Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Introduce New 777 Member: 777-250ERX  
User currently offlineBigo747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5450 times:

Flight International is reporting that Boeing is evaluating the 3rd possible 777X version. The 3rd member, 777-250ERX, will have similar range to the 773ER, with capacity more than 772LR.

The 777-250ERX is understood to be looking at 9 or 10-frame stretch of GE-90-110B-powered -200LR. The length will be 68.6m/225ft long. The size is between 772 and 773. The capacity is believed to be 320-330 seats, with ranges up to 13900km/7500nm.

Boeing will go ahead with the 777-250ERX launch if it receives 50 orders.

Regardless of whether the -250ERX becomes a real programme, the manufacturer says a revised development schedule for the delayed -200LR will be decided in the second quarter of next year. The first EVA 777-200LR was originally scheduled for delivery in January 2004, but the effort was put on ice in September 2001.

Boeing unveiled the plan as PIA announced 8 orders of the 777 last week, including 2 772LR.




32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5352 times:

They'll be lucky to get 50 B777 orders in the near future with the economy being what it is, let alone 50 orders for a planned and unflown niche aircraft with a direct competitor well on its way (A340-500).

User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5291 times:

I am confused as to which role this aircraft is to fill. Has there been interest from airlines that want the range of the -300ER, but not the capacity?

User currently offlineNighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5180 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5233 times:

thats gonna screw up the boeing customer code system! Will the plane be named a B777-2536ERX (for BA)??? Lovely name!!!


That'll teach you
User currently offlineWn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5191 times:

I will never understand you Boeing! I think it should just be called the 777-400ERX. It was ok to name the '37-500 & 600 series higher than the 400, yet they clearly had shorter fuses than the 300 (and the 700 still has a shorter design than the 400 as well), so why not just do that for the 777? Oh right, it would make sense, that's right & apparently we are allergic to that in Everett...

User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5169 times:

Wn700... I agree with you, but know this:

Boeing didnt appear as screwed up as it is now, until the move to Chicago.

Dont blame it on Everett. It seems they've had no guidance/direction at all since leaving Washington... loss of the 747X and 764LR, the whole Sonic Cruiser wackiness, weak beginning for the 772LR program... sad really.


User currently offlineFLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5088 times:

If only United were in better financial shape, I could seriously see the 747 fleet being sold right away...

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L


User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2181 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4969 times:

So what will Boeing do, say BA ordered one of two 775s  Wink/being sarcastic

777-250(36)?

BA777


User currently offlineLanPeru From Peru, joined Jun 2001, 645 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4921 times:

I wish that Boeing would go ahead with a 777-100ER, that would be cool. It would probably be good for longer-distance routes too small for a full 772 and too big for a 763. It would help close the range gap that the 764 has.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8034 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4828 times:

I have a feeling that the so-called 777-250ERX will finally be called 777-500 if the project gets the go-ahead.

And Boeing might find a way to legally allow Rolls-Royce to build a high-thrust version of the Trent 800 engine for this plane, too. Imagine a 777-500 with 115,000 lb. thrust Trent 8115 engines. Far fetched? Probably not, because if Boeing can offer a partial stretch 777 between the 777-200 and 777-300 in size powered by the Trent 8115 engine Boeing could land 70+ orders almost overnight, especially from British Airways, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Singapore Airlines, and so on.


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4789 times:

This is certainly interesting and I have to say, quite smart.

There is quite a large size difference between the 772 and 773. This will definately fill in that niche.

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2750 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4693 times:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Understand that the term 777-250ERX is a working designation only, to show that it splits the size difference between the -200 and -300. Should this aircraft go ahead, you will definitely see it retain a standard moniker (probably -400ER).

RayChuang,

"Boeing might find a way to legally allow Rolls-Royce to build a high-thrust version of the Trent 800 engine for this plane, too."

Not possible. The agreement with GE covers weight ranges, not seating capacity. As clearly stated, this aircraft would employ the MTOW of the current 777LR aircraft (i.e. 750,000lbs.) in order to keep range/payload levels high. Therefore, there is no doubt the GE90 will be used.

