Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?  
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 30453 times:

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

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


tortugamon


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

239 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 30336 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, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 30197 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.

https://twitter.com/jonostrower


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 30072 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)

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29891 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.

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...logy/2020902282_boeing777xxml.html


tortugamon


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29801 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, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29783 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, 1795 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29758 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, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29599 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 offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 29442 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."
https://www.facebook.com/jonostrower/posts/10101953146246114

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.


tortugamon


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 29291 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, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 29169 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 offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 29042 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.

tortugamon


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 29016 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, 2028 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 28882 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.

baw716



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, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 27996 times:

What about the authority to offer the 781???

User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1844 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 27605 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 offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 27309 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.

tortugamon


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 27246 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).


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 26628 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.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 26532 times:

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

October last year.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25576 times:

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

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_05_01_2013_p0-575533.xml



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, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25433 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

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....3.xml

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, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25308 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, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 25154 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.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 25328 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
2021 is an ideal EIS for many carriers, who use their 777s between North America and Asia (Delta, American, United).



You forgot Qantas in that mix.   


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 24750 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 11):
They are likely to fit the A35J out to a 299 seat count as in their 4-class 77W.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
Do you think they will still fit in an 8-across Club World staggered seat in the smaller fuselage?

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 either have to reduce the CW seat count by ~7 (1 seat per row going to 2+3+2 as on the 787) or poach space from another class of service to put in the extra row of CW to maintain the same seat count.


User currently offlineNavion From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 24903 times:

Quoting baw716 (Reply 14):
Hopefully, Boeing will learn something from the 787 debacle and not build the 777-X the same in the same manner.

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 doing their thing but the "weak-sisters" have been bought out or their share reduced. Boeing has already learned a lot and while they'll still have outsourced partners, I think we'll see more major components made in the U.S. such as (for example) the wings. The fuselage is also likely to remain here as it's not likely to be composite. There's been significant discussion on Boeing's ability to make the wings on-site at PAE using the buildings on the south side of the field.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 23789 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
Quoting rotating14 (Reply 22):
I was hoping that the 777-8x would have the 2 versions

This is interesting - has the standard 8X been dropped ? Are there any other sources to confirm this ?



Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1600 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 23630 times:

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 to increase interior width by decreasing insulation in the side walls - but to give economy seats a more spacious 18" seat would require finding 8 additional inches which seems impossible even if the side walls are narrower.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 23362 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 28):
has the standard 8X been dropped

Was it ever official?  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBogi From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 23072 times:

"Boeing Grants Authority To Offer 777X?"

No, but certainly a plethora of words can explain what that is.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 22625 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 28):
This is interesting - has the standard 8X been dropped ? Are there any other sources to confirm this ?

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 build it if nobody is going to buy it (especially since the A3510 will be available earlier)? The A-345/6 certainly showed the difficulty of selling a plane that is significantly outperformed by its competitor; but in that case it was available earlier. I don't think, based on what I have read, that the gap between the A3510 and the 778X will be as large as between the A346 and the 77W, but it will be enough to sway all but the most diehard Boeing fans towards the A3510, and the ranks of such diehard Boeing fans running airlines has dwindled down to just about zero.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1995 posts, RR: 24
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 22225 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

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....3.xml

Makes sense. The 777-8X wouldn't really be all that competitive with the A350-1000.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21531 times:

Also from Jon Ostrower on Twitter:

Quote:
Just two 777X models, says @avweekguy & my sources. 777-9X and -8LX. Boeing wants daylight between 787-10X & ULR 777.

Seems to be some debate about what the -8LX really is. Most likely just a name. 777-8X may have the capabilities of the -8LX.

This matches exactly what I said in some previous threads: there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment. The competition in this relatively small market is already very hard and the less economic airframe will eventually be killed. Instead of wasting money on killing each other, both Airbus and Boeing should offer a unique airframe so the market can be equally split.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21198 times:

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 assuming the 778LR can tank a lot more fuel - does it have the belly/weight capacity at same passenger load to offset the extra fuel burn?


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 21257 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 35):
I'm assuming the 778LR can tank a lot more fuel - does it have the belly/weight capacity at same passenger load to offset the extra fuel burn?

What killed the A340-600 ???????????? it was not that ability to lift cargo..........



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20630 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment.

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 the 8LX anyway - same wing, engines, dimensions, hmmm

So an 8LX that should be able to do DXB-LAX with close to 35t and 350 passengers that EK wants and then make the 9X a super efficient cruiser with just a tick above 8knm range.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 35):
When does the extra revenue from extra Cargo on the 778 offset the extra fuel burn?

Do you think there is any way that Boeing & GE will be able to get the fuel burn per (10Y) passenger down to on par with the 351? I know the wing and the engine will be too big/heavy but 5 years of additional engineering time should help a little. Fleet commonality with better legs and more cargo could be dangerous against a similarly fuel burning 351.

Quoting zeke (Reply 36):
What killed the A340-600 ?

Good point but at least this will be a twin vs a twin so it could be more competitive.

When does Boeing start the price drop on the 77W so that anyone that needs 350 seats is good until next decade?

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 20379 times:

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 23):
Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.

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 amount of seats of the 77W (350) should turn the -8LX into an excellent payload/range airframe. Something EK could use. Boeing can easily sell 50 units to EK and make money on it.

The -8LX frame should also become the basis for a future freighter.

[Edited 2013-05-02 11:31:04]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 881 posts, RR: 11
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19963 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
The -8LX frame should also become the basis for a future freighter.

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) when it comes time to retire the KC-10's. Most will be 767's but I would guess some will be 777's.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19854 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
The range of the LR (9400nm) combined with the amount of seats of the 77W (350) should turn the -8LX into an excellent payload/range airframe.

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.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 23):
Yet super long range planes never seem to sell too well.


so far as the 77L is concerned it was too late . Many operators had settled on the 77E and the advantages of the 77L over about 1500nm and up only became obvious after its EIS.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 19814 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 40):
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.
http://oi37.tinypic.com/2hhdipw.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 17777 times:

I ran across this quote from this Jefferies analyst Howard Rubel today in Bloomberg: "Our industry order estimates had factored about 200-250 launch orders from a range of carriers."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-777x-jet-starts-marketing-to.html

200 seamed high to me in terms of launch orders 6 years out. So I penciled out some customers that came to mind and how much I thought they might be interested in after I glanced at their fleets. This is total firm frames for both models. I would not expect them all to come through, just trying to see how to get to 200. Thoughts?

Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

tortugamon


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17611 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

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 frames.
http://www.stasiareport.com/the-big-...oking-buy-20-boeing-777x-jets-2013

BR has current model 773's on the way but they do have some 744's still flying so them buying the 7778/9x could depend on either growth/expansion or replacement.

Since DL flys their planes to the very death, I could see them grabbing some slots to make more sense of the RFP that they had out recently http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/03/...boeing-airbus-aircraft-order-jets/

But time will have to tell.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
This might be wishful thinking but SAA could make a good candidate.

Newspaper reports state that SAA have already decided on the A350.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 17622 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 32):
Why build it if nobody is going to buy it (especially since the A3510 will be available earlier)?

No doubt that is what has killed it. The 8X had a very cool reception from airlines right from the start

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 37):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):there is no point of offering a direct 1 to 1 competitor in the 350-seat market segment. The competition in this relatively small market is already very hard and the less economic airframe will eventually be killed.
Agreed. Especially when they were already planning a range expanding 323 seat -10X.

The 350 seat segment is not that small (the 77W has close to 700 orders) and it is extremely lucrative. I'm sure Boeing would be delighted to offer a direct 1 to 1 competitor if they had an appropriate airframe - no OEM would voluntarily abdicate from a market segment that had served them so well just to avoid a sales brawl. It is Boeing's customers who have pulled the plug on the 8X. As you say - the 787-10 is well placed to fill some of that gap even though its primary role is 330/772 type routes.

I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1884 posts, RR: 4
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17229 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):
I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.

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 - Middle East - type routes. 777-8X will nicely complement it on North/South America - Asia and Africa - North America routes, as well as Asia - Europe ones for everyone, who will not need 400 seater and who would like to "keep it in the family" with Boeing.

I could see many carriers ordering combination of 787-10, 777-8X and -9X for their operations. Only in North America, there are four prime candidates for it, with quite a few more from other places in the world. Keep in mind that it will be more difficult to obtain early delivery slots for the A350-1000, and for deliveries after 2021, it will be an even match.

Again, I do expect 777-8X to sell in significantly larger numbers than 777-200LR due to its lower fuel burn per seat and capabilities. A lot of airlines do require 350-seater, not many need 400-seater.



STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17226 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
Also PR might be on the upper end of 20 or so frames.

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 option for 10 more," sounds like 10 and 10 to me.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...pines-boeing-idUSL3N0CH1GM20130325

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 43):
BR has current model 773's on the way


Yes, they are a bit of a stretch for them but their CEO came out last month and said: Both types are on our shopping list, and we are waiting for Boeing to reveal more information with respect to the 787-10 and 777X when the programs are launched,

RE: Delta Looking at 777 and 330
The story you are referencing applies to current 777 technology not future designs. Delta likes mature products with reliable delivery dates. They are still trying to negotiate another 737NG order for the end of the run. I could see a handful of last off the line 77Ls and 77Ws if Boeing wants to meet their price demands.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):
I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X

Saw your post today on planetalking. Mr S obviously really know his stuff but he has it out for Boeing right now; the 787 and the 10Y 777. Anyway, I think it is critical for Boeing to be able to sell the -10 with a lower trip cost (and more seats) than the A359. I believe that will keep sales of the excellent looking -900 from selling unchecked. Stretching it any further or trying to give it more range will certainly hurt fuel burn and that is its biggest selling point IMO. If a carrier absolutely needs to carry 9% more capacity or fly over 5,500nm with a decent load, then it is the 777-8LX territory or more likely the 351  . The -10 can take some sales away from the 351 as long as it is more efficient on 10 hour routes and I think that should be the focus. What gap is there to fill? 9% more capacity than the -10 and 12% more range, appears niche.

Speaking of efficiency, Randy Tinseth came out with this quote today when speaking of the 77X: "Its also expected to provide the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane in commercial service." http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

I have definitely heard the claim that it will be the most efficient two engine aircraft but this is the first quote about competition with the A388. Very interesting. Cue A389.

tortugamon


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 17208 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 46):
not many need 400-seater.

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


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16999 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
if the -9 has the lowest seat cost of any commercial jet liner I think some carriers will find a home for it.

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 if you cannot fill the seats.

[Edited 2013-05-03 01:18:19]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 16990 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
Speaking of efficiency, Randy Tinseth came out with this quote today when speaking of the 77X: "Its also expected to provide the lowest fuel burn per seat of any airplane in commercial service." http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/

Of course he says that. You know who Randy is? It's the same like Leahy would say "Airbus has the best products".



