globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:57 am

Okay guys, I was thinking as everybody is talking about the so much demanded 787-10 stretch what kind of consequences this might have for a later 777 replacement. At the moment (okay, the 787 is not flying yet) the Boeing portfolio has the 767 at the lower end (which will be replaced by the roughly equally sized 787) at the top end we have the the 744 which will be replaced by the little bit larger 748. Increasing the gap between the the smallest (here I mean the 787-9) and the largest aircraft for most airlines by about 30-40 seats (premium airlines like BA would perhaps put only 20 more seat in). Taking the 787-10 will be built with a capacity close to the 772 there would only be a gap for a future 777 replacement for just about one aircraft ( 30 seats). Now to my point: If Boeing would built the 787-10 they have either the possibility of just building a 77W replacement at the beginning, as they would otherwise cannibalize the 748. Or at least looking at the EIS of the 748 a stretch of the 77W replacement of about the same size of the 748. The EIS of the stretch wouldn't however be before probably 2025, as Boeing is not developing the 748 just to be built for 10-12 years.
In the long-term it would probably be the best option for boeing to let go of the 787-10 thought (as this wouldn't be by any means the most optimized 787-size) and later go for a replacement for the 772/773 which would be more optimized than the 787-10 would. However, I know that this would mean sacrificing a lot of orders, which would then go to the A350-900.

Just a thought, don't flame me if you think I'm totally of the line.  Wink

Below some typical pax numbers for each aircraft type (however, I don't really know for what layout the 787 confis are, I would guess two and three class layout)



Boeing 787:
(210)250--(250)290 /787-10 ~ 350)


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kok Chwee SIM



Boeing 748:
467 (three class)

Boeing 767:
224-269 (two class; left out the 764, as it was of course only built for CO and DL  Wink)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alexander Watts




Boeing 777:
400-451 (two class)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Hunt - AirTeamImages




Boeing 747-400:
412 (three class)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © David Unsworth - WorldAirImages

As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
albird87
Posts: 566
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:15 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:04 am

I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:09 am

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 1):
I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000

You didn't really answer anything, however, I sure agree with you that the 777 replacement will have a similar flightdeck to allow some commonality. As this is the only given, that the first model will be a competitor to the A350-1000 given that they do built th 787-10, which is the question. The other question then would be, will the second model be lager or smaller (772 or 748/744 size)?

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:18 am

Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

If the A350 turns out only half as good as promised, to you really think the 787-11 would stand a chance against the A350-900/1000. I mean, we all know how it turnes out if you overstretch a model which has a strong competitor (A346). So you say, Boeing doesn't need a model in between the 787 and 748?
Personally I can't see how that would satisfy the airlines.

GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
silentbob
Posts: 1539
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:26 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

Rough seating guidelines would be:

787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

Doing that would require some additional work with a new wing and upgrading the gear but would allow them to start the Y3 at 400 seats and stretch up to cover the 748 and larger.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:27 am

The 787-11 would not have the issues the A346 had in terms of structural rigidity both because it has a larger diameter and height (imparting additional rigidity) and that CFRP can be reinforced with a much smaller weight penalty then with Al.

Also, the A350-900 herself is 67m long and the A350-1000 is 74m long, so the 787-10 and 787-11 would only be 1m longer, which is insignificant.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:28 am

Boeing has stated for a long time that when the time is right, 787 technologies will be incorporated into the 777 line. I think studies have already begun using a composite wing box.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
sstsomeday
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:32 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:32 am

Your post indicates know more specifics than I, but I think what we have to remember is that sometimes the replacement of an aircraft type is made by a competitor, and a smart manufacturer accepts that.

Boeing may not want to concentrate on replacing the 777 with a successor, because it knows Airbus will do that with the 350. Besides, why compete against yourself?

It makes more sense to me to replace an A/C class of the opposing team, or create a new class of A/C. The way Airbus did so well with the 330. The way Boeing did so well with the 777.

When Airbus started to challenge the 747 market with first the 340 and then the 380, Boeing pretty much let it happen, and instead created the 777, a whole new class of A/C that has no direct competitor, and now ditto with the 787. These are products with much bigger market potential.

Boeing has purposely not come up with a clean sheet replacement for the 747 because it sees market potential in other areas, and realises that that VLA market is "niche," compared to the long range twin market, for example.

It's not Boeing's habit to defend it's markets, in my view, but to create new ones. The 707, 727, 737, 747, 777, 787 all did that.

Further, it's been my view that Airbus seems to have focused on Boeing products when green-lighting new projects, which resulted in what I view to be a few mis-steps (the 340, certainly, and possibly the 380 (TBD). I believe that manufacturers should focus primarily on future market trends, not on defending A/C that were designed 20 years earlier and represent the markets and technology of almost a generation before.

Airbus made a very smart choice by making the 350 decidedly larger and with more range than the 787, so that the two do NOT compete directly.

I suspect that Boeing created the 757 and 767 primarily based on what the market was asking for and what technology could produce, and not so much to protect it's 707 market share. The only time a manufacturer should concentrate on the competition is when there is a possibility of creating competing A/C that are too similar, and so the possibility exists that they cannot both be profitable.

