post contains links and images tortugamon : They were quoted saying: "It depends on the price. We are looking at the new Boeing 777X. We may buy 10 and, if it performs well, we'll exercise an o
48 Post contains images tortugamon : 747 didn't do too bad and if the -9 has the lowest seat cost of any commercial jet liner I think some carriers will find a home for it. tortugamon
49 KarelXWB : It's not that easy. For example, the A380 offers the lowest seat cost but is struggling for new orders due the weak market. The formula doesn't work
50 KarelXWB : Of course he says that. You know who Randy is? It's the same like Leahy would say "Airbus has the best products".
51 Post contains links aviaponcho : Hello guys, it's difficult to compare the 525 PAX typical PAX layout with other "typical" 3 classes layout. All other use 60 in for first, 39 for biz
52 StickShaker : Sorry guys - my section on the 787-10 was a bit messy and clumsy. I should have said that Boeing might consider a new larger model of the 787-10 with
53 Post contains images LH422 : I think he really means 3-5-3 seating in Y.
54 SEPilot : I do think there comes a point where more range does not improve a plane's overall appeal if it comes at the expense of efficiency at shorter ranges;
55 Post contains images KarelXWB : The 787-8 seat map gives you all the answers you need: World Traveller (economy) = 3:3:3 World Traveller Plus (premium economy) = 2:3:2 Club World (b
56 AngMoh : The 77W has virtually a monopoly over 10 hours, but when it is up to 7-8 hours and a WB is needed, the choice is still A333. Also to me, the 77W is a
57 SEPilot : What it appears to me is happening is that airlines want the most efficient aircraft for their routes in the smallest size possible. This works again
58 Post contains images bmacleod : Really hate to say it, but sounds like this is "nail-in-the-coffin" and for the 747-8I. Unless CA and other big market Asian carriers still see market
59 tortugamon : Its very easy to see a 400+seat figure and say that is too big and tough to fill. However I think it is important to remember that it is only 2.5 met
60 FlyingGoat : That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351, combined with the
61 JoeCanuck : Until specs are contractually guaranteed, they can promise whatever they want in press releases. I'm sure that he'll be right for some very specific
62 cv990coronado : Quoting FlyingGoat "That looks like a pretty good list to me, although I would probably remove JAL from the list and add DL. The recently ordered A351
63 Post contains links tortugamon : Sure. But for a company that has not even publicly stated the words '77X' and 'authority to offer' in the same sentence yet, it seemed out of place f
64 KarelXWB : MH said they want 1 manufacturer for their wide-body fleet to cut maintenance costs. Those 747 and 777 aircraft will be gone soon.
65 Post contains images EPA001 : That is news to me. . Which will be the risk for the B777-9X, just as the A380 is at (even more) risk. If you can fill them, they are the best high-c
66 Post contains images KarelXWB : I understand your point. As for myself, I don't believe in "objectivity" and "marketing guy" in once sentence
67 sweair : The 9X is a given model, the 8X/LX/F should be the one and same frame, only that the non L 8X would have a lower MTOW and less tankage? Maybe even der
68 Post contains images Stitch : I think what is going to matter more for the 777-9 is what her trip costs are compared to the A350-1000. If it's close, then those extra seats become
69 CXB77L : It might be too big for some airlines, but not all. The fact that there are already 777s configured with over 400 seats suggests to me that there is
70 Post contains images KarelXWB : And the overweight plus the fuel burn not being at spec are also not helping.[Edited 2013-05-04 07:03:06]
71 sunrisevalley : There are a number of carriers operating a significant fleet of 77W with spacious seating layouts significantly less than the standard 3-class 365 se
72 StickShaker : Agreed - the 9X is actually quite a subtle stretch over the 77W. It is Boeing's creative arithmetic that makes 407 seats sound a lot larger than 350
73 sunrisevalley : I don't see it as a marketing tactic which I define as taking some intangible and trying to make a tangible from it. 10 wide is a reality not an inta
74 Post contains links tortugamon : I collected data regarding seating on all 77Ws in the field and on order and have been sharing some of the highlights in a new thread: 777-300ER Deli