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16932 times:

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 and 31-34 for eco, but A380 seems to use 60 in for biz also...
Some airlines have modern and confy A380 in 3/4 layout with almost or more than the typical pax count (LHA, AF...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_configurations_of_the_Airbus_A380

EKA380 is 517 PAX "medium" haul config 14/76/427 and typical 525 PAX config is 10/76/439
EK777-300ER is 354/364 the later being 12/42/310 and typical 380 PAX ten abreast is 22/70/288

EKA380 : 17.5% seats is First or Biz
EK777-300ER : 15% seats is First or Biz

So if Boeing compares 525 PAX A380-800 with 407 PAX 777-9X there's a bias (however, it sometimes use 555 PAX for A380 specially when the want to show the gap between the A350-1000 and the A380-800

Have a nice day


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16836 times:

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 46):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.
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 - Middle East - type routes.
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 47):
Anyway, I think it is critical for Boeing to be able to sell the -10 with a lower trip cost (and more seats) than the A359.

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 greater range and capacity (ie a 787-11) in addition to the currently planned 787-10. I agree that the current spec 787-10 has a huge market in its own right and doesn't need any changes.
My apologies for not making it clearer.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 16738 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 9):
"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."

I think he really means 3-5-3 seating in Y.     


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16555 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 45):

I can't help wondering if this is a signal that Boeing will further grow the 787-10 in capacity and range to fill the gap left by the 8X. I know this is a well worn topic on A.net but it would be a tempting strategy for Boeing in the event of a sales avalanche for the 35J.

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; very few planes actually fly to the limit of their ranges. If a plane's range at full payload exceeds the longest route of an airline, why would they want more range? I do see the advantage in having a flexible fleet rather than having only a few aircraft able to do certain routes, but I really do not see why so many airlines want 8,000NM range when very, very few of their routes require it. Certainly the sales split between the 77E and the A333 shows this-the A333 has sold well when extreme range was not required, while the 77E sold well for the longer ranges. Of course the 77W has sold even better. But I think the 7810 and A3510 can achieve a similar split. Trying to make the 7810 into a direct A3510 competitor would be a mistake, IMHO.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16353 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19):
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.

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 (business) = 2:3:2

It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16341 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
Certainly the sales split between the 77E and the A333 shows this-the A333 has sold well when extreme range was not required, while the 77E sold well for the longer ranges. Of course the 77W has sold even better.

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 an exception to the downsizing trend: A333/772 replaced by 788/789. 77E replaced by 359. 744 replaced by 77W, A350-10 and even 787-10.
I wonder of the 777-9 is too big. Don't forget the 77W already seats 425 in KLM configuration - at this density the 77W is a real winner. Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 57, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16122 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
Also to me, the 77W is an exception to the downsizing trend: A333/772 replaced by 788/789. 77E replaced by 359. 744 replaced by 77W, A350-10 and even 787-10.

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 against the principle that the easiest way to improve efficiency is to make the plane larger. The 77W has done so well because of its huge improvement in efficiency over anything else that had similar range (except the A380); if the 779X can meet its efficiency targets then it should sell well because it will probably be the most efficient aircraft out there, bar none (as I understand, it may even beat the A380.) The problem with the A380 has been that it is just so big and expensive that it represents too much risk for most airlines; the danger of not being able to consistently fill it just looms too large. The 779X is venturing into this territory, but I think it is still within the bounds of reasonableness in the minds of most fleet planners. After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15869 times:

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 for the 747-8I but doubtful now that all systems go for 777X...



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 59, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15633 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?

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 meters longer than the 77W. That is one row of business and maybe one row of Y. In EK configuration that will be 17 more people or 381. For those that are already at 10Y there won't be a dramatic change at all and those have been being filled up ok. Regardless, it will cost less than an A380 and if it has lower seat costs, airline risk is low. AngMoh, KLM's partner AF has even more with 468 in their Caribbean 77Ws. Most of the combined fleet has less than 385 seats though. Even in high density two class it is hard to see how the 77X will add more than 30 seats tops (assuming 10 Y!).

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 50):
Of course he says that. You know who Randy is? It's the same like Leahy would say "Airbus has the best products".

I hear you. Randy is in marketing and not sales but that is splitting hairs. I would expect Leahy to say they have the best products as well as Randy. They should drink the cool aid especially with subjective terms like 'the best'. However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 52):
My apologies for not making it clearer.

None necessary, figured I was reading that wrong.

Quoting LH422 (Reply 53):
I think he really means 3-5-3 seating in Y.

Ha ha. On a serious note though, I have done some reading on what is going on in cabin interiors and I am not blown away. I am hoping someone can mention something they can do in the cabin for this next design. With such a big canvas it will be a shame to mail it in.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
but I really do not see why so many airlines want 8,000NM range when very, very few of their routes require it.

Very true. Do you think the extended range of narrow bodies has something to do with it? Single aisles are now pretty prevalent on six hour routes and its tough to beat their economics and the convenience of frequencies so new widebodies are focusing on larger routes to give that dynamic space. It appears that the airlines that are doing well carry cargo so how far does a full 8knm aircraft fly with full cargo? 5000? Maybe it isn't the distance but the lift and its the additional revenue?

Regardless, I would love to read an analysis on how less efficient an 8knm aircraft is on a 5knm trip vs an optimized plane at 5knm. Would it be worth A, B, GE, and/or RR to spend the development money for a completely new lighter frame and engine to make up for that lack of efficiency or are airlines ok sacrificing a small amount of fuel burn for flexibility and cargo revenue potential? I suspect some smart people have been doing that math and with only 2 players in the market that decision is easier. New technology beats old even if old is efficient at short distances (787 has over 2t more in just engine weight vs a330 and its still a couple t lighter) and there aren't enough new models or capital for them for further differentiation/specialization IMO.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 55):
It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.

Yes, and that means that the A351 will have one less Business Class seat per row vs the 777X and it means that the 787-10 will have the same number of seats per row as the A350 in BA configuration which may prove to be an interesting dynamic for future comparisons and decisions.

tortugamon


User currently offlineFlyingGoat From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 15298 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

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 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x.

I would also add SU, MH, and TG to the list. Possibilities include TK and KE, although I would expect both to go with the A351. I still wouldn't rule out a 777x order from BA either, but I do think the chances of that are slim.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5457 posts, RR: 30
Reply 61, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 15227 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

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 interpretation...whether or not it's a practical interpretation is irrelevant for folks doing the shilling.



What the...?
User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 14949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, combined with the 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x."

Has this JAL order actually happened ? I heard the rumours but I haven't seen anything - maybe I missed it.



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 63, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14876 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 61):
they can promise whatever they want in press releases.

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 for that type of quote to slip out.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
The recently ordered A351,

Nothing official yet from JAL, just rumors. You may be right in the end though:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...-to-buy-a350s-lacks-detail-so-far/

Interesting additions. I was trying to list launch customers and so I chose airlines with a need for early aircraft and/or a penchant for being launch customers. I also think IAG is a stretch as I noted up thread. I just don't see TG, DL, SU, TG, TK, or KE being launch customers for one reason or another but maybe down the road.

MH is an interesting one. The last thing I heard was this quote from their CEO: We need a good mix of long-range aircraft to face the future challenges as well as business opportunities%u2026 We need an aircraft that flies about 300 to 350 people. They still have 747s even though I thought they were supposed to be phased out by the A380. 787-10 could get them the 300 and the 77X could get them the 350 seats but the A351 would be right in the middle and would work with all of their A330s and A380s. Interesting.

In regard to new cabin features Mr Bair mentioned above (comment #9). The 77W & 77L changed the way the crew rest areas were tackled putting beds, chairs, even full bathrooms mainly in the crown of the plane and expanded the main cabin floor and cargo capacity adding millions to airlines revenue stream over the life of the plane. Can that be taken a step further? Can Boeing put Galley storage up there?


tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 64, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 14871 times:

Quote:
MH is an interesting one. The last thing I heard was this quote from their CEO: We need a good mix of long-range aircraft to face the future challenges as well as business opportunities%u2026 We need an aircraft that flies about 300 to 350 people. They still have 747s even though I thought they were supposed to be phased out by the A380. 787-10 could get them the 300 and the 77X could get them the 350 seats but the A351 would be right in the middle and would work with all of their A330s and A380s. Interesting.

MH said they want 1 manufacturer for their wide-body fleet to cut maintenance costs. Those 747 and 777 aircraft will be gone soon.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 65, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14751 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
Newspaper reports state that SAA have already decided on the A350.

That is news to me.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
The formula doesn't work if you cannot fill the seats.

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-capacity and high-comfort choices. But if you at some point in time cannot fill them enough, then you are entering dangerous territories.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
Quoting tortugamon (Reply 42):
Carrier # of Firm Orders Each
EK - 100
AF/KLM, CX - 20-30
QR, EY, SQ, JAL, IAG, UA - 10-20
BR, PR - Less Than 10

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 787, should cover JAL's network nicely. I suspect DL's future wide-body fleet will consist of a large number of 787-8/9/10, but there should be room for 10 or so 777x.

I would also add SU, MH, and TG to the list. Possibilities include TK and KE, although I would expect both to go with the A351.

I think there will be enough airlines interested in the B777-X-versions. But this time with the A350-1000 there is very serious competition. Something the B77W has not had for quite a number of years now.  .


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 66, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14725 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
I hear you. Randy is in marketing and not sales but that is splitting hairs. I would expect Leahy to say they have the best products as well as Randy. They should drink the cool aid especially with subjective terms like 'the best'. However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

I understand your point. As for myself, I don't believe in "objectivity" and "marketing guy" in once sentence   



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 14745 times:

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 derated engines of the L/F model.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 68, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
(The) 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. 
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
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 if you cannot fill the seats.

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 "nice to have" because if you can sell them, it's extra revenue for the flight and if you cannot, it's not extra sunk costs for the flight (dragging on the overall profitability of the flight).

If the 777-9's trip costs are a fair bit higher, then airlines will need to sell more of those extra seats to cover that. This is what I think is hurting the 747-8: it's trip costs are a fair bit higher than the 777-300ER so it needs to sell those extra seats. On the flip side, the trip costs of the A380-800 are not much higher than the 747-8, so if you can sell those extra seats, the A380-800 offers significantly more revenue potential.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14577 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 56):
I wonder of the 777-9 is too big. Don't forget the 77W already seats 425 in KLM configuration - at this density the 77W is a real winner. Do you want to go to 450-470 seats?

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 demand for larger 777s. This is where the 777-9X will slot in. The 777-9X will also be a very effective 747-400 replacement aircraft, and as alternative to the 747-8i.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.

Indeed, especially considering that the 777-9X is projected to be only 2.7m longer than the 777-300ER, which isn't a lot.

Quoting FlyingGoat (Reply 60):
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 787, should cover JAL's network nicely.

