douwd20
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:45 am

Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:54 am

Interesting article:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nology/2003813795_777threat31.html

Is the cash cow 777 threatened?

"Boeing [is] going to be in trouble with the 777-300ER," said Qantas Chief Executive Geoff Dixon in Seattle earlier this month. "The A350-1000 will, if Airbus is correct, produce an aircraft with lower seat-mile costs."

Dixon said he understands Boeing's dilemma and will give the manufacturer more time to consider stretching the Dreamliner to his prescription. But Qantas will decide next year, he said.

Boeing doesn't want to stretch the 787 design that much.

It has already committed in principle to building a 787 to match the A350-900 that seats about 310 passengers. In essence, that means replacing the smaller 777-200ER, which hasn't been selling well in recent years.

But Boeing is reluctant to replace the 777-300ER just yet.

Scott Carson, head of Boeing's commercial division, suggested in Paris that Boeing will respond with a 777 replacement entering service according to the normal development cycle, to trump the A350 around 2020.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:08 am

Boeing eventually has no choice, but they should be able to sell 77Ws into the mid-2010's and deliver them through the late 2010's and early 2020's even if (and, frankly, especially if) the A350-1000 meets all her targets. So I can understand why they don't feel a sense of urgency at the moment and prefer to take a measured response.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:28 am

If Boeing does not either stretch the 787 to match the 773 or launch Y3 Airbus will eat the 777's lunch. While McNerney and Carson may wish to continue to sell the 777 they can't sell them if nobody buys them, and if Airbus has a better plane Boeing won't sell them. Just look how many airlines bought A346's after the 77W came out, and look how they reacted to the first versions of the A350. Of course Boeing has only themselves to blame; if they hadn't upset the applecart with the 787 none of this would have happened, and they could happily continue to sell 777's. Of course they would also probably be plotting their exit strategy from the airliner business as well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:34 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
If Boeing does not either stretch the 787 to match the 773 or launch Y3 Airbus will eat the 777's lunch

Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 2):
Just look how many airlines bought A346's after the 77W came out

But the two were direct, same generation competitors.

We will have to see what Boeing's response is several years from now, when the A350-1000 is getting closer to EIS. If some airlines are already willing to wait several years for the A350, there are probably some who would wait for an updated 777 as well.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):
Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

Correct. I think there is still a nice sales life in the 77W/77L market. I think Boeing could easily sell another 100-200 or more 777 frames. Afterall, it isn't like they are out-of-date. They are the most advanced widebodies in service.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):

Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

The A330 is selling because it can be had relatively quickly. Once the backlog of 787's is worked off and it becomes available with reasonable delivery times A330's will be as easy to sell as sunlamps in Death Valley. The same will happen to the 777 once the A350-1000 is available with reasonable delivery. Granted, that will be a while yet.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
Norcal773
Posts: 1051
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:19 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:54 am

The 77W is selling well and it is the most economical widebody out there so why should Bowing worry until we all know for a fact what the A350 will do! I am sure Boeing won't seat on their legs and watch Airbus eat their lunch, they've made that mistake before and they;re definately older and wiser in Seattle.
If you're going through hell, keep going
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 6):
I am sure Boeing won't seat on their legs and watch Airbus eat their lunch, they've made that mistake before and they;re definately older and wiser in Seattle.

With the lead times in designing airliners what it is, it is necessary for Boeing to start making plans now, as QF says. If they do buy 50 A350-1000's that will be a big loss to Boeing; those planes will not be replaced for a long, long time. If Boeing has a concrete answer, even if it will be a year or three after the A350-1000, QF will seriously consider it. But I doubt that Boeing wants to just let Airbus have the order.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
WINGS
Posts: 2312
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 1:36 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:10 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
The A330 is selling because it can be had relatively quickly. Once the backlog of 787's is worked off and it becomes available with reasonable delivery times A330's will be as easy to sell as sunlamps in Death Valley.

The A330 has had an extraordinary year. Since January the A330 family has secured a total of 112 orders with the largest share going to the recently launched A330-200F. In less then 7 months Airbus managed to secure a total of 64 orders for the freighter version and will most likely continue to sell well. The passenger version has also performed well with a total of 48 frames ordered and with still numerous pending orders to be firmed up.

While sales of the A330 will eventually slow down, I predict that the A330 series will managed to reach 1000+ units and the A330F will most likely turn out to be best sold ''NEW'' Widebody Freighter in history, exceeding the A300F, 772F and 747F.