That was Lockheed and MD's downfall with the DC-10 and L-1011.
I come in peace
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13762
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:38 am

I don't expect the 787 to go past the -10 for practical reasons. Whether the -10 turns out to be the same stretch from the -9 as the -9 is from the -8, or a little longer (which is what QF and EK seem to want), we'll have to see.

Either way, I expect the 777 replacement to start a little bigger than the 777-200, and the 777-300 replacement to big bigger than the 777-300, and then in the future a 744/748 replacement a wee bit smaller than the 748 (in capacity, but not in space).

Basically something in the range of 340 seats, 390 seats and 460 seats. All of them with a minimum of 8500nm range, with a 390 seat LR version at 10000nm.

The plane will be ten abreast at 17.5" seats or 9 abreast at 18.5" seats with wider aisles, which allows for various J configs from 1-2-1 to 2-2-2 to 2-3-2 to 2-4-2 like BA, and F configs of 2-2-2 or 1-2-1.

CFRP will allow for tweaking of the fuselage to eliminate wasted space in the cross section, and I still think that the design could include an expanded crown (vs. the 777) with "upper deck" cockpit + crew rest + pilot rest + galley storage + duty free storage, etc. Much as the 747 gains aerodynamic advantage by the hump slowly tapering toward the back, so would this design. And it would allow for a nose door for a eventual cargo version.

The upper area need not be as tall or wide as the current 747 design as there would be no need to fit 3-3 seating up there, and the cockpit does not need to be as large as the 747 due to advances in technology and smaller crews. The lower deck only needs to be sized for LD3s and modern pallets, not the LD1s the 747 holds. The main deck can have 96" clearance all the way through (unlike the 747).

And by moving the cockpit upstairs as well as galley storage, you open up space on the main deck similar to the 747, but without the need to seat passengers on two decks and without as much headroom up there. A plane 2 meters longer than the 748 would hold 450-460, and one only as long as the 777-200 would hold 340 seats in three classes.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
triley1057
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 3:29 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:59 am

I am by no means an expert, but it seems that Boeing should create a 757 replacement for those medium length international routes. I'm sure Continental wouldn't mind.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:25 am

Quoting Triley1057 (Reply 10):
I am by no means an expert, but it seems that Boeing should create a 757 replacement for those medium length international routes.

I assume that the 737-replacement will fit this bill. The bottom end of the 737 range is being chewed up by Bombardier/Embraer/Sukhoi/AVIC/Mitsubishi so it doesn't take much of a size bump on the 737-replacement family to get it into 757 territory.

Tom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:10 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
Further, it's been my view that Airbus seems to have focused on Boeing products when green-lighting new projects, which resulted in what I view to be a few mis-steps (the 340, certainly, and possibly the 380 (TBD). I believe that manufacturers should focus primarily on future market trends, not on defending A/C that were designed 20 years earlier and represent the markets and technology of almost a generation before.

You must admit, however, that releasing new and improved versions of Boeing products has been very lucrative for Airbus, so I am not surprised they are pursuing this strategy again with the A350 being a new and improved 777.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
It's not Boeing's habit to defend it's markets, in my view, but to create new ones. The 707, 727, 737, 747, 777, 787 all did that.
How did the 787 really create a new market? I mean, okay, well lets just all the boeing peer-to-peer no hubs etc. propaganda be what it is, but it is a replacement for the 767. I mean 90% of the routes that the 787-9 will fly could be handled by a 767-300ER.
The 777, give me a sec. I think it came after the A340?! So how did this create a new market? Maybe I'm not getting your point. If they would have built the sonic cruiser.... However, if you mean, that they used new technologies (two engines on the 777, or CFRP on the 787 well I agree with you, but that would hardly be a new market, just new methods)
Well I agree with you that that they did open new markets in the past, notably the 747 was the most impressive in my opinion. The whole stuff about less hub-traffic in the future etc. is mainly PR of Boeing,

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 787-11 would not have the issues the A346 had in terms of structural rigidity both because it has a larger diameter and height (imparting additional rigidity) and that CFRP can be reinforced with a much smaller weight penalty then with Al.
Well, I agree with you, but weight penalty is weight penalty... Personally I don't see that happening. In fact I don't see the 787-10 being built yet... well its likely, but for me its not yet a given, that they will really launch the program soon (in the next year or so). I think, Boeing will wait until more specifications of the A350 are known... so that might take another year or even a year and a half.

GlobeEx

[Edited 2007-09-18 03:25:51]
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23075
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:10 pm

Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 13):
How did the 787 really create a new market?

It will very likely rapidly increase trans-Pacific market fragmentation much as the 767/A310 did for trans-Atlantic. The 777, A332 and A343 started it, but there are still plenty of 747s crossing the Pacific (and Airbus expects many hundreds of A388s to do so, as well). The 787, like the 767 before it, will make city-pair connections that are now unprofitable, profitable, and will spur additional frequencies between existing city-pairs that can now only support a daily 777 or A332/A343.