As far as I'm aware, JAL have not ordered the A350-1000. Even if they were to order it, it does not preclude the possibility of ordering the 777X in future.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 63):
Can Boeing put Galley storage up there?

Good question. I don't see why not, and it would free up some space on the main deck for more seats.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14571 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
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 "nice to have" because if you can sell them, it's extra revenue for the flight and if you cannot, it's not extra sunk costs for the flight (dragging on the overall profitability of the flight).

  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 68):
This is what I think is hurting the 747-8

And the overweight plus the fuel burn not being at spec are also not helping.

[Edited 2013-05-04 07:03:06]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 71, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14496 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):
The 779X is venturing into this territory, but I think it is still within the bounds of reasonableness in the minds of most fleet planners. After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.

There are a number of carriers operating a significant fleet of 77W with spacious seating layouts significantly less than the standard 3-class 365 seat configuration ( Asiana -233 seats,BA-299,CX-275-297,JAL-272,SIN-278). These would all be candidates for a 350- seat layout -9X.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14514 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 57):After all, it is likely that any airline that considers it will already be flying the 77W, and it represents a step increase over the 77W, not a quantum leap.
Indeed, especially considering that the 777-9X is projected to be only 2.7m longer than the 777-300ER, which isn't a lot.

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 seats but the first is based upon a 9 abreast layout while the second is based upon a 10 abreast layout. This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

If we use the 9 abreast nomenclature that makes the 77W a 350 seater then the 9X is really something like a 380 seater to compare apples with apples. Airlines running their 77W's at 10 abreast such as EK seat around 383 pax - this will increase to 407 for the 777-9X. It is difficult to generalise as there are huge variations in both 9 and 10 abreast configurations but the increase in capacity of the 777-9X over the 77W is not as large as suggested by 407 seats vs 350 seats.

The extra 4 inches of internal width in the 9X doesn't do any harm but I don't see it as being a key driver for airlines converting from 9 abreast in the 77W to 10 abreast in the 9X. That is more likely to be driven more by fuel prices and other costs - and it has been happening with the 77W long before the 777X program came on the scene.

No doubt premium carriers will configure the 9X with a lot less than 380 seats on some long haul sectors.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 14469 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

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 intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 14154 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
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 demand for larger 777s.
Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 71):
There are a number of carriers operating a significant fleet of 77W with spacious seating layouts significantly less than the standard 3-class 365 seat configuration ( Asiana -233 seats,BA-299,CX-275-297,JAL-272,SIN-278).
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
It is difficult to generalise as there are huge variations in both 9 and 10 abreast configurations

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 Deliveries And Orders Analysis (by tortugamon May 4 2013 in Civil Aviation)


tortugamon


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 75, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14096 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 69):
As far as I'm aware, JAL have not ordered the A350-1000.

Just six weeks of patience will be rewarded.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 13965 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.
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 intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.

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 (20%) in all cases whereas the true gains in efficiency for the airframe/engine combination is somewhere between 10 to 15%. This is still a very respectable gain for a derivative - particularly one following the 77W but a 20% improvement would likely require a clean sheet design (the 787 was marketed as having a 20% improvement over the 767).

10 abreast seating is definitely very tangible - but airlines don't have to wait (and won't wait) for the 777X to realise those gains - they are doing it now with the 77W. Around 50% of the worldwide fleet of 77W's are now configured at 10 abreast and that will no doubt increase as time goes on. Airlines moving from a 10 abreast 77W to a 10 abreast 777-9X won't realise a 20% efficiency gain - same story if both are configured 9 abreast.

This type of marketing hype is basically harmless (and both OEM's indulge regularly) - the airlines know exactly what they are getting for their money.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 13953 times:

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 different market.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 13821 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 77):
It's also going to be a significantly larger and more expensive.

Define "significant". The 777-9X isn't that much bigger than the 777-300ER, being only 2.7m longer.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3523 posts, RR: 66
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 13765 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 72):
It is Boeing's creative arithmetic that makes 407 seats sound a lot larger than 350 seats but the first is based upon a 9 abreast layout while the second is based upon a 10 abreast layout. This is a marketing tactic that gives the 9X a CASM 20% better than the 77W - everything is fair in the world of marketing.

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 about a 11.5% increase in pax rather than the 16.3% you'd get using a 350 pax base.

The airframe/engine improvements are more on the order of +15%, not 10%. Remember, carrying 40 more pax will increase your fuel burn on a given mission by at least 5% for airplanes in this size category.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13445 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 79):

Thanks


Here's an interesting quote from an article on Reuters regarding the 777X program:


..... The cost of the 777X development has not been disclosed but after industrial delays followed by a grounding of its 787 Dreamliner, Boeing will hope that upgrading a familiar jet costs significantly less than the $15 billion for an all-new aircraft.

"Boeing has been waiting to see what happened with the A350-1000, and the BA order clearly swung their decision," said Agency Partners analyst Nick Cunningham in London.

"It could be an awesome competitor, given the success of 777-300ER, but I suspect it will end up having most of the cost and risk of a complete new program." .......


I think Nick Cunningham's assessment is a good one. I had a figure in mind of approx 50% to 70% of the cost of a clean sheet design (back of the envelope stuff). While it is not cheap, Boeing do seem to be getting close to the level of performance gains realised with a clean sheet design but within a timeframe that would not be possible if a clean sheet program was launched. The impending EIS of the 35J in 2017 has made that timeframe crucial in importance. Long term ROI on the 777X will be an interesting issue.

Another article here on Planetalking.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-06 01:26:54]

[Edited 2013-05-06 01:37:42]

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13404 times:

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]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10024 posts, RR: 96
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 13400 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
However that is different IMO, Randy is saying that the 77X will have lower seat costs than the A380 and even with the seat, route, gas price, etc manipulation that they may need to do to get there its still an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure. I personally was not expecting that claim made publicly this early from anyone at Boeing.

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 variables, it is a long way from being "an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure".
If it really really has lower seat costs than the A380 then there will be no more sales of the current A380. Period.
Watch this space.
This isn't A380 fanboyism either.
Its a reality that CASM is affected by many factors, assumed CASM is affected by many assumptions, and those assumed factors themselves will be variable from application to application.

The spread of seat counts applied by the operators in reality on both the 777 and A380 should be a big warning flag for all on this subject.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 59):
Do you think the extended range of narrow bodies has something to do with it? Single aisles are now pretty prevalent on six hour routes and its tough to beat their economics and the convenience of frequencies so new widebodies are focusing on larger routes to give that dynamic space.

Absolutely so IMO.
For me, this is where the real "fragmentation" has taken place over the last 20 years, and the real reason average aircraft size has dropped, when in fact the average size of long-haul aircraft has trended ever upwards (I know the anti-A380 brigade wont like that, but its unavoidably true).
The number of single-aisles has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 73):
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 intangible and the cost savings are thus tangible.

Only if the known reference point the comparison is tangible. Unless you know the actual seat counts used for the comparison, your "tangible" wont tell you anything tangible

Rgds


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 13230 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 81):
He surely has a point but if Boeing does it right, the upgrades can extend the life of the 777 by another 20 years.

Boeing have chosen this somewhat unusual and costly strategy for the 777X because it satisfies specific requirements in terms of realising significant efficiency improvements within a certain timeframe (Y3 could never be launched so soon) - it will work well in the short to medium term after EIS.

As with any business strategy it also has its downsides. The 777X program may significanty extend the life of the 777 but it can never do what a clean sheet program would do - particularly in the longer term. There is limited room for fuselage growth to produce further derivatives - this is a hallmark of any clean-sheet program and adds enormously to the combined ROI for any program. There will likely be other legacy issues of a 1990's design that will make their presence felt as the 777X matures in time. A big test will be how well it competes with the 35J after the 35J has had a mid-life upgrade - any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.

I'm not saying that Boeing have chosen the wrong strategy for the 777X but rather they have chosen a different and unusual strategy to upgrade a mature platform and that strategy has opportunity costs along with other significant implications further down the line. The big opportunity cost of launching the 777X now will be the inability to launch Y3 early in the 2020's - a platform that would be far more future proof than the 777X and could spawn a large family of derivatives whereas the 777X is largely a one trick pony - admittedly a good one but a family could do far more as evident from the 787 program.

The effective life span of the 777X will largely depend on what Airbus can do in the competing space - they have a much newer platform in the 35J and likely more room to move. Boeing would be hoping for at least a 20 year life span from the 777X but I think there are quite a few unknowns in there.

If the costly 777X strategy is an overwhelming success then it is likely that both Boeing and Airbus may employ it on other platforms in the future where it is considered appropriate - if it fails to deliver as expected (in terms of ROI) then we won't see such an approach used again.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-06 05:07:12]

[Edited 2013-05-06 05:10:05]

User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13082 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
The effective life span of the 777X will largely depend on what Airbus can do in the competing space - they have a much newer platform in the 35J and likely more room to move. Boeing would be hoping for at least a 20 year life span from the 777X but I think there are quite a few unknowns in there.

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 as at 100 frames per year that's another 1,000 sales (more than 77W/77L to date) getting them to the end of the 2020's - more than enough to amortize the 777X development cost

As Stickshaker points out they aren't ready for Y3 yet - (Which I think will look significantly different than a tube and frame airplane - maybe a cross between traditional and BWB).

With advances in composites by the end of the 2020's they should be able to significantly outperform traditional frames.

Y3 will need to be launched right after 778 entry anyways to meet end of 2020's.

However given the 787 experience with radical designs I think Boeing would be very wise to continue with there course of experimentation on BWB's.

There next step is a larger prototype, let's say tests are done on that by 2017-2018. Then they move to building a full scale prototype for testing in the early 2020's (Just like the Dash 80), then based on lessons learned move to a production standard craft based on lessons learned for end of 2020's.

No more ramp up of production like 787 until the first prototypes have actually flown - especially with something as radical as the next generation of airliners.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 13054 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
A platform that would be far more future proof than the 777X and could spawn a large family of derivatives whereas the 777X is largely a one trick pony - admittedly a good one but a family could do far more as evident from the 787 program.

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 expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

And that should be fine IMO, because the A350 will be around here for the next 20 years or more after EIS, and if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.

I however agree that 20+ years is a long period, the A350 performance can be easily increased while this will be harder for the 777X.

[Edited 2013-05-06 06:34:38]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13000 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 55):
World Traveller (economy) = 3:3:3
World Traveller Plus (premium economy) = 2:3:2
Club World (business) = 2:3:2

It's likely that the A350 will also feature an 2:3:2 configuration for the Club World seats.

I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13013 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 86):
I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?

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 be more comfortable.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 641 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13006 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 87):
BA's seat map for the 787 shows that as doing 2-4-2 for WT+

The map in reply 55 shows 2:3:2 for WT+ in BA's 787 not 2:4:2.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12997 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 88):
The map in reply 55 shows 2:3:2 for WT+ in BA's 787 not 2:4:2.