75 Post contains images scbriml : Just six weeks of patience will be rewarded.
76 StickShaker : The marketing tactic is one of taking the best case scenario (9 abreast 77W to 10 abreast 777-9X) and using that to represent the efficiency gains (2
77 RickNRoll : It's also going to be a significantly larger and more expensive. So the efficiency gain is really for a different plane, which is going to address a d
78 CXB77L : Define "significant". The 777-9X isn't that much bigger than the 777-300ER, being only 2.7m longer.
79 OldAeroGuy : Yes, it is a 20% fuel burn per pax gain when going from 9ab (773ER) to 10ab (779X). Except that the 773ER 9ab seating is 365, not 350. This is a abou
80 Post contains links StickShaker : Thanks Here's an interesting quote from an article on Reuters regarding the 777X program: ..... The cost of the 777X development has not been disclos
81 KarelXWB : He surely has a point but if Boeing does it right, the upgrades can extend the life of the 777 by another 20 years.[Edited 2013-05-06 01:41:27]
82 astuteman : Sorry. But unless you know several things, like the assumed seat count in both cases, the assumed capital outlay in both cases, and many, many other
83 StickShaker : Boeing have chosen this somewhat unusual and costly strategy for the 777X because it satisfies specific requirements in terms of realising significan
84 morrisond : I would be very surprised if they get 20 years out of it. They are being forced to significantly upgrade the 77W after only about 10. But that's okay
85 KarelXWB : To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond. IMO Boeing will first have to focus on the 737 successor and EIS it between 2027-2030 or so (I expe
86 JerseyFlyer : I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?
87 Post contains images scbriml : Well, BA's seat map for the 787 shows that as doing 2-4-2 for WT+ and 3-3-3 for WT, so it shouldn't be an issue for the wider A350 to do the same and
88 JerseyFlyer : The map in reply 55 shows 2:3:2 for WT+ in BA's 787 not 2:4:2.
89 Post contains images scbriml : It does. I may need to visit Specsavers. But I'm actually surprised that they're only doing seven across in WT+ when CW is also seven across.
90 waly777 : I seriously doubt it, there's a 12cm difference in cabin width between the 787 and 350 or 26cm between the 350 and 777 that currently has that config
91 morrisond : Yes the 737 replacement does need to be done for end of 2020's. Which is why it seems really silly to do 777X now and not do 777+ to get to early 202
92 StickShaker : I see the clean sheet 350 family being around for a good 30 to 40 years - same story for the 787 family. I don't see quite the same longevity for the
93 Post contains images CXB77L : Interesting article indeed. Thanks for sharing. I would agree with the article in that part of the reason for Boeing choosing to do the 777X is cost.
94 morrisond : Aren't they already talking about 777X costs as 60-70% of a cleansheet, even before launch. It's like renovating a house - at some point you realize
95 Stitch : I can't see Boeing launching the 777X if they believe they could get Y3 for twice as much. The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion,
96 morrisond : I'll be stunned if it's less than 60-70% and less than $7-8 Billion. The only real difference between Y3 and 777X is the barrel, nose section and tai
97 Stitch : Then Boeing should slap the GE-9X on the current 777 family, call it the 777 MAX, and move with a dual Y1 and Y3 launch in the late 2020s.
98 rj777 : Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if 777 MAX does become the official designation of it. After all the 777-X is only a code name.
