AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5628 posts, RR: 11 Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2184 times:
On another post, I read tonight several things that Boeing is considering, and someone said something that caught my attention.
First, we've got this new "787" type super efficient thing. So, we subsequently axe the 75/67 family.
The 747 is old news... the backlog will be filled long before the end of 2003.
The 717 is the one thing that we can't count on either way- we can't count on it to be for sale in the near future, and we can't count on Boeing pulling the plug either. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume AirTran moves on to the 737s, and Boeing ends 717 production.
The big thing is that they are considering a 737-900X to seat up to 200. It makes sense- add an exit door, and capacity jumps by itself.
So, here's what we have.
737s filling all needs for <200 seats.
777/787 filling needs for >200 seats.
That's assuming that, as I predct, the 787 will have a lot in common with the 777.
Do you see anything coincidental about that?
They could potentially be down to TWO AIRCRAFT TYPES. A small one, and a big one.
That is EXACTLY WHERE DOUGLAS ended up. DC-9, DC-10. And they slowly- for thirty years, it seems- wound down into nothingness. They came up with "freshened" versions of each plane countless times... but it ended up with them being absorbed by Boeing.
So- see where I am leading? Boeing shrivels down to 737 and 787, and is in a decade or so absorbed by Airbus.
Comment all you want, it'll be fun to think about this.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16213 posts, RR: 57
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2155 times:
Hey Randy, good analysis but I think that there would be a serious gap in the 200-300 seat range if Boeing only offered the 737 and 777/787.
Boeing needs a 757-767 replacement (with 777 cockpit rating) in the 200-300 seat range to offer a full product line. The 739X and the 772 have too much capacity gap betw them to effectively cover the market.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2151 times:
I never thought about that, but you're certainly right. If they do this, they'll be following in the footsteps of Douglas, so who knows what will happen. I think that it would be wiser to do the following:
-The 757/767 has a replacement on the way. Good idea I think.
-Something needs to be made to replace the 737 family. I think they should just stay away from the 100 seater thing with this type, but maybe make it range in size so that it has 3 versions. One would be a 737-700 size, on a 737-800 size, and one close or as big as the 757-200. With it going all the way to 752 size, airlines that have routes that carry that many people, but not enough cargo to justify a widebody with similar capacity (super effecient plane).
-You hit the nail on the head. The 747 is old news. Boeing needs something to compete head on with the A380. I'm an Airbus and Boeing fan and like to see the two compete. That way they make a better product because they have to. For Boeing to stay level with Airbus, they need to be able to provide their customers with an alternative to the corresponding Airbus product. Same goes for Airbus. The fact is that Boeing does not have something like the A380, so that leaves customers one choice: Airbus. Not a good situation for Boeing.
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2154 times:
1.747 is a cash cow. There is no R&D to amortorize,everydollar about cost is profit. The 747 will be around alot longer. Expect Boeing to use the 747 in different variants against the A380. The 747 is one aircraft Boeing can lowball Airbus with and still make a profit.
2. In a ATW article Boeing was quoted as stating the 737 replacement is 10 years away. So Boeing will NOT be down to just 737 variants,it will be a new generation of small capacity aircraft. And you can bet Boeing will use the tech from the 787 to make it very,very cheap to operate on a seat basis,in order to make SWA happy. But expect the NG replacement about 10 years from now. I would not be surprised to see it use a 767 cross section. Boeing would still be able to save some R&D money on new jigs if they the new aircraft keeps the 767 cross section similar to the 7J7 concept of the mid 80s.
3. With some 4-5 Billion dollars of R&D tied up into the 777(estimates are 300 have to be sold to recoup that)I would expect Boeing to use the knowledge learned on the 777 and apply it to the 787. Commonality is big too.
So in the future,Boeing will offer
1.737NG now,but a replacement 10-12 years away,using the same technologies in the 787.
2. 787-midsize domestic
3. 777-long range
4. 747-freighter,and larger variants to compete to with the A380. And............just because alot customers will NOT buy anything else but a Boeing.....Must keep the loyal customers happy.
5. SC-After 10 years or so,this aircraft will put Boeing back on top. By that time,it will not be a rushed idea just to get PR. But a mid supersonic Mach 1.2-1.4. With the ability to travel at those speeds over land without the annoyances of Sonic Booms reaching the ground,and the seat costs of a 747-300.
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2148 times:
Your point? Soon Airbus will offer:
And of course the A330/340.
Then the A380 which is up in the air as to where it will be 10 years from now.
So they offer three types. Airbus won't take over Boeing just because it has 1 more type of aircraft. That is like saying Toyota will take over Nissan b/c they have 1 more type of SUV(Rav 4; 4 Runner; high-top camr...Um, Highlander; and the Sequoia compared to Xterra; Murano; and Pathfinder).