Flyf15,

The 777-200LR competes directly with the A340-500, not this proposal. What this (777-250ERX) aircraft is intended to do is compete on a range-for-range basis with the A340-600. In addition, since the capacity numbers of the A340-600 are inflated, Boeing is therefore aiming to not only match range numbers, but capacity numbers as well. In other words, you'd have a competition breakdown as follows:

300 seats, 8,000+ nm
777-200LR
A340-500

330 seats, 7,500 nm
777-250ERX
A340-600

350 seats, 7,400+ nm
777-300ER


Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineVirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4575 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4651 times:

RayCheung - don't forget also that the Trent is near the limit of its thrust - it would be require expensive development (read: crfesting a new engine) to give a 115k lb thrust Trent. The lack of expansion possibility for the RR and PW engines was part of the reason why GE were the exclusive supplier.

V/F



"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4627 times:

Wn700Driver, I agree. But remember, the 737-600 is a replacement for older 737-200/500 series. the 737-700 is a replacement for 737-300 aircraft, and the 737-800/900 is a replacement for 737-400 aircraft.

But about the 777-250ERX, What doofus made that up, why not the 777-400ERX. Just because it has a higher number does not mean it has to be bigger.


User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

If the exclusive engine agreement is bound by weight regulations, then, Boeing be lucky to get 10 orders...


M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

Alright, so say it does compete with the A340-600 instead of the -500. Same things I said imply, only a more sucessful competition to go against.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 16, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Nothing wrong with building an aircraft that fits between the 777-200 and 777-300. Same would go if Airbus built an "A340-550". It would be a niche aircraft but would cost almost nothing to develop. Only a few orders would be needed to break even.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4484 times:

Hamlet69,

Not that I'm really doubting you, but how are you aware of the weight agreement with GE? I was under the impression that these engines were just for the 772LR/773ER.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4414 times:

"I wish that Boeing would go ahead with a 777-100ER, that would be cool. It would probably be good for longer-distance routes too small for a full 772 and too big for a 763. "

Boeing already considered and shot down a proposal to build a 777-100


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4407 times:

The 777-100 generated little interest mainly because it was too heavy.

Instead, Boeing launched the 767-400ER which is a much more logical choice.

Read this post of mine for more information:

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/940701/6

Regards



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

B7573000,

New derivatives are indeed substantially cheaper than new designs, but any stretch or shrink has signficant costs - in the hundreds of millions. Most of this cost is driven by the certification requirements - there are allot of things you have to prove to the JAA or FAA before you can get such design changes certified. This changes the aerodynamics and structural loads on the airframe creating all sorts of potential problems you have to convince the regulators you have solved. Not only that, often you have to convince at least one engine maker to make significant and expensive modifications to their offerings. You ALWAYS need at least a few dozen orders to break even on any modification as significant as changing the length of the fuselage. And they need to be orders you would not otherwise have gotten.

Remember Jetblue's request for an A-320.5 - Airbus's spokesman said, "It depends on how many they want to order." He sais this because stretches and shrinks are neither easy nor cheap. It sometimes appears so only because even 200-300 million $ isn't much compared to perhaps 10 billion $ for a new design.

That being said, there are reasons a manufacturer might want to take a loss on a particular derivative or option in order to increase the appeal of their product line as a whole. The A-318, 767-400, Embraer 145 XR, and 747-400ER are some possible examples. Boeing never sold a single 777 with folding wings, but it invested allot into offering the option and many say it was money well spent. This is because they might not have gotten United as a launch customer without it (according to "21st century jet").



User currently offlineBOEING747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4248 times:

How many pounds of thrust is intended for an engine of this B777-250ERX aircraft? And what types of engines are offered for that model? Thanks.

User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Hello,

As Hamlet69 outlined it: there's no way any engine but the GE90 with power any 777X derivative above the 317t (700,000lb) barrier. Power-by-the-hour deals are progressively being developed throughout the industry and will downplay the engine commonalty issue on the 777X. Even Cathay Pacific has shown some interest in the GE90/777X combo after firmly expressing its disappointment after the selection of GE in July 1999.

Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business [ATB]


User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4037 times:

Hello BOEING747400,

How many pounds of thrust is intended for an engine of this B777-250ERX aircraft?

I guess that will depend on the retained fuselage length and whether they keep the -300ER's semi-levered landing gear.


And what types of engines are offered for that model?