For those that think that the end for the A330 is on the horizon, I suggest that you think again.  Wink

Regards,
Wings
Aviation Is A Passion.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:18 am

Boeing needs to make a quick move if they want to keep their loyal 777 customers, my question is how difficult would it be to scale the 787 up to the size of the 777, i mean make the fuselage wider, longer, taller, basically blow up the 787 to the size or slightly large than that of the 777. Boeing might have to redesign the wings and get some stronger engines but they already know how to use composites. This could be an interim solution until the Y3 is ready and be a perfect replace ment to the 777 and the answer to the A350. Basically it would be a larger, stronger 787 that would be a lot like the 777 but with all the technology of the 787. That is basically what the A350 is, a 777 sized plane with composite technology so why doesn't boeing get to work before it is too late, the A350 isn't selling great right now but when it is time for the 777's to be replaced and all that is around is the A350, the A350 will start selling as well as the 777 did, so could boeing scale up the 787 instead of just stretching it or would it be insanely expensive (more expensive then building a new plane) or could they get to work and possibly have it out by the A350 EIS since they already have most of the technology from the 787 it just needs to be enlarged
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:20 am

What is QF going to do with 50 77W sized aircraft? They never saw a need for the 77W before, but now they need a next gen version in large numbers?

Boeing will sell the 787-10, and their backlog is so great, they will be sold out through 2015 at launch. The A350 already looks to be sold out through 2016, and soon will be sold out further. Boeing plans on a Y3 in the 2018-2020 timeframe (which I think is too late, given the age of the 777 platform), but they also mentioned a revised 777LR family to cut into the efficiency of the A350. That could be launched in 2009 for a 2013 EIS. It would offer the "A330" alternative to the A350 for existing carriers.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7):
With the lead times in designing airliners what it is, it is necessary for Boeing to start making plans now, as QF says

Not really , if they want a 787-10ER with about 310-330 and 8500-9000nm range then they can wait to launch till late next year or even 2009 . even if it takes boeing 4-5 years to get a varient in the first streched jet would come out in 2013-2014 timeframe.

I would think that they would add money into the 787 program rather then to the 777 program because the 787 program will yeild better profit and return on investment would be greater for the 787 program rather then giving a last life update to the 777. an upgraded 787 with a new undercarriage and a new wing would perhaps cost 2 billion dollars but they could get a new family like a 787-10 (ER) with 320 seats and 9000nm range and a 787-11 strech with 340-350 seats and 8000nm range. These 2 aircrafts would do great .
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:31 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
What is QF going to do with 50 77W sized aircraft? They never saw a need for the 77W before, but now they need a next gen version in large numbers?

That is what interests me. Sure the A350-1000 will be more efficient then the 77W, but so was the 77W over the 744 and QF kept adding 744s (and then A388s), instead.
 
luisca
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2001 11:37 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
Boeing needs to make a quick move if they want to keep their loyal 777 customers, my question is how difficult would it be to scale the 787 up to the size of the 777, i mean make the fuselage wider, longer, taller, basically blow up the 787 to the size or slightly large than that of the 777. Boeing might have to redesign the wings and get some stronger engines but they already know how to use composites. This could be an interim solution until the Y3 is ready and be a perfect replace ment to the 777 and the answer to the A350.

What you described is basically designing a new airplane!

Boeing will decide when it is economically viable to design a 77W replacement. The A350-1000 is YEARS away; it does not have an engine yet and is still a paper airplane, a good one, but a paper one none the less.

IF Boeing has to loose a QF order of 50 airplanes because they feel they are not ready to come up with a 77W replacement then so be it. It takes Billions of dollars to design a new aircraft and I am sure Boeing will not be dumb enough to let A capture the entire 350+ seat market.

The answer to the 77W replacement is NOT a 787-11 (if you want to call it that). Airbus learned the hard way that double stretches dont work. It would make the aircraft way to long. To replace the 77W Boeing will have to design a new airplane, the 787-10 will be a 772ER replacement and Y3 will be a 772LR and 77W replacement with the potential for a stretch to replace the 748 eventually.
If it ain't Boeing (or Embraer ;-)) I ain't Going!
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am

Dixon: ""It's the 787-10 that flies the range of a 777-300ER with a 20 percent lower cost factor. This is what the 787 is supposed to do.""

Uh, no it isn't, GD! The 787 was not designed to do that. It was not designed to replace the 77W in size and offer 20% lower costs than the 77W, one of the most efficient jets out there. That is a complete and utter fabrication, and just demanding Boeing offer such a 787 doesn't make it possible.

The 787 was designed to replace the 767 and A330, and offer 20% lower costs than the 767! The 767 is MUCH OLDER than the 77W.