Also, the 787 will open up new southern trans-Atlantic city-pairs between North America and Africa and Europe and South America.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:29 pm

When Boeing replaces the 777 w/ a new composite frame craft, I sure hope it keeps its cabin size. The interior of the 777 is pretty roomy w/ the 9 abreast seating.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4961
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:19 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
Either way, I expect the 777 replacement to start a little bigger than the 777-200, and the 777-300 replacement to big bigger than the 777-300, and then in the future a 744/748 replacement a wee bit smaller than the 748 (in capacity, but not in space).

Basically something in the range of 340 seats, 390 seats and 460 seats. All of them with a minimum of 8500nm range, with a 390 seat LR version at 10000nm.

Obviously this concept of Y3 would be able to fill many more missions than a 787-10HGW/787-11 combo (and be much more interesting to a.netters Big grin ). But would it really represent the most sensible business decision?

The 787-10HGW and 787-11 could be done by creating a new wing and gear (and engines). Those planes would compete head-on with the A350-900R and A350-1000, respectively, and I have not seen anything that clearly shows either plane would be superior to the other. Both planes would replace all A340 and 777 variants, and probably substantial numbers of later 744s to boot. The only replacement market these planes could not fill would be extremely slot-limited high-capacity routes (natural A380 markets), heavy cargo routes (where 748s could profitably soldier on), or high-capacity ULH routes, which are still conjecture at this point.

Obviously your new big plane would demolish both the 748 and A380, between the newer materials, modern engineering, and vastly better volumetric efficiency. But it's hard to see that replacement market alone as justifying the extra expense over the 787HGWs, and it's equally hard to imagine that a whole bunch of new, extremely high-capacity missions will suddenly become viable. The only scenario where I can see the investment in your idea of Y3 being worthwhile is in the case of increased environmental requirements, where frequency becomes unsustainable and big planes operating at reduced frequency become more common in high-capacity markets.

Furthermore, your proposed Y3 lineup may extend too far downward. How well would your 340-seat plane compete with an A350-1000? It seems likely to me that it would be heavier and less efficient. Are you relying on engineering improvements to make up the difference?

I love new plane speculation topics. Big grin
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:41 pm

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 1):
I think we shall see a 777-800 using 787 technology which will allow that gap to be filled and also be a VLR aircraft.
This 778 will have similar flightdecks i think to the 787 rather than the 777 to allow commonatlity and so forth and will also be a great competitior to the A350-1000

i think that makes sense, i don't really think one aircraft can replace the 777 and 747, even getting closer to the A380. A plane the size of the 747 needs 4 engines, a revamped 777, basically a scaled up 787 (in basically all deminsions) would help especially using composites. Basically a boeing version of the A350, and possible stay around the same size as the current 777s, and the 748 could be around for a while until a real Y3 could be developed.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:54 pm

The A350 is only 5 inches wider than the 787, the A350 being an 9-Y plane and the 787 being a 8 or 9Y plane.

If you accept the 787 at 9Y (as many airlines have), then there is NO reason, not one, why the 787 can't be stretched efficiently to the same lenghts/capacity of the A350-900 and A350-1000. None.

Sure it will require a new wing and LG for the larger sizes preserving range. So what? The 737NG, got just that and went all the way to the 739ER with 190pax and transcon range, from the little dinky 737-200. And we all know what a failure that stretch is, right? Similarly, the 767-200, went all the way to a 763ER/764ER. The 777-200 went all the way to the 77W/77L.. Yep, it costs money, but it is a viable option and probably near the top of Boeing's consideration as an A350-1000 counter.

By 2015/2020, Boeing's loung haul passenger line up could be 787-8, 787-9, 787-9LR, 787-10 (ER), perhaps 787-11 (ER), 748. What is wrong with that line up? All that would take is a new wing/LG and a few structural changes to the 787 line. In my mind, much better that spending multi-billions more with so called Y3 that would kill the 787-10, the 777 AND the yet to fly 748.

I'm so amazed that here on A.net people say things like "The 787 can not possibly be stretched to match the A350". Why not? Because it is 5 inches narrower? For crying out loud. While others, perhaps more informed, will say that if you have to re-do the wing, you might as well do a new plane from scratch, blah, blah, blah. Well, again I disgree. I htink the 737NG is a runaway success with a new wing and much, much higher weight/range than the classics. same for 77W vs 77A. Even the much maligned A346 is really a great plane if you compare it to the A343. It is only when you compare it to a twin (777), which was a game changer that it suffers.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
siromega
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:57 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:17 pm

My issue with a plane that is 10Y@17.5" is having to build a new LCF fleet to move the fuse sections around (assuming they build it the same way as the 787). Maybe they build it taller and turn the fuse sections sideways in the LCF?
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 4:46 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
CFRP will allow for tweaking of the fuselage to eliminate wasted space in the cross section, and I still think that the design could include an expanded crown (vs. the 777) with "upper deck" cockpit + crew rest + pilot rest + galley storage + duty free storage, etc. Much as the 747 gains aerodynamic advantage by the hump slowly tapering toward the back, so would this design. And it would allow for a nose door for a eventual cargo version.