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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12996 times:

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 86):
I wonder if the WT+ cabin can do 2:4:2 in the A350?

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. I think they'll go with the same config as the 787, it'll just have wider aisles.

If they did go 2:4:2 on WT+ on the 350, those aisles will be really narrow.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12964 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
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 expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

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 2020's and cleansheet Y3 (777/747) replacement now (entry 2021-2022 - 8-10 years should be enough) to prove new manufacturing technologies, shapes and materials they will need to crank out 50 Y1's per month by end of 2020's. Y3 at this point may not be BWB but may be some sort of cross leaning more towards traditional Tube and Wing.

Y3 would last for 20-30 years.

Just remember that by early 2030's 787 will be 20 years old as well and will probably need a replacement as well - based on technologies proven on Y3 and Y1.

In the future 20 years of production for a frame may be about the max that can be expected - especially with exponential increases in Computer power and material science advancements coming - Graphene anyone?


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 12951 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
And that should be fine IMO, because the A350 will be around here for the next 20 years or more after EIS, and if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.

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 777X.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
To be honest, Y3 is something for 2040 or beyond

That's only if the 777X remains competitive up until then. Airbus never wanted to launch the 350 until the 787 launch forced them to do so - otherwise they would have happily continued with just the 330 for many more years.

OEM's always have their preferred timetable but sometimes the other guy forces their hand.



Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 12837 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 80):
Here's an interesting quote from an article on Reuters regarding the 777X program:

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. As extensive an upgrade as it is, it will still cost less than a clean sheet design.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.

This is what I don't agree with. Based on today's available technology, it may be true tha the 777-8X/9X is the best that they can hope to achieve on the 777. A decade ago, the 777-300ER and the 777-200LR were likewise the "pinnacle" of technological upgrades to the 777 limited by the allocated cost of the project. I would think that how much of an upgrade the 777 frame can take would depend largely on how much money Boeing is willing to throw at it. Maybe another decade from now, technological advances would allow a further derivative to be made?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 84):

Y3 will need to be launched right after 778 entry anyways to meet end of 2020's.

If the 777X is a success, the Y3 doesn't need to EIS in the late 2020s. It can be pushed back into the mid 2030s.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
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 expect the 737 Max selling for at least 10 years). Airbus will do the same (developing a A320 successor after 2020), making an 737 successor even more important. Boeing can start developing the mysterious Y3 project from 2030 and EIS it around 2038-2040 (amusing 8-10 years of development).

I would agree with that too.   

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 85):
if the 777X can keep it up than Y3 is a low priority anyway.
Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
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

No, I don't agree that it's silly at all. The 777X is needed to compete with the A350. Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12760 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
No, I don't agree that it's silly at all. The 777X is needed to compete with the A350. Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.

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 that you would have been way better off just to rip the thing down and start again saving money and time.

A 11w of 12W Horizontal oval Twin Y3 could take away the A380 market as well for not much additional cost....

Make it in 400 and 500 seat versions to start with lots of room to grow.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 12722 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12576 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.

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 tail.

It sounds like most of the systems will be revised.

They are doing a new wing anyways - new engines - and Widening the fuselage inside.

Graft the new wing and engines onto a 787 nose section/avionics and use it's basic systems architecture (an electri system should be more scaleable) with a widened ovalized composite fuselage.

All your really talking about from a tooling standpoint is how to build ovalized composite sections, which they are already doing with the 787 Vertical Oval.

With an optimized fuselage/aero - you should be able to get more than decent range with 77W Gross weights meaning you can reuse the landing gear design.

They are underweight on 789 why throw all that valuable engineering away - have the team start to work on an 787XW - with another 7-8 years of optimization they should be able to build an incredibly efficient frame.

If they change the 777X Skin (to a lighter alloy) and ribs - all the engineering has to be done anyways

Plus eventually they should be able (I would hope within 5 years) be able to produce an Composite Fuselage at less cost than a 777 barrel - helping to offset the additional cost.

Say worst case a Y3 costs $10 Billion more to do a composite barrel - over 1,000 frames that's only $10 million each - not that significant.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12566 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
I'll be stunned if it's less than 60-70% and less than $7-8 Billion.

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.


User currently offlinerj777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1844 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 12479 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 97):
Then Boeing should slap the GE-9X on the current 777 family, call it the 777 MAX,

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.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 99, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12399 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
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 variables, it is a long way from being "an objective claim that airlines will be able to measure".

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 For Them (could not figure out how to bold 'for them' but picture me bolding that for emphasis). Each airlines would have to analyze each aircraft relative to their own routes, seating preferences, cost of capital, landing fees, weights, TSFC, yields..etc would all have to be considered.

Maybe it will not be objectively measured by an airline before entry into service and this far out it would be throwing darts in the dark. I have zero information to know if it is plausible that the 77X could have lower seat costs than the A380. It could be they are assuming a 500 seat 77X vs a 400 seat A380, I do not know. To me, the news was the claim. full stop. We will have to wait before we can determine under which circumstances it may be true.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 82):
The number of single-aisles has absolutely exploded in the last decade or so

Absolutely agree. Look no further than AA's 321s being fit with three classes, 2 of which have lay flat seats. These planes are flying further and taking market share from wide bodies at rapid pace.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 97):
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.

I also believe Boeing has roughly a $5 B target on this project. With the BCA gross margins being considered it will probably take around 150-200 aircraft before they start making money. If they do not feel like they are gaining enough interest to sell multiples of that figure then it would be unwise to go forward. Better spend the $10 B plus for the clean sheet and have 30 years to amortize that other $5B plus invested.

tortugamon


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 100, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12211 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
Just remember that by early 2030's 787 will be 20 years old as well and will probably need a replacement as well - based on technologies proven on Y3 and Y1.

I thought the 787 was Y2 ?

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 92):
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 777X.

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 another 10 years tanks to those 180 tankers on order. And the same story applies for the A330: by the end of the decade this airframe will be 30 years old and it will mostly survive as a freighter afterwards.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 91):
Which is why it seems really silly to do 777X now and not do 777+ to get to early 2020's and cleansheet Y3 (777/747) replacement now (entry 2021-2022 - 8-10 years should be enough) to prove new manufacturing technologies, shapes and materials they will need to crank out 50 Y1's per month by end of 2020's. Y3 at this point may not be BWB but may be some sort of cross leaning more towards traditional Tube and Wing.

The launch window for Y3 is already long gone. The 777X is already 2 years in development, starting on Y3 now would mean an EIS in 2025 or so. Also, looking at the 787 and 747-8 development, Boeing won't do Y1 and Y3 together duo the complexity of both programs. So if they must choose, Y1 is far more important otherwise they might end up with an 737 Max competing with the A320 successor around 2030 and that's the last thing you want.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10024 posts, RR: 96
Reply 101, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 99):
Maybe it will not be objectively measured by an airline before entry into service and this far out it would be throwing darts in the dark. I have zero information to know if it is plausible that the 77X could have lower seat costs than the A380.

I think my real point is that airlines will evaluate the offerings specific to their own particular circumstances in the detailed technical briefs they undoubtedly have with the OEM. They will do that anyway irrespective of this comment from Randy T.

His comments are thus publicity and nothing more, even though they're undoubtedly true in certain circumstances

That said, it is absolutely plausible for a 777X to have lower seat costs than an A380. it's plausible to have a 777-300ER with lower seat costs than an A380.

Take EKs 489 seat long-haul A380 configuration. That aircraft will cost c. 38%-40% more to own and operate than a 777-300ER. Hence a 777-300ER with 355 seats or more will have better seat costs.
So EKs own 777's therefore already have better seats costs than their long-haul A380's.
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....   

Rgds


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 102, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12231 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen

"My A380s are cash-cows" - Tim Clark.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 103, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12170 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
I think my real point is that airlines will evaluate the offerings specific to their own particular circumstances in the detailed technical briefs they undoubtedly have with the OEM. They will do that anyway irrespective of this comment from Randy T.

No disagreement here.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....

I imagine it may have something to do with those additional 36 extra premium seats it can fly into slot restricted airports and a DXB airport that is going to be bursting at its seams before DWC comes on line. Both aircraft will certainly find homes with the same carriers.

Do you think CX will be large buyers of A380, 748, or 777X? It does not look like the 351 will be quite enough for their needs.

tortugamon


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12543 posts, RR: 25
Reply 104, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 11988 times:

Quoting Navion (Reply 27):
There's been significant discussion on Boeing's ability to make the wings on-site at PAE using the buildings on the south side of the field.

787 shows they are pretty clever at finding space at PAE when they need it, sigh...

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):
There will likely be other legacy issues of a 1990's design that will make their presence felt as the 777X matures in time.

As opposed to the non-legacy issues found when trying to bring 787 to market? Let's see, how do we join the wings again? What fasteners? Etc.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 84):
They are being forced to significantly upgrade the 77W after only about 10.

777W had EIS in 2004 and this frame is probably EIS in 2019 so 15 sounds like a better number.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 94):
It's like renovating a house - at some point you realize that you would have been way better off just to rip the thing down and start again saving money and time.

Presuming the bank will lend you the money. In this analogy, the bank is Boeing's board, and I suspect they feel a lot better about renovation rather than starting from scratch.

It seems to me the sins of the 787 (Y2) are being cast upon both Y1 (oops 737-MAX) and Y3 (oops, 777-X)...

On the other hand, it seems vendors are lining up.

Aluminum-lithium alloys may be used for Boeing 777X says:

Quote:

Alcoa is pouring money into facilities to produce aluminum lithium alloys, expecting it to be incorporated in new aircraft including Boeing’s planned 777 and perhaps the 737 Max. Boeing hasn't said whether or not it will use aluminum-lithium alloys in either plane.

Alcoa is now building a $90 million aluminum-lithium ion production plant in Lafayette, Ind. When completed next year, the new factory will be able to produce 200,000 metric tons of the alloy a year.
...
Alcoa also is expanding another aluminum lithium facility, located in Upper Burrell, Penn.

So it seems they are laying their cards on the table.

As for what it might mean for these programs:

Quote:

Alcoa claims that using its aluminum-lithium alloys can lower an aircraft’s weight by 10 percent, and manufacturing and repair costs by 30 percent.

I imagine this is also a 'fair winds' type of statement, but still, an interesting one. The article mentions that Al-Li is already on the A350.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11919 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 101):
Take EKs 489 seat long-haul A380 configuration. That aircraft will cost c. 38%-40% more to own and operate than a 777-300ER. Hence a 777-300ER with 355 seats or more will have better seat costs.So EKs own 777's therefore already have better seats costs than their long-haul A380's.But they continue to have their A380s delivered by the dozen ....

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.