99 tortugamon : I would think each individual airline will have a handle on most of those variables sometime between now and 2020 to determine if it has lower costs
100 KarelXWB : I thought the 787 was Y2 ? 40 years? Maybe as a freighter or tanker, but not as a passenger jet. The 767 is 30 years old now and will survive for ano
101 Post contains images astuteman : I think my real point is that airlines will evaluate the offerings specific to their own particular circumstances in the detailed technical briefs th
102 KarelXWB : "My A380s are cash-cows" - Tim Clark.
103 tortugamon : No disagreement here. I imagine it may have something to do with those additional 36 extra premium seats it can fly into slot restricted airports and
104 Post contains links Revelation : 787 shows they are pretty clever at finding space at PAE when they need it, sigh... As opposed to the non-legacy issues found when trying to bring 78
105 RickNRoll : If they feel an urgent need to improve CASM, the A380 has a lot of scope for doing just that. No one has felt the need to do so yet.
106 frmrCapCadet : I think airframe builders always feel an urgent need to lower CASM. Every 1% makes the plane more competitive.
107 RickNRoll : I'm talking about the owners. None have felt the need yet to do the equivalent of a 10 across 777 sardine can yet.
108 Post contains images KarelXWB : Correct, but that's only a matter of time. Last February, Leahy said that some customers were looking at 11 abreast on the A380. So who wants the midd
109 Post contains images aviaponcho : Basic 9 abreast DC10 and early 777 was 2+5+2, so it' no unknown territory !
110 behramjee : Can someone please reveal the final flying range stats of the B777-800X and B777-900X? I have only read of the B778X being 9500nm but nothing concrete
111 KarelXWB : Boeing hasn't released any specs yet.
112 Post contains images aviaponcho : Ferpe has some I think
113 Post contains images StickShaker : If all other constraints were equal then they probably wouldn't launch the 777X - but they are not. The other factors that are crucial are the timefr
114 Post contains images EPA001 : I could disagree with you for the sake of argument. . But I won't since you have written a very solid analysis in my opinion with which I can agree f
115 Post contains links Revelation : 737NG involved a new wing, new wingbox, new landing gear, a new tail, new avionics, new engines, new materials, new flight controls. The fuse was the
116 StickShaker : Thanks for that - more complex than I had given credit for. No CRFP wing though. Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ? Regards, S
117 morrisond : The other thing to remember is that in our Global world new airplane programs can be amortized over a lot more frames than previously assumed. The Siz
118 Post contains images Stitch : No reason. And yes, you are probably correct that we're looking at something closer to 10 billion dollars than 5. As a shareholder, I should probably
119 cv990coronado : quoting stitch "And yes, you are probably correct that we're looking at something closer to 10 billion dollars than 5. As a shareholder, I should prob
120 kaitak : This raises an interesting question; although we are currently only talking about an -8(L)X and -9X, could there be scope one day for a -1000 model,
121 Post contains images CXB77L : Do you have a source for that statement? Yes. Along with a fuselage stretch, those are the most likely parameters of the 777X program. There are many
122 Post contains links Revelation : More than a small amount of googling came up with this very interesting article from 1999: A Race Against Time -- Can The New 737S Dig Boeing Out Of
123 morrisond : I think the other thing that Boeing should keep in mind is that it seems like they have finally gotten a good handle on how to make lightweight Compos
124 wingman : The flip side of that saying is "He Who Dares Gets Gets His Ass Kicked". That's what practically happened with the 787. Then again it's a two way stre
125 Post contains links waly777 : Hmm, the B777 is currently the most profitable aircraft for Boeing from what i've been told in a recent Q&A session with a Boeing VP as well this
126 Post contains links Revelation : More than a small amount of googling came up with this very interesting article from 1999: A Race Against Time -- Can The New 737S Dig Boeing Out Of
127 Stitch : Boeing have stated that their current models show the 787-9 is below the weight they predicted. So looks like Boeing has pulled out about 7 tons of w
128 tortugamon : The 77X capital expenditure should be considerably larger than that due to the need to build the largest CFRP ovens ever constructed in order to brin
129 brons2 : Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?
130 sunrisevalley : So where do you think this puts the 788 as a benchmark when the 789 lighter parts are incorporated.. Better than the 117,7t shown in the ACAP sheets?