I agree with the nose door, but would not be surprised to see Boeing bringing out both pax and freight versions at the same time - just as they have done with the 748. With the larger planes selling fewer frames than smaller planes this would make sense in terms of maximizing sales - especially in the early years.

I've also thought about the hump for aerodynamic efficiency and for the nose door. I tend to see Boeing engineers in the back room talking about it, smiling and getting to work on that project. I do believe, however, that Boeing would provide for pax space in the hump - it's just worked too well for too long.

The challenge would, of course, be production and transportation of major components. It may require that the component suppliers build plants near the assembly facilities so the larger parts can be moved a short distance without a problem.

Like Y1, Y3 is going to depend on the engine manufacturers - might be why GE isn't interested in investing in the 350-1000.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 5:17 pm

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
Even the much maligned A346 is really a great plane if you compare it to the A343

No, for many airlines the A346 ISN'T better than the A343. Which is the amazing thing about the entire A340NG project. It produced planes that on paper look far more capible, but the reality was that you pay for that capiblity with terrible operating economics incomparison TO ITS OWN BASE VERSION, on any route the A343 can fly. Imagine if the 777-300 was decisively better on any mission that it could fly than the 777-300ER? Yah its like that. Instead On the 777 and virtualy any "NG" program ever done before the resulting plane is not only more capible at the edges of the range-payload chart, but more economical across the heart of the previous generations mission profile.
 
globeex
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 7:32 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
The 787, like the 767 before it, will make city-pair connections that are now unprofitable, profitable, and will spur additional frequencies between existing city-pairs that can now only support a daily 777 or A332/A343.

Also, the 787 will open up new southern trans-Atlantic city-pairs between North America and Africa and Europe and South America.

Well it is right that the 787 will open up some new routes. But honestly, most of the routes the 787 will fly where handled by the 332 or 767 before, or could at least be handled by them. And looking at the current oil price, which will likely increase, it probably won't make routes profitable that never were profitable. Maybe some routes that could have been profitable earlier with the 767 but now aren't due to the oil price. What I mean: a 787 will consume quite more fuel (by $) than a 767 did a couple of years ago (of course now a 767 consumes even more).


GlobeEx
As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
 
Carls
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:22 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:30 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
I suspect that Boeing created the 757 and 767 primarily based on what the market was asking for and what technology could produce, and not so much to protect it's 707 market share.

Boeing designed the 767 to compete against A300 / A310, the only twin engined wide body for its time.
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:43 pm

Unless EK orders it, or another airline in very large numbers (100 +), there will not be a 787-10 anytime soon. Boeing has pubically said the 777 will undergo modifications to keep it competititve with the A-350. I think that when the time is right, you will see a true 777 replacement, sized pretty much where that airplane is right now.
One Nation Under God
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
The plane will be ten abreast at 17.5" seats or 9 abreast at 18.5" seats with wider aisles, which allows for various J configs from 1-2-1 to 2-2-2 to 2-3-2 to 2-4-2 like BA, and F configs of 2-2-2 or 1-2-1.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
The lower deck only needs to be sized for LD3s and modern pallets, not the LD1s the 747 holds. The main deck can have 96" clearance all the way through (unlike the 747).

Ten abreast 17.5" is too close in size to the 787 cross section. I think the plane will have a high capacity Y configurization of 12 abreast 17" to 17.5" wide seats, the maximum number allowed for a twin aisle aircraft. The standard configuration will be 11 abreast 18.5" to 19" wide seats. Even if three LD3 containers couldn't fit across the width of the cargo bay, perhaps a third one could be loaded sideways in the middle. The middle position would be a good place for cargo pallets.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:27 pm

Quoting SSTsomeday (Reply 8):
the 777, a whole new class of A/C that has no direct competitor

Um, how can it be either, when it:
  • came after the M11 and A340?
  • competes in the exact same market as do they, only more effectively?
  • Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
     
    deltadc9
    Posts: 2788
    Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:27 pm

    Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 24):
    I think that when the time is right, you will see a true 777 replacement, sized pretty much where that airplane is right now.

    It would seem that Boeing is still where they were years ago with this decision, and waiting for the market to decide.

    The original Yellowstone concept called for Y3 to cover the 773 - 747, Y2 to cover the 753 - 772, and Y1 to cover 752 on down, how far down the market will decide also.

    If they infringe on the 773 with the 787, they effectively shrink Y3's potential sales so much, I wonder if they would even do it at all. The bigger the plane, the smaller the market, Y3 seems to need the 773/ larger A-350 market to even make it feasable.

    If they do make the 787 773 sized, a revamped 777 and an extended offer of the 748 seem to be the only financially feasable route until a BWB or some other radically different designe comes on line.

    Just my 2 cents.
    Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
     
    User avatar
    Stitch
    Posts: 23075
    Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:44 pm

    Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 27):
    If they infringe on the 773 with the 787, they effectively shrink Y3's potential sales so much, I wonder if they would even do it at all.