Dixon is either confused or is just giving a public excuse for creating a giant order for the 787 that he didn't fully need, and calling it "the future" of QF, then immediately trying to sell his airline to be split up. He's grasping at straws at this point.

The A380 is way late and is hurting their business, and their decision to not buy the 77W (or the A340 before that) was a very poor one that he is still trying to justify to this day. So was the decision to buy the wrong configuration of A330s. There is no doubt that QF could have been using 77Ws the last couple years profitably and through 2015, nor is there much doubt that they could have used 343s or 772s from the mid-90s (which of course is not his fault, but just shows continued missed opportunities).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:41 am

From the article :

Quote:
The larger 777-300ER has been a huge seller in recent years against Airbus' four-engined, gas-guzzling jets in that size category.

Love that. Yes the A346 is far less efficient than the B77W, but it's false to call it a "gas-guzzling jet", even compared to the B77W.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
Basically it would be a larger, stronger 787 that would be a lot like the 777 but with all the technology of the 787. That is basically what the A350 is, a 777 sized plane with composite technology

That's a brand new plane, regardless of how you describe it. Although I suspect Boeing could be a bit more cost-effective, it'd still cost them a lot of money to do that. Airbus spends $10+ Billions for the A350 (though for 4 variants).

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
or would it be insanely expensive (more expensive then building a new plane)

It's be as expensive as building a new plane, 'coz it's the same thing...

OEM reuses their past knowledge anyway, it's not like for the next a/c they will completely begin from scratch, not looking at the B787's engineering results, they won't reinvent the wheel.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
Sure the A350-1000 will be more efficient then the 77W, but so was the 77W over the 744 and QF kept adding 744s (and then A388s), instead.

They decided that it was not worth replacing the B744 with the B77W (introducing a new type, etc etc...) back then but in 2015-2020 those B744s will need to be replaced, and they won't be replaced on a 1:1 basis by the A380, you know it better than myself.
Moreover, they might not want to buy the B748 (too close in capacity to the A380 ?) and, without the B744s, leaving an even bigger hole between the B789 and the A380, that won't work. These are only some personal ideas of course...
 
Boogyjay
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:49 am

Quoting Luisca (Reply 13):
What you described is basically designing a new airplane!

You beat me to it ! Big grin
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:51 am

Much ado about nothing, really!

The advances in computational ability in the next 5 years will be so significant that a triple-7 replacement will be designed in a fraction of the time it took the 787.

The timing is all in Boeing's hands!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:19 am

Quoting Bringiton (Reply 11):
Not really , if they want a 787-10ER with about 310-330 and 8500-9000nm range then they can wait to launch till late next year or even 2009 . even if it takes boeing 4-5 years to get a varient in the first streched jet would come out in 2013-2014 timeframe.

They still need to start examining options now and exploring them with the airlines, even if nothing gets launched for two or three years. Airbus got egg all over their faces with the initial versions of the A350 because they were "caught napping," to quote their illustrious spokesman. Are you advocating that Boeing follow their example?

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
The advances in computational ability in the next 5 years will be so significant that a triple-7 replacement will be designed in a fraction of the time it took the 787.

You're clearly dreaming, pal. Computers are tools; decisions get made by people. There are many, many decisions that have to be made in the development of an airliner that take time to sort out, and computers will not speed that up significantly. Also, my observation after working with CAD systems for well over 20 years is that as computer power increases so does program complexity, meaning that time required to do a job if anything increases.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
DIA
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 2:24 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):
Dixon: ""It's the 787-10 that flies the range of a 777-300ER with a 20 percent lower cost factor. This is what the 787 is supposed to do.""

Uh, no it isn't, GD! The 787 was not designed to do that. It was not designed to replace the 77W in size and offer 20% lower costs than the 77W, one of the most efficient jets out there. That is a complete and utter fabrication, and just demanding Boeing offer such a 787 doesn't make it possible.

This statement from Dixon is specifically citing the range of the 77W...that's it.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
 
aminobwana
Posts: 923
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 7:32 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:25 am

1) From the Thread Starter article:

Quote:
Dixon said he understands Boeing's dilemma and will give the manufacturer more time to consider stretching the Dreamliner to his prescription. But Qantas will decide next year, he said.

This certainly will reduce the urgency for Boeing to take a decision here, mainly, if a B787-11 is really necessary. I would say, that QF waiting willingness will motivate EK's, BA's, CX's etc. to decouple their decisions what to buy for their smaller B787 or A350 needs, from the larger models, to be ordered later as QF intends.