User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 11828 times:

I think airframe builders always feel an urgent need to lower CASM. Every 1% makes the plane more competitive.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11759 times:

Quoting frmrCapCadet (Reply 106):
I think airframe builders always feel an urgent need to lower CASM. Every 1% makes the plane more competitive.

I'm talking about the owners. None have felt the need yet to do the equivalent of a 10 across 777 sardine can yet.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 108, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11662 times:

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 middle seat in 3-5-3  



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11629 times:

Basic 9 abreast DC10 and early 777 was 2+5+2, so it' no unknown territory !  

User currently offlinebehramjee From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 4784 posts, RR: 43
Reply 110, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11593 times:

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 on the B779X hence shall appreciate some insight...thank you


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 111, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11594 times:

Boeing hasn't released any specs yet.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 619 posts, RR: 8
Reply 112, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11584 times:

Ferpe has some I think  

User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 113, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 11458 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
I can't see Boeing launching the 777X if they believe they could get Y3 for twice as much.

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 timeframe to EIS and Boeings capacity to allocate sufficient financial and engineering resources for the project. Both of these get a green light for immediate launch of the 777X but could never do so for Y3 - it also wouldn't be appropriate given there is still much to learn from the 787 program including in flight data.

I know a lot of us were keen on the idea of continuing incremental improvements to the 77W followed by a Y3 launch early in the next decade. While this makes a lot of sense in terms of steady engineering progression Boeing clearly felt the opportunity cost of doing so would be a massive loss of market share by the 77W to the 35J. There was also the issue of Tim Clark from EK banging very loudly on the door demanding a new aircraft - difficult to ignore given EK's buying power.

It is this combination of circumstances and events that have led to Boeing choosing the 777X strategy despite its financial and opportunity costs.

Boeing would have thoroughly scrutinised a whole suite of potential options ranging from doing nothing to incremental enhancements to the 77W right through to the 777X option.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 95):
The spend on the 747-8 is believed to be around $4 billion, including overruns and costs to develop the 747-8 Intercontinental. I would be surprised (and worried, frankly) if Boeing is budgeting more than $5 billion for the 777X.

All due respect Stitch but I couldn't disagree more strongly. The 777X program will be the most complex and ambitious derivative programs in civil aviation history. Boeing are literally replacing everything except the fuselage and even that will undergo a change in materials to a new Li alloy to reduce weight. Previous major derivatives at most have involved a new wing (using the same alloys and fabrication techniques) mated to the same fuselage as before (with or without a stretch) along with new engines - good examples are the 737NG and 744/748.

The 777X will have a massive new CRFP wing (different and separate fabrication techniques) and wing box - no previous derivative program by either Boeing or Airbus has gone from an alloy wing to a CRFP wing. The changes in fabrication and assembly techniques along with changes to the supply chain will incur significant non-recurring (one off) costs. It should be safe to assume the wing will be built in the US by Boeing and not by Mitsubishi in Japan so Boeing will bear those costs.

The 737Max program which is little more than a re-engine plus winglets and other minor enhancements is costed between $3 billion and $4 billion - and it has nothing near the scale of complexity of the 777X.

The most authoritative data in the public domain as to the true cost of the 777X program is actually provided by Airbus, who in 2004 launched the 350Mk1 - a program almost identical in concept to the 777X (CRFP wing, Li-Al & new engines). The estimated cost (in 2004 dollars) was $5.3 billion. As the 350 program went through an official launch which was approved by the board this cost would have been prepared by experienced estimators and engineers and thoroughly scrutinised before being presented to the board.

When inflated (at 3% per year) into today's dollars that figure becomes approx $7 billion - and that's before adding in any increase in real prices, scope creep, schedule delay and the other inevitable issues that occur on such a complex program. Boeing's cost structure may differ from that of Airbus but this figure has far more credibility than anything popped out of the air by us A.netters or aviation analysts.

I can't see any way that Boeing will get the 777X out the door for as little as $5 billion - I think it will be more like $10 billion. To put that into perspective the original 77W/77L derivative program has been estimated to cost around $1 billion.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 83):any upgrade of the 777X could be hindered by various legacy issues or it may be the case that the initial 777-8/9 have extracted all that can be done to the 777 platform bar engine improvements.
This is what I don't agree with. Based on today's available technology, it may be true tha the 777-8X/9X is the best that they can hope to achieve on the 777. A decade ago, the 777-300ER and the 777-200LR were likewise the "pinnacle" of technological upgrades to the 777 limited by the allocated cost of the project. I would think that how much of an upgrade the 777 frame can take would depend largely on how much money Boeing is willing to throw at it. Maybe another decade from now, technological advances would allow a further derivative to be made?

The 777 was originally designed in the early 1990's - a time when fuel was around $35/barrel and aircraft such as the 744 were cutting edge and highly economical to operate. Aircraft were built heavier as there was little economic penalty for doing so. As such the 777 is a solid & heavy aircraft in today's world - this is the main penalty of the various legacy systems - particularly those that can't be replaced without adopting a new fuselage (ie Y3).

The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense. Boeing are already pushing the 777X very hard indeed - new engines, CRFP wing, wingbox, Li alloy fuselage and other systems. It is the opportunity cost of continuing to invest in that older design that will eventually make you call a halt as the same capital will be better deployed on a new design.

It is a very difficult call as to how amenable the 777X will be to a mid life upgrade when the time comes - which will inevitably be when Airbus decide to do the same to the 35J. In its favour the 777X will have a magnificent wing - one that will be crying out to carry a bigger and heavier derivative (450 seats) that unfortunately cannot be accommodated by the 777X fuselage as it will be too long.

This could be the ultimate opportunity cost of the 777X - establishing a new market for twins in the 400+ seat category but not having the capacity to further expand and exploit that market - despite having the necessary wing/engine combination to do so. Y3 could easily accommodate such a stretch.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
Doing the Y3 now would give the A350 too much of a head start. It'll also cost a lot more to do the Y3 than it does to do the 777X, with no guarantee of a better return on investment, taking into account the massive cost and complexity of a clean sheet design.

Y3 will involve more cost, complexity and risk than the 777X but not that much more - and it would have a much longer life cycle.

At the same time I acknowledge that Y3 is not an option now so for Boeing's sake I hope Tim Clark orders the 777X by the bucket load.


Just my    - please feel free to disagree.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 114, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Just my    - please feel free to disagree.

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 fully. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter.  

It must a very close call between going for the B777-X-program or to go for an all new wide-body in that section of the market again. Interesting enough will be to see how the CFRP-planes (B787-A350) will hold up against the latest in Al-Li technology. These materials will no doubt find their way to A380 improvements as well. As always, interesting times ahead.  .


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12543 posts, RR: 25
Reply 115, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11375 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
All due respect Stitch but I couldn't disagree more strongly. The 777X program will be the most complex and ambitious derivative programs in civil aviation history. Boeing are literally replacing everything except the fuselage and even that will undergo a change in materials to a new Li alloy to reduce weight. Previous major derivatives at most have involved a new wing (using the same alloys and fabrication techniques) mated to the same fuselage as before (with or without a stretch) along with new engines - good examples are the 737NG and 744/748.

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 same size, but used different alloys, different bonding techniques and less fasteners.

http://www.b737.org.uk/737ng.htm gives the main differences as:

Quote:


Performance: Faster cruise M0.78, Higher ceiling 41,000ft, Lower take-off & approach speeds, Higher MTOW, lower fuel burn.
Engines: FADEC controlled CFM56-7, 2.5deg nozzle tilt, redesigned struts, improved nacelles with increased airflow and improved noise treatment, 7% more fuel efficient than CFM56-3.
Fuselage: Strengthened for increased tail loads and design weights, new wing-body strake.
Wings: New airfoil section, 25% increase in area, 107" semi-span increase, 17" chord increase, raked wing-tip, larger inspar wingbox with machined ribs.
Fuel Tanks: Main tanks smaller at 3900kg each but centre tank much larger giving total fuel capacity of 20,800kg. (compared to 16,200kg on classics).
Tail: 4ft 8in taller, 60 sq ft root insert, modified rudder, segmented rudder seals, digital yaw damper.
Flight Controls: Increased elevator PCU capability, aileron and tab span increase, new double slotted continuous span flaps, new leading edge Krueger flaps, additional slat, additional spoiler.
Nose Gear: Stroke increased 3.5" to relieve higher dynamic loads and wheelwell extended 3" forward.
Main Gear: Longer to reduce tailstrike risk, one piece titanium gear beam, 43.5" tyres, digital antiskid.
Flightdeck: 6 programmable LCD's, replacing EFIS CRT displays and most conventional instruments.
Systems: Most systems developed particularly: electrics, powerplant & navigation.

The NG's have 33% fewer parts than the Classics which reduces production time.

I suspect the 777-9X remake will be a lot like 737 Classic -> NG and thus be a very expensive program.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 116, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 11298 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 115):

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,
StickShaker


User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11198 times:

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 Size of the 350-450 seat 777 market over the next 20-30 years is probably something like 2-3,000 frames.

Even if Y3 cost $20 Billion you are talking less than $10 million in development cost per frame, which is minor compared to total sales price.

It would a real shame to give up on the 115,000 Lb thrust class of engines and not build a 350-500 seat twin.

A 80M long 12W Twin Y3 could conceivably one day hold 500'ish passengers.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 118, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 11203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Just my    - please feel free to disagree.

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 be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 342 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11089 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it."

If it does go ahead Airbus will consider themselves very lucky that they are not competing against a state of the art proper 10 abreast twin. A new twin that starts as a 350-400 pax aircraft that can be stretched and developed for 30 years. Instead of a very expense and extensive update of an updated 1990's design.



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12466 posts, RR: 37
Reply 120, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11077 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 117):
The Size of the 350-450 seat 777 market over the next 20-30 years is probably something like 2-3,000 frames.

Even if Y3 cost $20 Billion you are talking less than $10 million in development cost per frame, which is minor compared to total sales price.

It would a real shame to give up on the 115,000 Lb thrust class of engines and not build a 350-500 seat twin.

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, which would push right up to the 80m mark? If we are talking - as some have suggested - about a $10b program, then one would expect Boeing to build some growth potential into it?


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 121, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11096 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting morrisond (Reply 94):
Aren't they already talking about 777X costs as 60-70% of a cleansheet, even before launch.

Do you have a source for that statement?

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
They are doing a new wing anyways - new engines - and Widening the fuselage inside.

Yes. Along with a fuselage stretch, those are the most likely parameters of the 777X program. There are many other details which have been rumoured but not confirmed, such as larger windows and new fuselage skin, which may or may not be incorporated into the project. I suspect Boeing would be smart enough to weigh up the RoI on each of the proposals before actually applying them onto the aircraft, thus minimising scope creep.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
Graft the new wing and engines onto a 787 nose section/avionics and use it's basic systems architecture (an electri system should be more scaleable) with a widened ovalized composite fuselage.