    They wouldn't. If Boeing does Y3, I believe they will be a ~325 and a ~375 seater.

    I've been really torn by which way it's going to go. I've bounced back and forth with "launch the 787HGW" and "launch Y3". But the more I think about it, the more I agree with those who have said Y3 is not worth the money.

    You're looking at roughly 2250 777s/A333s/A340s that need to be replaced. Throw in another 250 747s that will not be replaced with an A380 and you're at 2500. Then you need to add in future expansion sales. Say that's 1500 frames over 20 years for a total of 4000 frames. Based on previous widebody sales programs, sales of 1000 frames is considered enough to generate a nice RoI.

    Now, the trick is how well will a larger 787 do against the A350. Boeing will have 1000 orders for the 787 by next year. Considering the lower development cost of the 787 (thanks to the risk-sharing partnerships), the program should be assured of returning a nice RoI. So it can be argued that any 787HGW sale is "gravy", provided at a minimum it covers the cost of developing and producing it, which is essentially assured.

    As such, if Boeing only takes a bit over 1/3rd of the market, they still end up with 1500 additional 787 orders, leaving 2500 to Airbus. And considering all 1500 will be just improving the 787's RoI and Boeing's bottom-line, this means shareholders will be very happy and Boeing's stock will remain in the triple-digits. And 2500 orders would ensure the A350 program returns a nice RoI for Airbus.

    On the other hand, Boeing can cut the 787 off and start fresh on a new, larger plane to compete against the A350. The development costs will, at a minimum, be similar to the 787's, and likely more. So that means that, at a minimum, Boeing needs to sell 1000-1500 to make a nice RoI. But that RoI will be far less then the RoI of selling 1500 additional 787HGWs. Even if Boeing splits the market down the middle, 2000 Y3s would generate less RoI then 3000 787s, to say nothing of 3500-4000 787s.

    So I think Boeing will work on making the 777 a bit better to keep it selling through the mid-2010s, and then replace the pax versions with the 787HGW.
     
    deltadc9
    Posts: 2788
    Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:53 pm

    Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
    They wouldn't. If Boeing does Y3, I believe they will be a ~325 and a ~375 seater.

    In that scenario, do they simply stick with the 748 for 400 seats and above? Or do you envision a later stretch Y3 to cover the 747?
    Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
     
    User avatar
    Stitch
    Posts: 23075
    Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:03 am

    Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 29):
    In that scenario, do they simply stick with the 748 for 400 seats and above? Or do you envision a later stretch Y3 to cover the 747?

    I don't think there is a long-term, profitable market for two 400+ seat planes, to be honest. The 747 will remain the preeminent freighter until the things just rust on the tarmac and the A380 will fill the need for planes with larger then 400 seats.

    Depending on how wide Y3 is will determine how long it is. I expect at 9/10-abreast, Y3-200 would be right at 80m, precluding a stretch. If they went 10/11-abreast (which I am somewhat skeptical), then you could see Y3-200 at 74m which would allow a "standard" 6m stretch to an 80m Y3-300 with another 25-50 seats.
     
    deltadc9
    Posts: 2788
    Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:10 am

    Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
    I don't think there is a long-term, profitable market for two 400+ seat planes, to be honest. The 747 will remain the preeminent freighter until the things just rust on the tarmac and the A380 will fill the need for planes with larger then 400 seats.

    I agree, I kinda think that Boeing has already decided to cede the VLA market near term just like they have no interest planes much smaller than the 737/717. I think its more about profit and long term viability than a complete product range smallest to biggest just for the sake of doing so. They made their money when there was money to be made in VLAs.
    Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
     
    User avatar
    Stitch
    Posts: 23075
    Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:20 am

    Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 31):
    I agree, I kinda think that Boeing has already decided to cede the VLA market near term...

    Yup. The 747-8F was enough of an advancement to protect the 747 against an improved A388F. Once the 747-8F program was launched, offering a passenger model wasn't really that much of a financial or program hardship and even poor sales should not seriously affect the overall 747-8 program RoI, to say nothing of the 747 family RoI.
     
    WAH64D
    Posts: 744
    Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:35 am

    Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):

    By 2015/2020, Boeing's loung haul passenger line up could be 787-8, 787-9, 787-9LR, 787-10 (ER), perhaps 787-11 (ER), 748. What is wrong with that line up? All that would take is a new wing/LG and a few structural changes to the 787 line

    What you pass off as "only a new wing" etc... is practically a complete redesign. The wing takes a huge amount of time and money to get right. It would also require a new centre wing box, new landing gear and major structural changes to integrate the new parts whilst remaining compatible with the old ones. 787-10/11 if they ever come about are going to be extremely costly to develop. IMO this is why Boeing haven't already announced them. B789 is currently at the economical limit of the 787 structure.

    Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 21):
    No, for many airlines the A346 ISN'T better than the A343. Which is the amazing thing about the entire A340NG project. It produced planes that on paper look far more capible, but the reality was that you pay for that capiblity with terrible operating economics incomparison TO ITS OWN BASE VERSION, on any route the A343 can fly. Imagine if the 777-300 was decisively better on any mission that it could fly than the 777-300ER? Yah its like that. Instead On the 777 and virtualy any "NG" program ever done before the resulting plane is not only more capible at the edges of the range-payload chart, but more economical across the heart of the previous generations mission profile.