131 tortugamon : Besides the 747 every other wide body freighter was launched approximately 13-15 years after the EIS of the passenger version. I would imagine that B
132 RickNRoll : I don't doubt there is any risk about securing a few hundred sales of the 9X. The gamble at the moment is that the economy rebounds. Both Boeing and
133 Post contains images StickShaker : I didn't necessarily mean to imply that Boeing were taking the wrong path but one that is certainly unusual and unprecedented - and that their choice
134 packsonflight : There is no reason for Boeing to launch a new freighter when they already have all the freighter market anyway with the 7478F and the 777F, so they w
135 SEPilot : Except that the 777F as it exists now is based on the old wing and engines. I suspect Boeing will not want to produce (the wings, anyway) these while
136 sunrisevalley : The whole question of dedicated air freighters is an open one in my view. If there is any growth in the air freight market I suggest the operators of
137 Post contains images ferpe : Let's be clear on what I have and don't have. What I don't have is B or GE inside (in fact I don't need it and if I had it I could not use it). What
138 Revelation : Indeed it should. In earlier discussions some of our more knowledgeable members pointed out that BBD chose this combo wisely. CRFP is made thicker th
139 morrisond : Now an Al-LI 737 could be neat - how much weight would that save on the frame and what would it do to range? Would it near 757 range?
140 Post contains images CXB77L : Boeing are building the 777X as a cost effective way to compete with the A350. If they can build a competitive aircraft derived from an existing airf
141 zeke : So why is people like yourself stated black and blue that the original A350, which was a similar upgrade of the A330 to compete with a new wing and e
142 KarelXWB : There is a difference IMO. The 777X will use newer technology than what's today available on the A350; the newer technology will compensate for the he
143 CXB77L : Don't ask me, I wasn't on a.net back then. So do I. Its only downfall is its cabin cross section which cannot accommodate 9 across like the 787 can.
144 SEPilot : As one of the ones who was critical of the A330 upgrade, and felt that Airbus should make an all-new plane, I will admit that perhaps I was wrong. Th
145 tistpaa727 : I keep thinking back to those threads as well. Funny how things turn out. People were caught up in the excitement (and hype) of CFRP - not just here
146 zeke : What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ? You can go 9 across, and some airlines do, it has not stopped A330 sa
147 KarelXWB : Me neither. With the knowledge of today, the delays of new programs etc, I believe Airbus would think the same way. Newer generation engines and newe
148 zeke : Not exactly, the A350 engine was an improved, and higher thrust version of the 787 engine (like the 777 to 777X). The original A350 wing would have b
149 planesmart : Boeing's challenge will be persuading financiers that a major change to an existing model, is a good proposition. 747 iteration has not created confid
150 astuteman : I'd be surprised if the 777X is financed by anything other than Boeing's cashflow - i.e. I'm not sure why they would need to persuade "financiers". R
151 KarelXWB : Fair enough.
152 planesmart : If Boeing used cashflow to fund product development until project breakeven, how would they fund materials, labour and other expenses related to curr
153 Post contains images waly777 : An interesting picture comparing B777 sizes.
154 SEPilot : The A330 is still selling because it can be had in a reasonable time frame; but once 787 production catches up with the backlog this will change. Sim
155 JHwk : I thought the same of the 737Max decision... at first. Then you get into the whole logistics complexity and ultimately what the clean-sheet design ca
156 JoeCanuck : With A.net being such a repository of opinion, (which is not a bad thing), it's easy to forget that the 777x, MAX, the XWB, NEO, CSeries and other de
157 Post contains images StickShaker : Unfortunately that might be a bridge too far - they only have 3.5 meters to play with and even if that was feasible it wouldn't add much capacity. Th
158 sweair : My current take is do the 9X and the 8L/F 777, then go for a beefed up UC for the 787 that the 787-10 could use to replace the 777-8 non L model with.