2) from Topic "BA Looking To Fly Nonstop From London To Sydney"

Quoting Aminobwana,reply=76, :
Factually, if the consensus were that so long Y class flights would be not attractive, both because of the excessive confinement time and the high cost due to the fuel burn (compared with 1 scale), the extra long range A350-1000 and B787-11 would not be attractive themselves. I wondered why Boeing is so reluctant to develop such: could this be the reason ???

Supplementing the said in 1), and this could be a reversal of my own opinion too, for what it is worth, Boeing should evaluate if due time if to address the extra-long range B787-11 at all (a shorter range B787-10 seems to be necessary anyway) and also Airbus should do the same with the A3510.

regards

OTON
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
They still need to start examining options now and exploring them with the airlines

It is widely believed that they are doing just that. Obviously boeing has a number of configurations that they are exploring for the 787-10 from everything to a conservative (less expensive) Range/payload tradeoff to a new wing which is more expensive for them . For me the timeframe is more important. IMO boeing will wait until 2014-2015 instead of 2013 , those slots would be gone by the time a firm descision is made on the 787-10. I would find it very strange that boeing launches the 787-10 without first firming up plans to ramp up production as the biggest challenge to the 787-10 may well be production slots given the way the current varients are selling.
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:03 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
as computer power increases so does program complexity, meaning that time required to do a job if anything increases.

What!!?? Development times for any new product gets faster with faster computers. What you're saying sounds like the fastest way to design a new aircraft is to go back to the slide-ruler days. I'm confused  Confused I am NOT putting you down, seriously. Just confused by your statement.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
Computers are tools; decisions get made by people. There are many, many decisions that have to be made in the development of an airliner that take time to sort out, and computers will not speed that up significantly.

Agreed  checkmark 
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:11 am

Quoting DIA (Reply 19):
This statement from Dixon is specifically citing the range of the 77W...that's it.

No, not according to the article. It was believed that when he said QF would buy the 787-10, he was talking about the 787-10 we are all hearing about: 290-330 seats.

Turns out he wants this:
"He stipulated a lightweight 787-10 with low operating costs that will seat 350 passengers."

In other words, he wants a 77W replacement with 20% lower operating costs, just as he stated. Why read anything into what he said when it's pretty clear on the face. He wants Boeing to use the 787 to replace the entire 777 lineup, and this is just not practical. By the time Boeing makes all the changes, they end up with a new plane other than a super long fuselage. Would be better to actually build a new plane entirely! Which of course is Y3, which would start at 350 seats and grow from there...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:35 am

It may very well be worth Boeing's effort to develop the 787-10 as a 777-200A and A330-300 replacement. At 560,000lbs MTOW, it should have good range even at MZFW which could make it a very strong contender for trans-Atlantic and Hawai'i operations. This way GE and RR can use their current engines and it's quick and easy and inexpensive.

Then Boeing can launch Y3 with 10-abreast at 18.5"/11-abreast at 17.2" as a true 77L and 77W replacement. You can have the Y3-100 with 350 seats and Y3-200 with 400 seats (at 10-abreast), both can have 8500-9000nm range, would carry loads of cargo (especially palletized where you can maximize the hold width and height). RR can offer the Trent XWB and GE would develop a GEnx2 which can also hang off the A350, maximizing the RoI of the plane. Set an EIS for no later then 2020 for both models and pull a "Leahy" by constantly promising the moon and the stars to keep current 77L and 77W customers on the fence (and away from the A350) until you're ready to deliver it.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:42 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
It may very well be worth Boeing's effort to develop the 787-10 as a 777-200A and A330-300 replacement.

Actually, it would be a 772ER replacement, roughly, at 7500nm. And they could work on an ER version for the future that flies 8800nm. But not at 350 seats, which is what Dixon wants. 310 seats (average).

The four year market (2015-2019) for a 350 seat aircraft is not big enough to create a 787-11 which then destroys the business case for Y3. Considering Airbus will only be able to produce so many 350-1000s with the 350-900 being the top seller, Boeing can plod along with a 77Wadvanced for a couple years until Y3 is ready.

It would be stupid to do such a thing in the 150 seat market, but the 350 seat market, well, it's a business decision, where to put your resources when.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22920
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:51 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 25):
Actually, it would be a 772ER replacement, roughly, at 7500nm. And they could work on an ER version for the future that flies 8800nm. But not at 350 seats, which is what Dixon wants. 310 seats (average).

Yes it would, but I am operating on the reasoning that current 772ER customers would buy 772LRs to get the same (or greater) payload and carry it a bit farther.

I think a 787-10 with the 787-9's wing and engines and MTOW would secure a decent chunk of the 772ER and A343 market, as well as a commanding part of the 772A and A333 market (thanks to lower MEW/MTOW then the A359).