    All blatantly stated without a shred of evidence or any quoted sources. I'm not going to start an A vs B out of this thread as seems to be your intent but I'd just like to ask why you think your reply adds anything to the value of this thread?

    Quoting FlyingClrs727 (Reply 25):
    Ten abreast 17.5" is too close in size to the 787 cross section. I think the plane will have a high capacity Y configurization of 12 abreast 17" to 17.5" wide seats, the maximum number allowed for a twin aisle aircraft. The standard configuration will be 11 abreast 18.5" to 19" wide seats. Even if three LD3 containers couldn't fit across the width of the cargo bay, perhaps a third one could be loaded sideways in the middle. The middle position would be a good place for cargo pallets.

    IMO this will never happen. Nobody wants to travel in an aircraft that has twin aisles and anything over 10 abreast seating.
    I AM the No-spotalotacus.
     
    tdscanuck
    Posts: 8572
    Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:35 am

    Quoting SirOmega (Reply 19):
    My issue with a plane that is 10Y@17.5" is having to build a new LCF fleet to move the fuse sections around (assuming they build it the same way as the 787).

    I don't think that's an issue. The 787 program justified the creation of the entire LCF fleet from scratch. There's no reason to believe that another program couldn't do the same, especially since they'd have to build new LCF's to keep up with rate anyway.

    It's also far from a given that they'll do the next airplane with the same geographical spread as the 787.

    Tom.
     
    ebj1248650
    Posts: 1517
    Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:53 am

    Quoting Silentbob (Reply 5):
    Doing that would require some additional work with a new wing and upgrading the gear but would allow them to start the Y3 at 400 seats and stretch up to cover the 748 and larger.

    My understanding is that Y3 is supposed to be the replacement for the 747 and 777; so what you're talking about in an advanced 777 would be an interim model?
    Dare to dream; dream big!
     
    hloutweg
    Posts: 156
    Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:57 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:12 am

    Quoting GlobeEx (Thread starter):
    Boeing 787:
    (210)250--(250)290 /787-10 ~ 350)

    no

    I don't think that's the seat arrangement for a three class cabin. The possibilities of replacing the 777 with a 787 are closer to this:

    Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
    Boeing could launch a 69m 787-10 and a 75m 787-11.

    Rough seating guidelines would be:

    787-10: 291 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
    787-10: 330 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

    787-11: 328 pax in 3 classes (8-abreast)
    787-11: 370 pax in 3 classes (9-abreast)

     checkmark 
    In Varietate Concordia
     
    User avatar
    SEPilot
    Posts: 4960
    Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:16 am

    Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
    I don't think there is a long-term, profitable market for two 400+ seat planes, to be honest. The 747 will remain the preeminent freighter until the things just rust on the tarmac and the A380 will fill the need for planes with larger then 400 seats.

    But I don't see a profitable future for the A380 when competing against smaller planes with a better CASM. If Boeing makes Y3 to be 375-450 seats and configures it to be a good freighter it will put the A380 out of business. The point of it is that freighter sales (since its ton-mile costs will beat even the 748 handily) will provide enough sales to make the ROI worthwhile. The question is when will Boeing do it? They have just put a lot of money into the 777 and are putting quite a bit into the 748, and the next pressing need is Y1. But I do expect Boeing to do it after Y1, but that will require conceding the larger than 787-9 market to Airbus once the A350-1000 becomes available until Y3 appears. The point is that the 777's days are numbered, whether Boeing obsoletes it or Airbus claims its market. If they go with the 787HGW they are conceding the larger than 350 seat market, and even though it is not very large, it is important. Airbus has flubbed it with the A380, as it makes a lousy freighter. Boeing will not make that mistake, as the freighter market is what will make it profitable.
    The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
     
    deltadc9
    Posts: 2788
    Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:28 am

    Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 35):
    My understanding is that Y3 is supposed to be the replacement for the 747 and 777; so what you're talking about in an advanced 777 would be an interim model?

    Replacement for the 773, not the 772. The 772 has long been considered in the Y2/787 range.
    Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
     
    User avatar
    Stitch
    Posts: 23075
    Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:43 am

    Quoting SEPilot (Reply 37):
    But I don't see a profitable future for the A380 when competing against smaller planes with a better CASM. If Boeing makes Y3 to be 375-450 seats and configures it to be a good freighter it will put the A380 out of business.

    When Airbus starts delivering the A350, that will (eventually) put the A380 out of business. The 787HGW is only going to help the A350 do it, as would Y3.

    I'm just not sure Y3 brings enough to the table over the 787HGW to justify the extra expense. We're looking at $2-3 billion overall for the 787HGW vs probably $12-13 billion for the Y3. Even if the 787HGW goes to $6 billion for a major overhaul of everything (essentially a "787NG"), that's still half of what Y3 costs.