159 Post contains images KarelXWB : Customers wants fuel efficient airplanes right now, not in the next decade. The huge A320neo and 737 Max backlog is the proof of this demand. I recal
160 SEPilot : It is not necessary to replace a given plane with an exact replacement; this has seldom happened in aviation. Generally, when manufacturers try to do
161 Mayohoo : It is likely in 10-15 years the major advances in efficiency will continue to be the engines. What would preclude the 777-9x from doing a neo? And in
162 Post contains links KarelXWB : Leeham News has an article about what needs to be done to keep the 777X assembly in the Washington State. http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2013...-plan
163 morrisond : The issue here is that they need a fuselage wider than 10, when you have a hard and fast restriction of 80M. In my opinion it seems really silly to b
164 Post contains images tistpaa727 : Maybe fore Boeing but for planespotters its a great success!
165 SEPilot : This is not as simple as it sounds. A pressurized vessel wants to be round, and keeping it from going there requires structure, and hence weight. The
166 morrisond : I get the part about it trying return to a circle and strucuturally it's a lot easier to hold something in tension - On a 12W Horizontal Oval - it mi
167 Post contains links JHwk : I'm no aeronautical engineer, but my understanding is you cannot cross more than 2 seats for egress, so your widest twin-aisle is going to be 3-5-3.
168 sweair : A BWB large enough could fit two circular cabins in parallel in the same body and wing, a pressurized part of the whole structure for people and the r
169 JoeCanuck : Once you decide to get away from the circular or double bubble cross section, then a lot of the advantages of the tube with wings, (mainly simplicity)
170 Post contains links tortugamon : I thought we were still looking at a 2019 EIS? Tim Clark interview today: Tim Clark: Certainly, negotiations with Boeing on the 777X jets will start i
171 KarelXWB : I mentioned this in the Qatar thread too, perhaps someone else will be the launch customer?
172 CXB77L : Along with the new wing, possibly Al-Li fuselage skin ... What you call "hype" I call "projections". While Boeing hasn't realeased any firm figures f
173 mjoelnir : Crew rest I can understand, but when you go for galleys and lavatories up there, than you start to need to get a floor up there, and than you can go
174 nomadd22 : I give up. Why would you have to cross more than 2 seats in 6 across? It would be better than a window seat, since if the short route was blocked, yo
175 morrisond : Exactly - if it's two seats away from either aisle in the middle section of seats - then what about the first and second seats in a 5W center section
176 waly777 : The rule is the middle seat shouldn't have to cross more than 2 across on either side. With a 6 abreast, the 2 middle seats will have 2 seats on one
177 waly777 : 1) Neither the first or second seat is in the middle 2) In the case of an emergency, the first seat has no one blocking access to the aisle. The seco
178 Post contains links FlyingGoat : Flight Global has an article about transferring 787 cockpit systems to the 777x: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...e-for-777x-consultant-says-385
179 rotating14 : Since IAG placed an order for A350-1000's for BA, the initial desire that Willie Walsh had for the 777-9x has fizzled, so believes a small crowd out
180 PW100 : Which rule would that be, and why does it not apply to window seats? So why would it be OK for a window seat to have only access to ONE aisle crossin
181 KarelXWB : I assume many customers to be involved, even the ones that are not immediately in the need of ordering them.
182 tortugamon : I thought that it indicated a date slippage because I had a hard time believing that EK was going to wait a year and have their competitors flying th
183 KarelXWB : Well, it could mean 2 things 1) a date slippage or 2) someone else will launch it. The surge line would retire around 2016 anyway, 777X or not. Don't
184 Post contains images 7BOEING7 : This is all I could find in the FARs about seats abreast. It's written for single aisle but if somebody can find better information I'd like to see i