All your really talking about from a tooling standpoint is how to build ovalized composite sections, which they are already doing with the 787 Vertical Oval.

That wouldn't be a 787 anymore, it would be a clean sheet design, which Boeing are apparently trying to avoid doing after spending much more than they had originally intended to on the 787 program. I may not know much about aircraft design, but my understanding is that the fuselage cross section is something that cannot be altered without a complete re-design. What you're proposing is not a 787 derivative but a clean sheet design.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 96):
They are underweight on 789 why throw all that valuable engineering away

How are they underweight on the 787-9?

And what do you mean by "throw all that valuable engineering away"? Boeing have lauched the 787-8, are working on the 787-9 with the 787-10 to come, along with, possibly, a longer range version of the 787-8. It seems to me that they are maximising the airframe's potential by introducing several derivatives of it.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Also, looking at the 787 and 747-8 development, Boeing won't do Y1 and Y3 together duo the complexity of both programs. So if they must choose, Y1 is far more important otherwise they might end up with an 737 Max competing with the A320 successor around 2030 and that's the last thing you want.

  

I would agree that the Y1 is more important. The 737 is the "bread and butter" model for Boeing. Without checking, I would guess that Boeing makes more money from 737 deliveries than from other programs simply due to the sheer volume of 737s it delivers.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 103):
Do you think CX will be large buyers of A380, 748, or 777X? It does not look like the 351 will be quite enough for their needs.

I might be somewhat biased, but I believe that if CX are going to buy an aircraft larger than the A350-1000 and 777-300ER, then the 777-9X will have the best chance because it is an incremental increase in size over the A350-1000 and 777-300ER, as well as being almost exactly the same size as a 747-400 which is on the way out of the fleet.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Aircraft were built heavier as there was little economic penalty for doing so. As such the 777 is a solid & heavy aircraft in today's world - this is the main penalty of the various legacy systems - particularly those that can't be replaced without adopting a new fuselage (ie Y3).

I agree that the current 777 is a heavy aircraft, but a lot of that weight comes from an over-engineered wing. I would imagine that the redesigned wing will also be a lot more efficient not only aerodynamically, but also structurally, than the current wing, so despite its increase in span, I do not believe that it will be much heavier than the current smaller 777-300ER/777-200LR wings, if at all.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense.

Agreed. But where that theoretical point is remains to be seen. The 777's base design isn't "old" when compared with other aircraft which are still being produced, such as the 737, 747, 767, A320 and A330, and in particular, the 737 and A320 are likely to remain in production well into the next decade. If those aircraft can be modified and "tweaked" to be competitive in the current market, I don't see why the 777 can't.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):

This could be the ultimate opportunity cost of the 777X - establishing a new market for twins in the 400+ seat category but not having the capacity to further expand and exploit that market - despite having the necessary wing/engine combination to do so.

That may be of no consequence as there are no other 400+ seat twins on the horizon.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):
Y3 will involve more cost, complexity and risk than the 777X but not that much more

I think that's highly speculative because the "Y3" is purely theoretical. No one (I would imagine not even Boeing) knows the scope of the "Y3" project, thus speculating on the cost of a speculative, undefined project is a futile exercise, and comparing how much more it will be vis a vis projected cost of the 777X is moot.

All we really know for sure is that in general, clean sheet designs are more expensive than an upgrade of an existing airframe, and that Boeing are building the 777X at an undefined fraction of the cost of an all new cleansheet to produce an aircraft that will be competitive with the A350. To me, that sounds like a wise investment.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12543 posts, RR: 25
Reply 122, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11085 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 116):
Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ?

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 A $3 Billion Hole Before Investors Lose Their Patience? which says:

Quote:

But the airplanes still have to recoup more than $2 billion in upfront development and tooling costs and the more than $1 billion in unexpected losses - an estimated $3 billion deficit in all.

Ok, let's call it $3B in 1999 dollars.

Quote:

Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Seems to corroborate the above: around $2.1B to start, around $1B overruns.

It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

Another very funny statement to read:

Quote:

"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

In any case, an online inflation calculator tells me that $3B in 1999 is equal to $4B in 2012.

As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

On the other hand, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...max-development-cost-report-367504 from Jan 2012 gives us:

Quote:

Boeing's Crabtree declined to provide a cost estimate for the Max, but in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source

Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion.

Airbus previously said the cost to re-engine the A320 is $1.32 billion (€1 billion). This also represents only the airframe cost, Airbus tells Flightglobal, counting engine development separately.

So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11062 times:

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 Composite primary structure (as evidenced by progress on 789).

Why throw that away? I'm guessing a lot of the engineering lay-offs that are thinking of is the Composite Fuselage staff.

That seems really silly as on the big issues on 788 delays was getting up to speed on composite engineering.

If they don't do another composite barrel now (yes I know some of the special aluminum's hold promise for current generation - but they will fall by the wayside again shortly with advances in composites), they will lose that ability and have to relearn everything again when they get to there next cleansheet.

In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative. As a Portfolio Manager I see this as not making a lot of sense - I would be much happier if they built a cleansheet Y3.

"He who dares wins"

Aviation History is littered with the corpses of companies who choose the conservative route and failed - McD anyone? Instead of building something leading edge they continued to recycle there basic DC-9/10 frames.

Airbus is where it is as it's dared to push the envelope and continues to push Boeing.


User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2260 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 11041 times:

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 street right, Airbus suffered heavily in these early years of the 380 and the A400 also served as a swift kick in the nuts. These two are pushing each other plenty and I think what we'll see over time is a more conservative approach as they each learn the brutal lessons of building new planes according to old commando mottos.

User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11029 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
I would agree that the Y1 is more important. The 737 is the "bread and butter" model for Boeing. Without checking, I would guess that Boeing makes more money from 737 deliveries than from other programs simply due to the sheer volume of 737s it delivers.

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 quote from reuters:

"Analysts say the 777 is Boeing's most profitable plane, thanks largely to the 777-300ER, a 365-seat version that began operations in 2004."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...02/us-boeing-idUSBRE94119Z20130502

Being the sole aircraft in its size category, the 777 commands less discounting than any other aircraft in Boeing.

In comparison, a 777-300ER brings in roughly 3.7 times as much money as a single 737-800 for Boeing.


Average market value of a new 737-800= $44.5 million

Average market value of a new 777-300er = $162.3 million

Combined with the high number of deliveries per year, it is marginally less important than the 737 and over time it just may become even more important considering how quickly it is catching up.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12543 posts, RR: 25
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11012 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 116):
Did Boeing ever give any hint as to total R&D costs ?

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 A $3 Billion Hole Before Investors Lose Their Patience? which says:

Quote:

But the airplanes still have to recoup more than $2 billion in upfront development and tooling costs and the more than $1 billion in unexpected losses - an estimated $3 billion deficit in all.

Ok, let's call it $3B in 1999 dollars.

Quote:

Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Seems to corroborate the above: around $2.1B to start, around $1B overruns.

It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

Another very funny statement to read:

Quote:

"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

In any case, an online inflation calculator tells me that $3B in 1999 is equal to $4B in 2012.

As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

On the other hand, http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...max-development-cost-report-367504 from Jan 2012 gives us:

Quote:

Boeing's Crabtree declined to provide a cost estimate for the Max, but in March 2010, Mike Bair, vice president of business strategy & marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said in an interview the estimated cost to re-engine the 737 would be $2bn-$3bn, including the portion for engine development contributed by CFM, said an industry source

Additionally, former Boeing CFO James Bell said during the company's second quarter 2011 earnings call, the research and development cost to Boeing to re-engine would be 10%-15% of the cost of a new airplane, which was at the time widely estimated by aerospace analysts to be $10-$12 billion.

Airbus previously said the cost to re-engine the A320 is $1.32 billion (€1 billion). This also represents only the airframe cost, Airbus tells Flightglobal, counting engine development separately.

So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved (that I listed above) with 'only' $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
How are they underweight on the 787-9?

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 weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

[Edited 2013-05-07 11:27:54]

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 11033 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

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 bring manufacturing back on site. Those investments should not fall entirely on the 77X program as they would undoubtedly be used for future programs as well Obviously this is not something the 737NG had to deal with.

However, I contend it will be closer to five B than $10 B otherwise they will need to go clean sheet. If 85% of an aircraft's efficiency comes from the engines and the wing and those are going to be upgraded, while the fuselage should get an upgrade, I have to imagine that this should lead to a very competitive design. Clean sheet could bring them two 8knm efficient machines, a LR/F, and would be better positioned for the future however it would give the 351 and 388 a very very big boost for 3-4 more years.

Try the cheap fix, if you can lock up a bunch of orders (225 plus) then launch, if not, then take a deep breath and bring out a fresh piece of paper and proceed to write the number 3 preceded by the letter Y.

tortugamon


User currently offlinebrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3013 posts, RR: 4
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10830 times:

Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?


Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 10832 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
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 weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

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? The 789 should be a little less than 7t heavier


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3446 posts, RR: 10
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10826 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

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 would not immediately launch the freighter until the 777-8X production trailed off a little. As it would only be getting into full swing 10 years from now, there will be plenty of time to make that decision. I suspect the lift and fuel burn of such a freighter would be well worth the effort when they do make that decision.

tortugamon


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 10791 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.

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 Airbus need that to happen for their large passenger jet sales to get beyond the 'lets break even' stage, and a lot of those what appear to be speculative hundreds of orders for the smaller planes to all be taken up. Then they won't just be breaking even, they will be raking in the cash. Given that every other global economic recession has ended eventually, so will this one.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 755 posts, RR: 5
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 10688 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
As a shareholder, I should probably be worried that Boeing is going down the wrong path, but considering how risk averse they have been since launching the 777, I should take hope in history and the belief that unless Randy and Company can secure a few hundred commitments from a number of "blue chip" customers, they won't launch it.

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 was heavily influenced by a combination of market conditions along with Boeings current circumstances. From all the options Boeing would have considered there was no single elegant solution that satisfied all short term and long term needs without some sort of opportunity costs. I see the 777X as doing an excellent job in the short to medium term (I expect the 777-9X will receive a flood of orders in the next few years) - its the medium to long term I have concerns about.That Boeing are prepared to invest such a large amount of capital and resources into the 777X project indicates that Boeing see defending the large wide body market as one of their highest priorities.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
I agree that the current 777 is a heavy aircraft, but a lot of that weight comes from an over-engineered wing. I would imagine that the redesigned wing will also be a lot more efficient not only aerodynamically, but also structurally, than the current wing, so despite its increase in span, I do not believe that it will be much heavier than the current smaller 777-300ER/777-200LR wings, if at all.