    Quote:
    The point of it is that freighter sales (since its ton-mile costs will beat even the 748 handily) will provide enough sales to make the ROI worthwhile.

    Sure, but then you kill the 748F, which is already making a nice RoI on about 1/5th the expense. Each 747-8F will bring in vastly more profit per frame then each Y3-200F because the 747-8F's costs are billions and billions less. The 747-8F has no competition now and likely won't in the future until the BWB freighter enters service in the future. Also, remember a Y3-100F would kill off the 777F program.

    Quote:
    The point is that the 777's days are numbered, whether Boeing obsoletes it or Airbus claims its market. If they go with the 787HGW they are conceding the larger than 350 seat market, and even though it is not very large, it is important.

    They already are, in a way. The 747-8I is just there because it was cheap to develop. If it had cost $5 billion to bring to market, Boeing wouldn't have done it.

    The 777-300ER and A340-600 pretty much ended the 747-400's market - the A380-800 was just the coup de grace. If the A380-800 never launched, I doubt the airlines that bought 175 of them would have bought 175 747-400s. They likely would have bought more and more 777-300ERs and A340-600s and only a handful of 747-400s for the routes where they just had to have those extra couple dozen seats.
     
    globeex
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:47 am

    Quoting Hloutweg (Reply 36):
    don't think that's the seat arrangement for a three class cabin. The possibilities of replacing the 777 with a 787 are closer to this:

    Well how couldn't 210 seats for the 787-8 and 250 seats for the 787-9 not be three class config? Yeah, the 350 for the 787-10 wont't be three class, wasn't meant to be (100 more seats for just a simple stretch)... sorry if it seemed that I mean the 787-10 will have 350 seats in a three class config. I meant the data for 787 stated by boeing, which wasn't clear to me, for what configs they were.

    GlobeEx
    As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
     
    PHKLM
    Posts: 788
    Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 7:28 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:56 am

    Quoting WAH64D (Reply 33):

    All blatantly stated without a shred of evidence or any quoted sources. I'm not going to start an A vs B out of this thread as seems to be your intent but I'd just like to ask why you think your reply adds anything to the value of this thread?



    Quoting WAH64D (Reply 33):
    IMO this will never happen. Nobody wants to travel in an aircraft that has twin aisles and anything over 10 abreast seating.

    Sorry but how can you unite this within one post?
    You blame someone for not given any references or data, thereby claiming his point of view inferior to yours, or his contribution a waste of bandwidth. However, seconds later you make the statement that "nobody" wants to travel on a plane with 2 aisles and more than 10 abreast. You do this without providing any proper arguments yourself.
    So who's contribution is adding what?
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 13828
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:10 am

    Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 13):
    I mean 90% of the routes that the 787-9 will fly could be handled by a 767-300ER.

    The 787-8 already is bigger than 767-400 and has more range, so using 787-9 to cover 767-300ER is overkill.

    Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 27):
    It would seem that Boeing is still where they were years ago with this decision, and waiting for the market to decide.

     checkmark 

    Quoting Stitch (Reply 28):
    Considering the lower development cost of the 787 (thanks to the risk-sharing partnerships), the program should be assured of returning a nice RoI.

    I agree that at this point a good ROI is almost guaranteed, but keep in mind that risk sharing partners are also profit sharing partners.
    Inspiration, move me brightly!
     
    lesismore
    Posts: 123
    Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:51 am

    Quoting Baron95 (Reply 18):
    The A350 is only 5 inches wider than the 787,

    Airbus states on their website that the A350XWB fuselage diameter (horizontal) is 5.96m.
    Boeing states on their website that the cross section is 574cm (or 5.74m). Is this the interior cross-section or the fuselage diameter?
    How do we know that the interior of the A350XWB is 5 inches wider?
    I'm a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down. - Abe Lincoln
     
    globeex
    Posts: 265
    Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:33 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:07 am

    Quoting Revelation (Reply 42):
    The 787-8 already is bigger than 767-400 and has more range, so using 787-9 to cover 767-300ER is overkill.

    I think you should get your facts right first. The 767-400 is almost the size of the 772... The capacity of the 767-400 could be the capacity they will stretch the 787-10 to, although that might be just a little bit too small.

    GlobeEx

    [Edited 2007-09-18 20:12:08]
    As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
     
    BlueSky1976
    Posts: 1605
    Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:36 am

    As much as I would love Boeing to "redo" the 777 and come out with 777-8, 777-8ER and 777-9, I don't think it will happen. The 787-10 is one reason for that and I strongly believe Boeing will push it to the "plane that will be able to do every 777-200ER mission" range (around 7,500 - 7,800nm).
    Then we'll see Y3 come 2015 - 2017. First, we'll have the direct 777-300ER replacement (Y3-8, 360 pax, 3 class), then we'll see the long-awaited 747-400/-400F/-8F/-8i replacement (Y3-9, 410 pax, 3 class) with both planes having about the same range as today's 787-9 (8,400 - 8,600nm). Then it's possible Boeing would chase the last "holy grail" of the long-haul travel and make the Y3-8ER SYD/AKL - LHR capable with 300 pax aboard. No 787-11 or -12 or -13 as some imagine here. Boeing will most likely stick to the successfull 8/9-abreast formula and copy it into the Y3, making it 9/10-abreast with slightly increased comfort level compared to the 777.
    Capacity-wise, that would be the end of the line. There will never be a 500+ seat superjumbos flying around. Come 2020 747-8i and A380 will be as good as dead and the high end of the passenger capacity will remain at about 400 seats in the typical 3-class layout. That's the way I see it.
    POLAND IS UNDER DICTATORSHIP. PLEASE SUPPORT COMMITTEE FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY, K.O.D.
     