But I also think a 350-seat Y3-100 would better compete with the A350-900 by offering lower MEW per seat thanks to having more seats, just as the A359 uses that to it's advantage over the 787-9. Also, offering a 300-seat Y3 model might not offer sufficient MEW/seat advantages over the 787-10 unless you just had to have that 8500nm range so it would sell poorly. Or that 8500nm range might be too compelling and the 787-10 would then sell poorly.

I think if Boeing can get a decent payload and 7500nm out of the 787-10 at 560,000lbs MTOW, that's "good enough". Most airlines won't fly it with 300 seats in three classes, anyway, so that might lower MEW enough. And then you have a clear and compelling gap to the Y3-100 which prevents both planes from cannibalizing each other.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 22):

What!!?? Development times for any new product gets faster with faster computers. What you're saying sounds like the fastest way to design a new aircraft is to go back to the slide-ruler days. I'm confused

My experience is that as computers get faster, the programs get more elaborate and require that speed just to function. Case in point; have you tried Windows Vista yet? It requires just to run what five years ago would have been a top of the line blazingly fast computer; now it's bare minimum. As I said earlier I have been working with CAD for over twenty years. Today's CAD is much more powerful, much more capable, it's 3D instead of 2D, and it has many, many analysis functions that we could only dream of twenty years ago. But the time to design a project has not changed very much, and I still spend a lot of time waiting for the computer to crank through a step, to load a model, or whatever. There are many things (such as CFD) that can now be done by computer that used to be done experimentally, and that saves a lot of time, but it still takes a great deal of time to load all the data into the computer. The CAD program I am currently working with I learned on Version 2004; at that time I was working with a midline workstation that had 1 gig of memory. I then started using Version 2006, and had a more powerful workstation with 3 gig of memory, and it had a harder time digesting the same complexity of models. We then transitioned to Version 2007, and basically my computer choked and died. I just invested in the most powerful laptop I could find, which is 64 bit with 4 gig of ram and a dual-core processor, and I'm back to about the same productivity I was with Version 2004 and a much less powerful computer. Are the added features worth the loss of performance? Not in my book; I'd happily go back to 2004, but that is not an option (and not my decision anyway.)
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 5):
Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 3):

Depends, as the A330 is still selling, even when better alternatives are out there.

The A330 is selling because it can be had relatively quickly. Once the backlog of 787's is worked off and it becomes available with reasonable delivery times A330's will be as easy to sell as sunlamps in Death Valley.

But by then the A330 replacement will already be in service.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:11 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 28):

But by then the A330 replacement will already be in service.

Yes, it's called the 787. The A350 is quite a bit bigger than the A330.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 29):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 28):

But by then the A330 replacement will already be in service.

Yes, it's called the 787. The A350 is quite a bit bigger than the A330.

Oh come on. The A350 is airbus's replacement for the A330 and A340. The 787 is boeings replacement for the 767, also bigger lets not forget.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:44 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23):
Turns out he wants this:
"He stipulated a lightweight 787-10 with low operating costs that will seat 350 passengers."

Is he really asking for a signficantly longer stretch? I've asked this before, because when QF announced the 787 order, they said the capacity for the aircraft was over 300 pax. The question is in what configuration, and in what configuration do they want this 350 pax aircraft? Qantas after all does fly aircraft in both 2 and 3 class layouts, and JetStar flys in 2 class. The QF 744ER in a 3 class layout seats only 343 pax, while the JetStar A332 seats 303 pax in 2 classes. The proposed 787-10 could be the right size for the layout they have in mind. What they want is the range of the 773ER, which means payload-range boost would be needed.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:47 am

Quoting EI321 (Reply 28):
But by then the A330 replacement will already be in service.

Maybe you should discuss this with WINGS.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:04 am

I'm amazed how everyone missed EXACTLY what Dixon said:

Quoting Douwd20 (Thread starter):
Qantas Chief Executive Geoff Dixon in Seattle earlier this month. "The A350-1000 will, *******if Airbus is correct******, produce an aircraft with lower seat-mile costs."

He's not even making the statement for a position of certainty.. which would suggest the numbers are closer than many here would have you believe. If Airbus was saying 20% better there would be no doubt they would beat the 777 as even missing by a huge ammount would allow them to beat it.. but Dixon is adding some level of uncertainty to it.