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4172 posts, RR: 38
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
ugh... a 200 seat sky cow (the old slow poke 737).
I shudder at the thought.
The super efficient 75/76 replacement i can see being very well done, and the 777 weighing the brute stuff down. I just wish they could come up with something better than the 737 for the lighter end of things. I really wouldnt mind seeing the 717 being developed further.
VirginFlyer From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4537 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1973 times:
Randy, I think the point you are missing is that MD basically ended up in only two markets - the 100-150 seat narrowbody, and the 300 seat widebody. For Boeing to be in the same position, it would be like them offering the 737 family, and the 777-200, and only those. With this new aircraft, they will still be offering a full seating spectrum. So, I wouldn't worry.
Now, if they were to get no further with this new aircraft than with their past 5 years of new aircraft ideas, then I think, yes, they will be in a fair spot of bother. But I sincerely hope it wont come to that. The last thing we need is a monopoly on large commercial airliner production.
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
-You hit the nail on the head. The 747 is old news. Boeing needs something to compete head on with the A380.
This will not happen. There isn't enough market two warrant two versions of a 550+ seat aircraft. If Boeing did produce something in that category, it would be a financial bombshell for them. The smartest thing for Boeing is to produce a 747NG seating 420-520 passengers with the "yellowstone" technology now being studied. Let Airbus have the 550+ seat aircraft to themselves. IMO, even if the economy heats up again, I don't see Airbus building more than 350 A38X, tops.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 36
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1842 times:
I find it amazing that the anti-Boeing brigade for years have been complaining that their is no commonality on the Boeings, now there is a rumour of around 8 planes down to 2 types, and that is now considered bad ?. I think that would be a great move for Boeing.
The airbuis brigade also seem to go on and on about the open mindedness of Airbus, and how advanced they are...etc, when all I see is fleet commonality which while a nice feature has not changed at all. Now each Airbus jet is just a larger or smaller version of what it has already done (other than the 380)
between these three lines, you can carry everything from 100 - 450 people, what the #$% is wrong with that, that sounds good to me
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21353 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1512 times:
Keesje: 787/SE will be a succesful aircraft likely. Boeing (finally) listened to the market & know what they want.
Hm. And it seems, the market wants ... an A330...
Keesje: Or is Boeing trying to mislead others ? Any feedback from Toulouse on the 787 ?
Airbus reps had already earlier said that Airbus would definitely respond to such a move by Boeing. Of course there´s any possible level of posturing involved, but still... Boeing would have to squeeze into a spot slightly below the A330 while Airbus could probably answer with a derivative. Similar to the A340-500/600, just on the lower end of the line, this time. With a "smaller" wing instead of a larger one. And full family commonality.
But Boeing will certainly make the competition more interesting there. Airbus won´t get away all that easily...
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
I don´t see that the B717 will be around on Boeings sale programme in 10 years time, I think
the B777 and B747 will be the bread and butter of Boeing in the future.
Also think that large 500-600 passenger B747 will be built when Boeing feel
that the market is ready (hopefully in 5-10 years time).
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
Boeing won't build larger 747s. Does no one understand this? Twice/three times larger 747s have been discussed and always rejected. There isn't a market for two A380-size aircraft (read: L1011, DC-10 battle). The A380 doesn't compete with the 747 as it is. Boeing should, and will, leave the 747 alone, only upgrading systems, interior and engines.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2445 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1254 times:
It's not too early to begin studying a replacement for the 737, even though it's still selling well. In 10 years, it will seem pretty dated, especially if Airbus offers an upgraded A320 or replacement. This time, Boeing will have to go fly-by-wire along with other upgrades, perhaps based on the new 'super-efficient' '787' wide-body. Fuselage commonality with the 737 might still be a good idea, although a wider cross-section (than the 737 AND A320) would give the new design more flexibility and a marketing advantage over Airbus. Though the 737 is a great airplane, it would serve Boeing well to design a '797'(?) to replace it in about 15 years. I agree with others that it doesn't make sense for Boeing to replace the 747 anytime soon-upgrades to the existing line will suffice. The large airplane market won't be large enough in the near term for Boeing to offer a true competitor to the A380.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1193 times:
I believe the original Blended Wing Body concept was for a plane with A-380 like capacity, with smaller varients down to 777 size and larger varients well above A-380 size. Three 747- or 777- sized engines would do the job for something like this.
Go down to two 767 sized engines and you have either a new super efficient jet or you have a military tanker/transport superior to conventional craft in many respects. This seems to be the current concept. I suspect the military option is Boeing's main focus. Most of the time something new is tried in the aerospace world, it is tried by the military first. And Boeing hasn't exactly been known for its vision as of late, anyway .