The engineers at Boeing are superlative-no doubt about it.But I can't say the same thing for the Marketers.They are the guys that dictate what gets built.First they suggest a "transonic" cruiser-then after a huge raspberry (and a huge amount of work by the designers) they go back to the 767 replacement.And what a replacement!It just blows Airbus away with technology they can't match.Airbus replies lamely that Boeing got the size wrong.Airbus only had one trick in their bag.They (BA) traditionally build higher lift (and slower) wings that require the engines to less work.Its not a better philosophy, just different (look at the 777-300 power to lift ratio for comparison).So Airbus HAD to go bigger it was the only way they could match Boeings figures for the 787.
Then a strange thing happened.The airlines wanted bigger.Boeing countered by saying "actually we are 9 abreast (737 configuration on a 10 hour flight-wait for the first deep vein thrombosis).Even then Quantas said no we want the range as it was-enter the HGW version.But no what everyone really wants is the 787-10 or 10x version-now that's a 777-200er! Now look what they have had to do.They have upsized the wing once already,strengthened the much lengthened fuselage creating a weight issue (a la A340-600),moved from a double bogey to a (new) triple bogey undercarriage,oh yes and we need to "refan" the engines as we now need 80-85,000 lbs of thrust) now the last time I looked it wasn't the fan that gave the power it was the core-that drives the (larger) fan-are we talking Trent 1000 or Trent 900 here? This is nearly a new plane!
The engineers must be tearing their hair out! Come on guys do your research first-then give the miracle workers a proper brief.
PS Wait for the A350-1000 somewhere between the 777-200 and 300.After all the A340-600 is as good as gone