It would seem to me that either Airbus have moved their target, or Boeing have told Dixon of their plans to slim the 777 down some. Either way it's an ODD comment.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
planemaker
Posts: 5411
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2003 12:53 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:31 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
You're clearly dreaming, pal. Computers are tools; decisions get made by people. There are many, many decisions that have to be made in the development of an airliner that take time to sort out, and computers will not speed that up significantly. Also, my observation after working with CAD systems for well over 20 years is that as computer power increases so does program complexity, meaning that time required to do a job if anything increases.

Sorry, but you are the one that is clearly dreaming! We are talking about aerospace here... not MS Office! Big grin

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 27):
Case in point; have you tried Windows Vista yet?

MS Bloatware is totally irrelevant to aerospace software applications!!!! It is worse than an apples to oranges comparison.

Not only do you not understand to what degree IT is used in aerospace but you clearly haven't followed the technological development of the 787 and how IT sped the process up versus the 777!!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23):
No, not according to the article. It was believed that when he said QF would buy the 787-10, he was talking about the 787-10 we are all hearing about: 290-330 seats.

QANTAS/JETSTAR already have a 290seat 787. Its the 787-9 245T MTOW 8000nm in 9-abreast. Its therefore not unreasonable to assume they want at least a 330seat 787-10 in 9-abreast with 8000nm.




Sretching the -9 to -10 by 6m will add 5T, add in 5.2T of pax [(100kg X 40)+(30kg X 40)]=5.2T (30kgs for seat/galley/toilet/water/etc) and your 10.2T heavier. You now have a 787-10 that's ~255T and ~7000nm.

The stretch will then reduced L/D and coupled with off optimal engine+airframe combination the range is further reduced 7000nm to say 6800nm (guess). This 787-10 now does not look very attractive to QF and some others.

To reclaim 8000nm (with 4-wheel bogey) your then need say 13T more fuel and say 5T more OWE to carry it. You now have a 787-10 that's ~273T and ~8000nm.
Take out the 40 additional pax and you have a 273T 8500nm 290 seat 787-10 8-abreast.

Since you go over 265T you now open up the 4 vs 6-wheel bogey issue which will further increase the MTOW.
See 787-10: 4 or 6 Wheel bogey
N.B The data in this post is calculated using 8-abreast targeting 8200nm and gives a 270T 8200nm 290seater.

This B767/A330/B787(pre9-abreast)/A350mk1/B787(post9-abreast + -9increased MTOW)/A350XWB game of chess is hotting up quiet nicely with Boeing to move next with the -10. I personally think the MLG issue puts the Boeing king out in the open.

[Edited 2007-08-01 03:03:22]
 
ORDfan
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:02 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:14 am

Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 6):
they;re definately older and wiser in Seattle.

Not to nitpick...but all the Boeing brass are in Chicago now. Many, if not all, of Boeing's senior executives are based there and their business direction/strategy is planned from their Chicago headquarters.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:44 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 31):
Is he really asking for a signficantly longer stretch? I've asked this before, because when QF announced the 787 order, they said the capacity for the aircraft was over 300 pax.

I thought that too, but then why compare it to the 77W?

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 35):
QANTAS/JETSTAR already have a 290seat 787. Its the 787-9 245T MTOW 8000nm in 9-abreast.

He wouldn't compare it in size to the 77W if he was talking about a plane the size of a 77L. It makes no sense. He'd also talk about the A350-900, not the A350-1000 in this discussion.

Again, some are reading too much into his comments rather than taking them at the very clear face value: he wants a plane the size of the 77W, but since they missed the freaking boat on the 77W when it was new due to ETOPS or shortsightedness or whatever, they are going to wait for the next generation aircraft. But they don't want to wait until 2020, so they are urging Boeing to build the 787-11 but call it a 787-10.

One wonders if Boeing is able to offer a 77W with 10% improvement, what then? If the A350-1000 doesn't live up to the hype, and the 77WAdvanced has higher payload even if less efficient than the 35X (but close), does a long-haul carrier like QF take advantage of that? Boeing was able to eek out 5% more efficiency from the 77W as it is offered today compared to the 77W as it was originally designed and offered in the beginning of this decade.

Can Boeing (and GE) find 7-8% more in the computer in the Advanced design phase and 2-3% more improvement during testing and first year of service? Does that translate into an 8500nm 77W which is 10% more efficient at 5500nm stage lengths? Seams Boeing is confident that a 777Advanced is going to be worth the effort, since they have mentioned it quite a lot and are pushing Y3 toward 2020...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:55 am

This caught my eye:

Quote:
Plane makers typically produce an airplane for at least 25 years before thinking of superseding it with a replacement. In 2015, the 777 will be just two decades old.

And development of the aircraft was famously overbudget, costing Boeing somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion, according to Hamilton.