I agree - the new 777X wing will be state of the art - it is a key part of the business case. I have no doubt that the 777-9X will be an excellent competitive aircraft.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 113):The law of diminishing returns dictates that the harder you push an older design, the less return you will get for your investment until you reach the point that a clean sheet replacement makes more commercial sense.
Agreed. But where that theoretical point is remains to be seen. The 777's base design isn't "old" when compared with other aircraft which are still being produced, such as the 737, 747, 767, A320 and A330, and in particular, the 737 and A320 are likely to remain in production well into the next decade.

Yes - it is difficult to pick that point particularly when you are considering a mid life upgrade which won't occur until after 2030. The 777X is the first push - the mid life upgrade after 2030 is the second push and that is where I have my concerns about diminishing returns.
Of the aircraft you quote, the 767 and 747 are in their twilight years and the narrow bodies seem to be in a world of their own. The 330 is a good comparison as it is only a few years older than the 777 and despite discussion of a 330Neo concept Airbus have been reluctant to invest heavily in the platform. Airbus of course have the new 350 so it does have significant differences to the 77W situation.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
That may be of no consequence as there are no other 400+ seat twins on the horizon.

It would be a crying shame if the 777-9X establishes a lucrative market in the 400+ seats category and can't upscale to further exploit that market - even if Airbus don't have an offering. If Boeing could launch a 450 seat derivative then they could be back in a 77W situation where they own the market - no competitor. I see this as a major long term opportunity cost of the 777X strategy - there could be others that are not readily apparent at this point in time.


Quoting CXB77L (Reply 121):
All we really know for sure is that in general, clean sheet designs are more expensive than an upgrade of an existing airframe, and that Boeing are building the 777X at an undefined fraction of the cost of an all new cleansheet to produce an aircraft that will be competitive with the A350. To me, that sounds like a wise investment.

I'm not suggesting its unwise but rather looking closely at all the issues to understand why Boeing chose this option over the others that were available. Again - there was no simple or obvious strategy that fitted neatly with Boeings current circumstances and market conditions.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
Quote:
Boeing managers with knowledge of the process say that commercial-airplane-group department heads typically offer a cost estimate for a new airplane program that is considered too high by senior managers, who then come back with a much lower figure. The company's board of directors gives final approval.

In the past, this give-and-take has usually worked. In the case of the new 737 program, where driving down costs was crucial to its success, "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails," said one manager familiar with the process.

The group department heads - representing such functions as tooling, components, engineering and production - told senior management in 1993 that they couldn't build three airplane models for less than $2.51 billion. But senior management set a target of $2.1 billion and, to sell the program to the board, ultimately told directors it would cost only $1.7 billion to develop the 737-600, the 737-700 and the 737-800.

With the Boeing board approving the lower cost estimate that senior managers signed on to but department heads felt was unrealistic, the program went forward without a true consensus on costs. And as it ran into problems ranging from production snarls to certification delays, the costs escalated.

Thats an interesting insight into what actually happens - thanks for sharing.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
It's kind of funny to read "the whole check-and-balance system of Boeing came off the rails" with reference to the 737NG program instead of the 787, no?

It certainly is - the 737Ng looks absolutely tame compared to what happened with the 787 - although to be fair the 787 had far deeper issues than just costing and budgeting.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
"From a financial perspective, this plane will never live up to its potential," said Peter Jacobs, aerospace analyst for Ragen MacKenzie. "It's a great airplane. But the production problems and the competitive pricing pressure will impair this program financially for years, if not decades."

Fascinating !!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
As above, I agree with others we'll be seeing that much work done for that little cost, which seems to imply that cost of developing aerospace technology has increased much faster than inflation, no?

Thats a good observation - one that I have read elsewhere. My guess is that this is driven by the intense demand for fuel efficiency from new aircraft. The cost of fuel was around $35/barrel for decades and then rocketed up to more than $100 in a few short years - this has magnified the focus on efficiency.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 122):
So perhaps we are aiming a bit too high on what the 777-X will cost, given the list of things the 737NG achieved that I gave above, with $4B in inflation adjusted dollars?

I think I would still defer to the Airbus costing of the 350Mk1.
There's also this issue mentioned by tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 128):
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 bring manufacturing back on site.

 checkmark 


I'm also curious if there are any similar setup costs associated with using Al-Li alloys for the fuselage - not much information out there at the moment. Bombadier are using Li alloys for the C Series - that might give some sort of guide.


Regards,
StickShaker

[Edited 2013-05-07 21:11:00]

User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 10538 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

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 will not move until Airbus starts to talk about the 350F which will not happen until after midlife of the A350 program.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10365 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 134):
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 will not move until Airbus starts to talk about the 350F which will not happen until after midlife of the A350 program.

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 building the new, CFRP wings side by side. Also, if they go to new material for the fuselage this will be a problem as well. But the 748F will still have appeal, as it is the only freighter available with the nose door, and still has a significant payload advantage over the 777F.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4983 posts, RR: 5
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10358 times:

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F and if so will it kill off the 747-8F?

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 passenger aircraft with belly capacity in the 12 to 20t range depending on sector distance are going to be the big beneficiaries. There is a large growth in the numbers of such aircraft. Every 77W that replaces a 744 adds something like 50% additional freight capability. For example the 789 has a volume limited potential of almost 20t.
The incremental costs are largely fuel . Using a 789 as an example ( because it is modeled by PIANO-X which allows for accurate calculations) for a 6000nm sector the incremental fuel burn for 10t of cargo ( assuming a max. passenger load) is 3.720t of fuel which at the current IATA average price of $900 m/t gives an incremental cost of .335c/kg. Typical rates for this distance would be about $5/kg or more.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10330 times:

Quoting behramjee (Reply 110):
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 on the B779X hence shall appreciate some insight...thank you
Quoting behramjee (Reply 110):
Boeing hasn't released any specs yet.
Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 112):
Ferpe has some I think

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 I do have is airframe and engine modeling tools and the understanding how to use these tools to get facts which are embedded in what the OEMs do tell us.

An OEM tells you a lot when he says XXX pax to YYYnm with a ZZZ MTOW. Lets have a short look at how much info they reveal when they give us facts about 777-8(L)X and 9X:

1. As I have the 777-200, 200ER, 200LR, 300, 300ER modeled with their GE90 engines (also T800 and PW4000 for the earlier birds) I have a pretty good idea on Boeings baseline from which they do changes. This includes dimensions, drag, lift, weights, engine characteristics and fuel consumption at different flight situations. This is accurate to the point that I can see when one parameter does not fit the puzzle, e.g. when a Journo or analyst has got something out of context or got it wrong.

2. I have modeled the new 71m wing and engines for the 777X for a long time, in fact this was the trigger for me to build my model. I therefore have a good understanding what it can do for the 777X and can't do. I have also gradually come to analyze what fuselage extensions cost in terms of tonnes per meter, this includes what a cabin costs in weight if you want to increase the seat count like the -8(L)X from 301 to 353.

3. The above means that when someone says the -9X is a 8000nm spec range frame with the given data (4 frame extension of 77W, 100+klbf GE9X engines, 71m wing etc, 344t MTOW) I immediately sees this is not correct, there are parameters in there that does not fit. Given the informations most likely the -9X range is not correct, it is probably more like 8500nm and B have the final MTOW as a rubber parameter to reach this even with weight creep. This is for "spec" range (ie with show room cabin and nominal OEW, regulatory reserves) which is 10% longer then real usefull range for an airline.

4. For the -8(L)X the picture is fuzzier, we have the seat count, 353 spec seating in a cabin which should be 4.8m longer then the -200ER or LR. This is 9 frames in a 21' frame spacing, seems plausible (my earlier 7 frames was wrong  Wow! ). Gets the fuselage to 67.7m and the frame to 68.5m. With all the changes my calculations shows a spec OEW of around 158t. To get the 353 pax+bags to 9500nm you then only need a MTOW of 330t.


The whole 4 mean Boeing have a lot of freedom to tailor the -8LX. Part of that IMO will be that it will be a middle thing between the original -8Xs (which was to close to a 35J) and a true -8LX in the style of the -200LR. The latter did not sell to well as it was strongly optimized for ULH and sacrificed more normal use efficiency to reach this goal. I think therefore Boeing has been working a lot to understand what trades to make for what will be called the (final) -8X, they will use as much from the -9X unchanged as possible, and will try to gain weight and thus efficiency where it makes sense. In the end it will not have an MTOW very close to the -9X (the -200LR is close to -300ER) as it would fly 10000nm spec missions in that case and no-one has business for 20 hour planes. I therefore guess we will see the MTOW end up around 330t, it makes for a efficient ULH frame that also makes sense on shorter routes.

[Edited 2013-05-08 05:24:19]


Non French in France
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12543 posts, RR: 25
Reply 138, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 10274 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
Bombadier are using Li alloys for the C Series - that might give some sort of guide.

Indeed it should.

In earlier discussions some of our more knowledgeable members pointed out that BBD chose this combo wisely. CRFP is made thicker than needed for the fuse due to ramp rash issues and is a costlier material than Al-Li, so this combo it has its advantages. CFRP has more advantage on fuses larger than the C-Series and saves labor, but it is still said that the 787 fuse is thicker than needed to meet structural requirements due to ramp rash issues. On wings the parts are thicker because the forces aren't distributed as uniformly as they are on the fuse so they need to be stronger.

As you note, the A350 Mk1 was to be Al-Li fuse with CFRP wings, but the need to be wider than the 787 drove the decision to make an all new fuse, which Airbus chose to make out of CFRP panels, which of course is also quite justifiable.

As noted above, the material choice hasn't been made for either 777X or 737 MAX.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinemorrisond From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10232 times:

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?

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 140, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10105 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting morrisond (Reply 123):
In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative. As a Portfolio Manager I see this as not making a lot of sense

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 airframe at a fraction of the cost of a clean sheet design, then it makes perfect sense for them to upgrade the existing frame. It may end up being the project with a better return on investment, as they won't need to sink as much money into the development of an all new frame and won't need to sell as many to break even on the project. This makes perfect commercial sense.

Furthemore, the 777 is still a relatively young airframe with the potential for further development to extend its production life. Why waste that opportunity to get some more leverage off the money already spent on engineering the original 777?

Quoting wingman (Reply 124):
The flip side of that saying is "He Who Dares Gets Gets His Ass Kicked". That's what practically happened with the 787.

  

Clean sheet designs are inherently risky. Personally, I believe clean sheet designs only make sense when that manufacturer is attempting to enter into a new market (such as what Bombardier are doing with the C-Series), or there is no commercially viable way to deliver a competitive derivative of an existing airframe.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 125):
In comparison, a 777-300ER brings in roughly 3.7 times as much money as a single 737-800 for Boeing.

I was referring to the annual profit derived from the total deliveries of the 737 vis a vis that of the 777, rather than the profit margins of each individual frame.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 127):
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 weight in the past six years based on SUH claiming the plane was 6.4 tons overweight in November 2007.

Thanks for that. This sounds like good news for the 787.