185 Stitch : As I believe Economy IFE boxes drive sets of three seats, 3+6+3 would be beneficial from that aspect.
186 astuteman : It may be the airlines slipping a year's "float" into the delivery schedule based on recent experiences.... Rgds
187 JoeCanuck : Ideally, the attic would be used more for that which takes up space, but not necessarily is very heavy. The ceiling is already significantly reinforc
188 tortugamon : That sure would be a sad development. If I were an airline, I sure would plan on receiving aircraft later than an OEM projected but publicly I think
189 waly777 : Oh I didn't mean it applied to just the middle row, I was just referring to the middle row in that particular statement. This is how it was explained
190 JoeCanuck : I think there are quite a few options for the attic space and I think Boeing will be looking extra hard to fill that space. They've already offered t
191 mjoelnir : A few persons in the crew rest area are not a lot of weight. Lav, with the plumbing and weight of fresh and wast water, and galley, with all the heav
192 Post contains links tortugamon : I realize but I believe that was only for the 747-8i which has a customer list of five customers. I can see EK, AF, KLM, and a handful of other custo
193 packsonflight : Do you know how high ceiling is possible to attain up there?
194 angmoh : In 1-2-1 the middle overhead bins are already gone on some airlines like SQ. If you don't need them, then ditch them because of weight. There is also
195 EPA001 : That depends on how you look at the solution of putting the toilets there. I found it to be a very creative and attractive solution. There are disadv
196 RickNRoll : You can patent the idea that you can put a galley cart into an empty space?
197 mjoelnir : If you look at those patents it is using the area above the galley for storage. It neither puts the galley up there nor does it encroach far into the
198 mjoelnir : Everything moving to the belly encroaches on cargo space and nobody seems to accept that.
199 JoeCanuck : Heck, I'm just looking at creative uses of attic space. Heck, maybe store the christmas lights and golf clubs up there. Maybe there isn't enough room
200 morrisond : Assuming that Boeing isn't going to change the gear(meaning keep it the same as 77W), I'm guessing that Boeing will eventually offer a HGW 777X with s
201 Post contains links tortugamon : Here is a video tour. It looks to be about 5 foot tall. Probably not enough space to have a full galley as the FA would have to be bowing their heads
202 Post contains images neutrino : Do I see job openings for sub-five-footers aspiring FAs?
203 mjoelnir : Takes space away from belly cargo.
204 JoeCanuck : I like the sign on the door that specifically states, 'One per bunk'. That crew rest area actually does take up a lot of room in the crown.
205 Post contains images EPA001 : Of course it does. And yet LH is flying a lot of cargo and passengers around when successfully operating the A346. So it does not hurt them, so there
206 RickNRoll : Would you need two patents for that? One for Christmas lights, one for golf clubs, or would one patent do for both?
207 Post contains images tortugamon : I do. Dinner and a (Wizzard of Oz) show. Right, but that was not a surprise when LH ordered it. I am wondering why it was a failure for those that or
208 CXB77L : Almost definitely on the 777-8LX.
209 StickShaker : Its a case of the 777-9X must do that all by itself - not impossible but a far bigger ask than is usually made of a derivative. There are a lot of sh
210 RickNRoll : That's what I've been wondering about. How much are they going to spend on development, how do they weigh up the risks. The options range is huge for
211 ODwyerPW : I have a question. 777-200, 777-300 and 777-200ER were the original 777 planes. Were the 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777F considered 2nd Generation 777 p
212 Stitch : Works for me.
213 Post contains links tortugamon : JAL and ANA are reportedly in talks with Airbus for A351. That would be a major hit to the 77X program. Some quotes from the Bloomberg article: Airbus
214 KarelXWB : A plane crash is a disaster. What a big words from that guy, that's how things work in this world and I'm sure Boeing will survive it.