The 777 has garnered 973 orders since launch, and more than 330 remain to be delivered.

But Boeing likely needs a production run well beyond that to earn a decent return on its investment.

Isn't it much better for ROI to sell 1200 planes in 20 years than to sell 1200 planes in 25 years?

And just how many 777s does Boeing need to sell to get a "decent" ROI?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:24 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
my question is how difficult would it be to scale the 787 up to the size of the 777, i mean make the fuselage wider, longer, taller, basically blow up the 787 to the size or slightly large than that of the 777. Boeing might have to redesign the wings and get some stronger engines but they already know how to use composites.

basically a new plane!!!!.....what did you keep from the "source" design?!!?!.... ok the knowledge of using composites...I would argue that once you understand how to "build" a plane from composites and have the repair/servicing down so that airlines deem it cost effective, the rest is back to square one.....putting the plane together (in relative terms) is not the hard part ..its the designing the new fuselage wings and engines that is hard....

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
This could be an interim solution until the Y3 is ready and be a perfect replace ment to the 777

I wouldn't call that interim..you have pretty much described an effort that I doubt could be done without the investment it takes to make an entirely new design...
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
RIHNOSAUR
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:05 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:42 pm

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 22):
Agreed checkmark

 no   no 

I am not sure ..(if I interpret the earlier statement correctly, regarding future computing power allowing companies to build planes quicker) if computing power is the limiting factor in the speed at which a plane can be deigned in todays world...in other words...computational power is NOW good enough that the finite element tools they use to model flow..stress...deflection...yada yada yada can be done within a time frame that is far less than the time it takes to get every thing else done.

In other words.....other tasks such as thinking of the design even before it goes into the computer takes far longer......transporting pieces from countries takes longer....managing the project takes longer.....etc etc...

its like when you are using CAD, from my experience, it takes me much longer to think how i am going to construct the part/ piece ......than it does to input the information in to the computer/software....never mind comparing that time (thinking/problem solving time) to the actual computational time...(like rendering the model or calculating something)...now I do understand that there CAN be programs that take days to run, but the making of the program and the debugging may take even longer...
thus the computational power is not the limiting time factor in designing something.....at least from my experience.....

cheers
particles and waves are the same thing, but who knows what that thing is...
 
MattMSP767
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:25 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:51 pm

So the 777 has been in service for how many years... and it has taken airbus this long to come up with something along the same lines? Why is that?
 
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1603
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:39 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 25):
Actually, it would be a 772ER replacement, roughly, at 7500nm. And they could work on an ER version for the future that flies 8800nm. But not at 350 seats, which is what Dixon wants. 310 seats (average).

9-abreast 2-class 787-10 would most likely be able to acommodate 350 seats easily - maybe even as many as 370, given that JetStar's 787-8s will have around 280 - 300 seats already (if my memory serves me well). LO's 787-9s will have 317 seats - if the airline decides to convert their options into firm order.
POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1767
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:59 pm

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 33):
If Airbus was saying 20% better

That is indeed what Airbus has been saying.

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 35):
You now have a 787-10 that's ~255T and ~7000nm.

I tried playing with your numbers and couldn't see it coming out that badly. If you add 6.2t to the 789's OEW (which I estimated at 118t), bump the MTOW to 255t, and toss in an extra 4t (40 pax) of payload, I get an extrapolated range above 7500 nm. That seems rather far off from your answer and I wonder why.

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 38):
And development of the aircraft was famously overbudget, costing Boeing somewhere between $10 billion and $12 billion, according to Hamilton.

I read that in one of Hamilton's columns. He also noted that those were 1995 dollars. In 2006 dollars it would be a development budget of roughly $13 to 16 billion.

Quoting HawkerCamm (Reply 35):
game of chess is hotting up quiet nicely

 bigthumbsup  pass the popcorn!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9020
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:38 pm

Quoting Planemaker (Reply 17):
The advances in computational ability in the next 5 years will be so significant that a triple-7 replacement will be designed in a fraction of the time it took the 787.

I'm both a layman (my engineering knowledge is basically limited to changing light bulbs and checking the oil in my car) and old enough to remember computer memory being passed around my first computer course in a cup - little magnetic disks that were hand wired.

I do, however, believe that there will be upgrades in computers that will reduce the time required to perform various engineering tasks. On the software side I believe that the 380 program pretty well focused attention on "staying on the same page". It seems to me that the software developers will therefore focus on maximizing the benefits of multi-core processors and maintaining compatibility with existing programs. Let's face it, Boeing has a lot of software, programs and data tied to the 787 and it will be critical that all of this huge asset will be available for Y1 and Y3 - especially since Boeing took a 787/Y1 development program approach.