Same problem. But likely the GE90-115B since that airplane is primary aimed at Emirates which experiences hot temperatures on take-off from DXB. But the engine could be rated at engine thrust between 110 and 115,000lb.


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
Air Transport Business [ATB]


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2750 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (12 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3901 times:

Flyf15

Precisely, and this proposal is intended to keep that aircraft (A340-600) from getting any more successful. As discussed in the Orders forum, this aircraft is initially targeted for two specific customers: Emirates Airlines and Cathay Pacific. EK has a specific performance requirement that both Boeing and Airbus are trying to match. At the moment, however, neither aircraft (773ER & A346) can do all EK want them to do, which is why they have been considering both aircraft (@ 8 A346s & 25 773ERs). However, if Boeing can get the -250ERX to match the payload/range requirements of EK, then they could potentially secure both orders, which I've already heard could easily be increased. We would therefore be looking at an EK order alone worth about 35-45 frames.

As far as CX goes, they are in a very similar position. They are going to lease 3 A346s from ILFC on a trial basis, to see if the aircraft can meet certain performance goals on some of their more lucrative routes. However, they have yet to make a desicion on a larger order. As Alain has already pointed out, CX's initial displeasure with GE's sole-supplier status has pretty much evaporated in response to promised performance goals and maintenance packages from GE. If the -250ERX can beat the -600 on payload/range stats, then it is possible CX could also order 10-15 of these aircraft, as operating costs would naturally be lower. Suddenly we have 2 customers worth nearly 60 orders.


Boeing nut,

As already mentioned by Alain, the agreement between Boeing and GE covers any 777 derivative with a MTOW of 700,000+ lbs. At the moment, this only covers the -200LR and -300ER. However, any derivative over that weight is covered, which would include the proposed -250ERX, any freighter based on the -200LR (which has been rumored), or the fanciful -300X Stretch.

Along those same lines, BA once approached Boeing about building a -300 with an MTOW hike, but without reaching that 700,000lb. limit. That way, BA could still order the Trent 800 for the "-300 Heavy" (or "-300ER Lite", however you want to look at it).

Regards,

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
25 Eg777er : More derivatives.....more development costs......lower orders......lower margins..... I would sell those Boeing shares!
26 JAL : It's great that another version of the 777X is being planned but I think it will be difficult for Boeing to find 50 customers for the plan variant.
27 ConcordeBoy : keep in mind also that the 772LR only has about 10% of its R&D completed. Though much of the information attained from the 773ER will aid/speed that p
28 Post contains images Wn700driver : Wn700Driver, I agree. But remember, the 737-600 is a replacement for older 737-200/500 series. the 737-700 is a replacement for 737-300 aircraft, and
29 Brons2 : about the 777-100, from my various readings... Boeing shot down a 777-100X that would have been a long range variant, because airlines did not like th
30 Flight152 : More derivatives.....more development costs No! Derivatives are just that, keep as much in common with the orginal airframe, making devolpment costs v
31 Greg : The 764 is nowhere near breakeven! The development costs in their entirerty haven't even been written off yet. Check an annual report or a 10K.
32 Post contains links Singapore_Air : Boeing on Thursday unveiled a new project which could dislodge the Sonic Cruiser - more conventional and fuel-efficient. Walt Gilette - head of the So
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Boeing To Introduce New Livery On 773ER! posted Wed Nov 13 2002 19:25:26 by Rj777
Boeing To Step Up 737/777 Production posted Wed May 11 2005 15:02:07 by DAYflyer
BA To Introduce New First Class posted Fri Mar 10 2006 19:02:54 by Concorde001
DL To Introduce New International Product posted Tue Oct 18 2005 16:44:49 by Delta4eva
WN Pushes Boeing To Develop New 737-700 posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:31:45 by KLMcedric
Boeing To Build New Super Jet To Challenge A380 posted Sun Apr 10 2005 04:47:47 by Btblue
Boeing To Open New Museum... posted Fri Mar 5 2004 16:52:12 by Ulfinator
Air Pacific To Introduce New Livery With The 744 posted Wed Mar 26 2003 11:50:07 by Na
UPS To Introduce New Colors posted Tue Mar 25 2003 06:32:26 by ERAU Pilot
EVA Air To Introduce New Uniform? posted Sat Feb 22 2003 08:43:28 by Alexchao