215 kaitak : I'd heard about JAL, but not ANA ... that would certainly make things very different; an ANA sale would be very significant for Airbus, because it has
216 Stitch : Honestly, buying the 777X would be a major hit to JAL and ANA. The 777-9 is too large for them and with their low-density long-haul configurations, t
217 JoeCanuck : How did Aboulafia ever get to be considered an expert on anything? Competition for airliner customers has been very real for decades. Of course Boeing
218 Post contains images KarelXWB :
219 planesmart : The finance industry, responsible in one way or another, for funding new model design, production, delivery, in service and then ongoing operation, as
220 Revelation : Various forms of this story has been discussed on a.net. Some hint that we may hear of this at Paris. The A350 is a great product, and Boeing doesn't
221 CXB77L : I would expect the 777-9X to sell enough to make a profit on the entire 777X program. Yes, EK is a very important customer for Boeing and for the 777
222 angmoh : This is the key question: how much do you invest and what do you get back. And personally I think that the A330 is the gold benchmark here. No major
223 SEPilot : I agree. It is unclear how much better a clean sheet Y3 would be than the 777X; and the experience with the 787 shows that it may not be as much as m
224 KarelXWB : I agree, the 777X program would still be launched had EK never existed. Just do the math, if Boeing wants to hold the production rate of 8.3 frames p
225 morrisond : With all the rumoured defections to the A350 program - it seems like the Airlines aren't finding the 777X all that it's purported to be. Just as good
226 Stitch : If EK and QR are to be believed, those two alone are good for 350 frames. Add in the other carriers in those two markets, and you could see 400-500 d
227 Post contains images waly777 : This is certainly an interesting conclusion to get to for an aircraft that hasn't been launched or offered for sale yet......
228 Post contains images KarelXWB : Technically it's up for sale since its ATO last month but point taken [Edited 2013-05-15 08:14:29]
229 sunrisevalley : Was that not the debate inside Boeing that had Lars Andersen go back into retirement temporarily and a change in the top management of BCA?
230 morrisond : Possibly - but Paris will be very interesting - if the A351 picks up a lot of orders vs. the 777X at the show Boeing may have to rethink. Stitch - 35
231 Stitch : Why would Boeing need to maintain the current 777 production rate? Rolling it back to 50-60 a year would provide a 7 to 10 year backlog, which should
232 ODwyerPW : Well put Joe!
233 morrisond : Exactly and as you have pointed out a 777Max with Updated Engines and existing wing would probably get them there as well without resorting to the co
234 SEPilot : Not doing enough is a lot worse than doing too much. They have to come up with a competitive product, and the competition is the A3510. There must be
235 Post contains images ferpe : I think this is a very good post . Up until now B has owned the 350+ passenger market and A has been dominating the 250-300, it has been a pretty str
236 Stitch : I have long argued that a 10-abreast 777NG with new engines was probably the better way to go for Boeing, however I think what might be driving the 7
237 JoeCanuck : Sales for the 350-1000 shouldn't surprise anyone. It will be different enough from the Boeing offerings to attract customers who specifically want its
238 tortugamon : Great point. In this thread (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5755226/) I calculated how operators equipped their
239 FlyingGoat : Japan's geographic location makes the A351 almost the perfect aircraft for JAL and ANA's needs. They don't need much more range than the 351 has to o
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...
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming, But Not So Soon posted Tue Nov 27 2012 19:17:41 by RickNRoll
787-10 Authority To Offer Coming Soon posted Fri Sep 28 2012 11:02:05 by WarpSpeed
Is It Possible For Boeing To Offer B777-300F? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 04:02:56 by AirCanada014
Boeing To Offer 787-10? posted Tue May 23 2006 12:44:41 by Reggaebird
Boeing To Offer Longer Range, Quieter 747 Model posted Tue Feb 26 2002 08:51:04 by Singapore_Air
PR To Offer Onboard Wi-Fi And Mobile Phone Service posted Fri Mar 29 2013 03:28:13 by Akiestar
US To Offer New Emissions Regime Proposal posted Mon Feb 25 2013 06:24:42 by LAXintl
Frontier To Offer 3x Weekly Seasonal GSO Service posted Mon Feb 11 2013 11:54:58 by cv880
Nextant To Offer Hawker 750XP And 4000 Refresh? posted Tue Jan 22 2013 16:43:51 by clickhappy
AF To Offer LC Fares/services On Short/medium Haul posted Mon Jan 7 2013 01:12:11 by Alsatian