When Boeing looks at IT investments they will probably be looking at investments that will increase productivity of the individual engineers. Maxing the computational power without retraining demands is the logical approach. No need for extensive training or learning curves, no need for "converting data" etc. It's not going to change the non-computer tasks, but it can reduce the time and costs of developing Y1 and Y3.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 25):
but the 350 seat market, well, it's a business decision, where to put your resources when.

That's an interesting problem for Boeing - as well as Airbus. The question I have is how this impacts the engine companies. While Y3 looks exciting for some I believe that Y1 provides a stronger profit potential and is closer than Y3. So should the engine OEMs focus on supporting the larger planes like the 350-1000 or should they invest their resources to be the first out the door with a Y1 engine? For GE, does Y1 make the 350-1000 and the 787-11 a poor alternative to Y1? There are a lot of issues to address by both A&B and the engine companies and it's going to be interesting to follow how things develop.
 
hawkercamm
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 4:15 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:01 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 43):
I tried playing with your numbers and couldn't see it coming out that badly. If you add 6.2t to the 789's OEW (which I estimated at 118t), bump the MTOW to 255t, and toss in an extra 4t (40 pax) of payload, I get an extrapolated range above 7500 nm. That seems rather far off from your answer and I wonder why.

What is your starting aircraft?
787-9 8000nm 290seats
787-9 8500nm 250seats

I understand that 1T = 100nm.
So with basic stretch (no more fuel) 787-9 becomes
787-10 7000nm 330seats
787-10 7500nm 290seats
with the addition of 6m plug and 40pax's
With no assumption for engine+aircraft combination degradation.

I think Boeing's next move should be to produce a 787-10 and 787-11 with totally new wing and engines. They can make use of the baseline 787's Nose/Cross-section/Tailplane+mods/Fin+mods/cabin/systems architecture.
The 787-11 being 78m in length and 380pax (9-abreast) with a MTOW to take 380pax ~8200nm
The 787-10 being 70m in length and 340pax (9-abreast) with a MTOW to take 340pax ~8200nm
I think this would take 5/6 years to EIS and cost $5/6B. This also is nearly a new airplane!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
Then Boeing can launch Y3 with 10-abreast at 18.5"/11-abreast at 17.2" as a true 77L and 77W replacement. You can have the Y3-100 with 350 seats and Y3-200 with 400 seats (at 10-abreast), both can have 8500-9000nm range,

I think the 787/350 8/9 abreast cabin is a very efficient cross section with little wasted space. Going to 9/10 (777) or even 10/11 abreast will start to yield wasted space in the belly and crown. This adds up to weight and increased drag. I can concede that 777 in 10 abreast is almost comparable with 787 in 9 from an cross section efficient point of view. But an 11 abreast cross section could be too far. It would also reduce the spacing between doors due to emergency exit rules.
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:34 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 43):
I read that in one of Hamilton's columns. He also noted that those were 1995 dollars. In 2006 dollars it would be a development budget of roughly $13 to 16 billion.

Didn't Boeing charge high prices for the 777 in an attempt to recoup those costs?

And again I ask, how many 777s do they need to sell to get a decent ROI?
Our eyes are open, our eyes are open--wide, wide, wide...
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:09 pm

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 46):
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 43):
I read that in one of Hamilton's columns. He also noted that those were 1995 dollars. In 2006 dollars it would be a development budget of roughly $13 to 16 billion.

Didn't Boeing charge high prices for the 777 in an attempt to recoup those costs?

Boeing or Airbus can only charge what the market will bear. Its not as easy as just deciding you will charge customers a higher price and expect to receive the same volume of orders. Demand for commercial airliners is price elastic, particularly when there is a competitor in the market place, which there was.
 
columba
Posts: 5043
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:45 pm

Also a very interesting article mentioning that BA is interested in the A350-900R to fly to Australia and that the 777LR is too heavy to be economical on the Sydney route.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...ctors/transport/article2163576.ece
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: Seattle PI: Airbus A350 Muscles In On The 777

Wed Aug 01, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting Columba (Reply 48):
Also a very interesting article mentioning that BA is interested in the A350-900R to fly to Australia and that the 777LR is too heavy to be economical on the Sydney route.

The A350 really would make a good 777 replacement for them. Watch this space.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, alfa164, CANPILOT, dairbus, FLJ, FlyHossD, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], jetblastdubai, joemac547, jvnjunior, mastermis, michaelworchid, mugler, neromancer, nicksair, piedfly, rutankrd, StTim, SXI899, Teganuma and 322 guests