Quoting brons2 (Reply 129):
Will there be a future 777-8F

Boeing haven't announced it, but I don't see why there wouldn't be a 777-8F in the future.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
The 777X is the first push - the mid life upgrade after 2030 is the second push and that is where I have my concerns about diminishing returns.

Perhaps you might be right about this. I do believe that the 777X will be the final 777 derivative which will take the 777 production into the 2030s, until the "Y3" makes its debut sometime during that decade. Boeing could coincide the "Y3" with the A350's mid-life upgrade, in case a further derivative of the 777X becomes commercially unviable at that time.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 133):
It would be a crying shame if the 777-9X establishes a lucrative market in the 400+ seats category and can't upscale to further exploit that market - even if Airbus don't have an offering.

That would depend on whether a market for a segment above the 777-9X but below the A380 exists. If there is, then perhaps Boeing could study the viability of a further stretch to the 777 airframe, if that is possible. But if there isn't sufficient demand for Boeing to look into a further stretch of the 777-9X, they may just have to tell those airlines wanting something bigger than the 777-9X to buy the 747-8i.

[Edited 2013-05-08 08:55:20]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 141, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10062 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 140):
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 airframe at a fraction of the cost of a clean sheet design, then it makes perfect sense for them to upgrade the existing frame. It may end up being the project with a better return on investment, as they won't need to sink as much money into the development of an all new frame and won't need to sell as many to break even on the project. This makes perfect commercial sense.

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 engines with the 787 could never work. I also seem to recall a lot of criticism of Airbus when it announced its A320neo strategy, and how Boeing would decimate it with an all singing and dancing 737 clean sheet replacement. Only later for Boeing to again to take another engineering solution for the A330F nose gear extension, and generate the 737max.

I personally think the original A350 would have worked well, just wondering if someone would like to rehash all the "disadvantages" the original A350 had, and how these do not apply to the 777X.

Or is someone finally going to have the guts to come out and say what we all knew at the time, a lot of what was being said of the original A350 was misinformation. Personally I think this 777X is a natural product evolution, rather than a revolution.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 142, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10039 times:

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 heavier airframe. The original A350 and the 787 on the other hand would have entered the market in about the same timeframe.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 143, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 10039 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
So why is people like yourself stated black and blue that the original A350

Don't ask me, I wasn't on a.net back then.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
I personally think the original A350 would have worked well,

So do I. Its only downfall is its cabin cross section which cannot accommodate 9 across like the 787 can. It would have been a more than capable A330/A340 replacement/787 competitor. In fact, I wish Airbus had built the original A350 instead of the A350XWB because the original A350 as it was proposed wouldn't even threaten the 777-300ER's dominance in the long range large widebody market ...

Nevertheless, regardless of what people here said about the original A350 all those years back, Airbus decided not to go ahead with it. I doubt very much that any "bashing" that the original A350 might have copped here would have anything to do with Airbus' decision.

[Edited 2013-05-08 08:51:07]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 144, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9999 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):

I personally think the original A350 would have worked well, just wondering if someone would like to rehash all the "disadvantages" the original A350 had, and how these do not apply to the 777X.

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. This was before the 787 program went so badly into the weeds, and I really believed in (and still do, actually) the advantages of CFRP construction, particularly in the areas of longevity and maintenance. I was also disappointed that Boeing went the MAX route instead of an all-new airframe, but I can see why they did it, and they were probably right, as most of their customers would be willing to wait for the MAX but would not be willing to wait for an all-new plane, especially after the 787 fiasco. The situation with the 777 is similar; the A3510 is poised to trample the 77W if Boeing does nothing, and they obviously cannot afford that. And again, customers are probably unwilling to wait 10 years for a clean sheet design, coupled with the very real possibilities of significant delays.

As to the question raised by some posters about whether or not boldness in aircraft design pays off, my conclusion is what pays off is building the right airplane. Be as bold or as cautious as you like, but have for sale the aircraft that the airlines want. It must be reliable and cost less to operate than its direct competitors, and it will sell. If your competitor launches a plane that beats yours, you MUST match or exceed it or lose that market segment. There is no alternative. There have been bold planes that failed (the Concorde) and cautious ones that succeeded (the 737NG). You just can't make blanket statements about it; you simply have to get the plane right.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlinetistpaa727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 328 posts, RR: 2
Reply 145, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9937 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
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 engines with the 787 could never work.

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 on Anet but the media and even the airlines, leasing companies. If I recall wasn't it Udvar-Hazy that came out and publicly bashed the updated 330 / 350MK1. He wanted something sexy and new and this just added fuel to the flames. Unfortunately all of through all of the hype and excitement people lost sight of the bigger picture and the fact that what is the right path to take is not always the glamorous one.

In hindsight Airbus probably should have stuck with the original plan given the 787 issues. But then that leaves Boeing as the sole provider in the 77W segment. Could the 330 have been stretched to get into the 359 / 77W ballpark? I don't recall reading about that.

Anyway, we could argue all day (and night) about who is right / wrong. That's no fun - what is fun is talking about all of the amazing aircraft coming down the line for the next 8 years - I just hope I can catch a flight on all of them.



Don't sweat the little things.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 146, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9900 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 142):
The 777X will use newer technology than what's today available on the A350; the newer technology will compensate for the heavier airframe. The original A350 and the 787 on the other hand would have entered the market in about the same timeframe.

What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Its only downfall is its cabin cross section which cannot accommodate 9 across like the 787 can. It would have been a more than capable A330/A340 replacement/787 competitor. In fact, I wish Airbus had built the original A350 instead of the A350XWB because the original A350 as it was proposed wouldn't even threaten the 777-300ER's dominance in the long range large widebody market

You can go 9 across, and some airlines do, it has not stopped A330 sales, nor did it stop a lot of original A350 sales. I think Airbus always needed the A340 replacement, not much could be done with the -600.

The problem is the hype that comes with these announcements like the 777X, we have a lot of people on here take them at face value. The 787 is not being anywhere near the sort of capability people were claiming when it was launched. We need to remember that the numbers that are being projected are based upon marketing layouts with no cargo being carried. IN reality airlines will provide passengers with more room than these marketing layouts on long haul routes, IFE, food etc which all detracts away from what is left over.

The 777X will be an improvement over the 777, and it will gain a lot of sales. There is a lot of room for both the A350 and 777X in the marketplace, and I still think there is room for a A330neo.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Nevertheless, regardless of what people here said about the original A350 all those years back, Airbus decided not to go ahead with it. I doubt very much that any "bashing" that the original A350 might have copped here would have anything to do with Airbus' decision.

I believe a lot of the "Game Changing" information originated from Boeing from its sales teams to customers. I saw some of the presentations, they were slick, reminded my of those late night TV commercials where they try and sell you knives and exercise equipment. Lots of projections, lots of hype, and some of the items (like change engine manufacturer in 24 hours) just got dropped. A lot of things that were being described as being novel on the 787 were actually already out there in service.

The 777X I see as being a logical evolution of a successful air frame, and it is a small step, they can put more effort into getting the wing/engines right and not have to worry about the fuselage as much. I would not be surprised if between now and the 777X EIS we see the fuselage upgrade make it into service ahead of the wing/engine package.

I sincerely hope that Boeing has learned from the 787, and will build the 777X using the same supply chain as they do for the 777.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 144):
The situation with the 777 is similar; the A3510 is poised to trample the 77W if Boeing does nothing, and they obviously cannot afford that. And again, customers are probably unwilling to wait 10 years for a clean sheet design, coupled with the very real possibilities of significant delays.

I think that is a fallacy, like the people who claimed the A330 sales would have dried up when the 787 came out. I think the 777 would still have sold, not the -200 model. The 787-10 will take that slot.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 147, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9873 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
Don't ask me, I wasn't on a.net back then.

Me neither.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
I personally think the original A350 would have worked well,
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 143):
So do I.

With the knowledge of today, the delays of new programs etc, I believe Airbus would think the same way.

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
What do you see as being this new technology on the 777X ? The updated engine ?

Newer generation engines and newer generation CFRP wings. The original A350 and the 787 would have had the same generation technology on this level.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9097 posts, RR: 75
Reply 148, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9868 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 147):
Newer generation engines and newer generation CFRP wings. The original A350 and the 787 would have had the same generation technology on this level.

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 been the second full large wing they made (A400M, A380 HTP, A380 CWB, Barracuda UAV, EF2000), like the 787 to 777X.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineplanesmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 149, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9754 times:

Boeing's challenge will be persuading financiers that a major change to an existing model, is a good proposition.

747 iteration has not created confidence. Successful technically, but not commercially.

Boeing have already started a charm offensive to persuade financiers that high tech (lessons learnt from 787), is now low risk, and commercially the way to go.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10024 posts, RR: 96
Reply 150, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9764 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting planesmart (Reply 149):
Boeing's challenge will be persuading financiers that a major change to an existing model, is a good proposition.

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".

Rgds


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11651 posts, RR: 33
Reply 151, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9717 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
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 been the second full large wing they made (A400M, A380 HTP, A380 CWB, Barracuda UAV, EF2000), like the 787 to 777X.

Fair enough.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineplanesmart From New Zealand, joined Dec 2004, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9691 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 150):

If Boeing used cashflow to fund product development until project breakeven, how would they fund materials, labour and other expenses related to current production? How would they fund increased production?

Every Boeing (and Airbus) project has risk and non-risk sharing suppliers and financiers? And in most cases, the suppliers in turn will have risk and non-risk sharing sub-contractors and financiers. And the sub-contractors need finance too.

Who comes on board, and their related risk assessment and margins, then flow down to other partners and sub-contractors, which has an impact on project costs, breakeven and unit costs, so a lot of courtship is undertaken.

Even when in production, different construction milestones trigger different funding drawdowns and tranches, including thru the process of test and acceptance flights.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 336 posts, RR: 3
Reply 153, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 9557 times:

An interesting picture comparing B777 sizes.




The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6907 posts, RR: 46
Reply 154, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 9518 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 146):
I think that is a fallacy, like the people who claimed the A330 sales would have dried up when the 787 came out. I think the 777 would still have sold, not the -200 model. The 787-10 will take that slot.

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. Similarly, once the A3510 becomes available in a reasonable amount of time very few airlines will order the 77W. It will be just like the A345/A346 once the 77W and 77L became available.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineJHwk From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 155, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 9417 times:

Quoting morrisond (Reply 123):
In my view proceeding with 777X is being way too conservative.

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 can do for you that an upgrade can't.

By 2030, I hope to see a blended wing/body airliner flying. From everything I understand, there is simply no way for it to happen before 2025, but the necessary innovations are still many years out before it can be designed. I think I would rather see Boeing do BWB right for a 600-seat aircraft as opposed to making a 500 seat tube and wings.

Who knows; 10 years from now the sonic cruiser might be back on the table...