    WAH64D
    Posts: 744
    Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:14 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:50 am

    Quoting PHKLM (Reply 41):

    Sorry but how can you unite this within one post?
    You blame someone for not given any references or data, thereby claiming his point of view inferior to yours, or his contribution a waste of bandwidth. However, seconds later you make the statement that "nobody" wants to travel on a plane with 2 aisles and more than 10 abreast. You do this without providing any proper arguments yourself.
    So who's contribution is adding what?

    Have you ever been on an aircraft with a centre row of 5 and you're stuck in the middle seat? Its not much fun having to crawl over 2 people every time you need to get up for something. In my experience not many people enjoy flying on 3-5-3 configured aircraft and wherever there is a viable alternative, they will not repeat book with an airline flying this configuration. Furthermore, I said IMO (in my opinion), it was not a blanket statement of fact unlike the reply I quoted in my previous post, an excerpt of which is below.

    Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 21):
    Yah its like that.
    I AM the No-spotalotacus.
     
    User avatar
    Stitch
    Posts: 23075
    Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:56 am

    Quoting WAH64D (Reply 46):
    In my experience not many people enjoy flying on 3-5-3 configured aircraft and wherever there is a viable alternative, they will not repeat book with an airline flying this configuration.

    However, such a configuration offers the best chance of not having an adjoining seat filled, which is a plus.

    It does appear the it is most the US airlines that go with the 2+5+2 configuration, while the EU and Asian ones prefer 3+3+3, though some seem to fly mixed (KE is 3+3+3 on the 772 and 2+5+2 on the 773).
     
    zvezda
    Posts: 8891
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:43 am

    Quoting GlobeEx (Thread starter):
    Boeing is not developing the 748 just to be built for 10-12 years.

    Boeing would be delighted to be able to sell 747-8s for another 10 years. That, however, is rather optimistic.

    Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 4):

    If the A350 turns out only half as good as promised, to you really think the 787-11 would stand a chance against the A350-900/1000.

    Yes, of course.

    Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
    I expect the 777 replacement to start a little bigger than the 777-200

    So, you expect the 787-10 to be the 777 replacement? I do too.

    Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 9):
    Basically something in the range of 340 seats, 390 seats and 460 seats.

    We're in the midst of the greatest airliner sales boom in history and both the WhaleJet and the JumboJet are suffering pathetic sales -- despite other models have order backlogs of five to six years. Airlines don't want anything with 400+ seats.

    Quoting Triley1057 (Reply 10):
    it seems that Boeing should create a 757 replacement for those medium length international routes.

    That will be part of the Y1/NSR product line.

    Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 44):
    I think you should get your facts right first. The 767-400 is almost the size of the 772... The capacity of the 767-400 could be the capacity they will stretch the 787-10 to, although that might be just a little bit too small.

    Revelation's facts are right. Widebody cabin floor areas in square meters:

    B767-200 154.9
    B767-300 184.5
    A300-600 209.0
    B767-400 214.1
    B787-8 223.8
    A350-800 ???
    A330-200 231.3
    B787-9 257.4
    A340-300 258.8
    A330-300 259.1
    A350-900 ???
    A340-500 275.7
    B777-200 279.0
    B787-10 291.0
    A340-600 314.2
    B787-11X 324.6
    A350-1000 ???
    B777-300 330.4
    B747-400 372.0
    B747-8I 426.2
    WhaleJet 552.5
     
    User avatar
    Revelation
    Posts: 13828
    Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

    RE: Boeing's Problem Of Sizing A 777 Replacement

    Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:44 am

    Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 44):
    I think you should get your facts right first. The 767-400 is almost the size of the 772... The capacity of the 767-400 could be the capacity they will stretch the 787-10 to, although that might be just a little bit too small.

    I think you may be changing the argument in midstream.

    In any case, here's the basic info provided by boeing.com (total length x interior width). Unfortunately they don't have floor area in square feet/meters readily accessable, this is the best I could find.

    B767-3 = 54.9m x 4.7m
    B767-4 = 61.3m x 4.7m
    B787-8 = 57.0m x 5.7m
    B787-9 = 63.0m x 5.7m
    B777-2 = 63.7m x 5.9m

    Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 13):
    I mean 90% of the routes that the 787-9 will fly could be handled by a 767-300ER.

    I still don't see the overlap between 767-300ER and 787-9, whereas I can see overlap between 767-400ER and 787-8.
    Inspiration, move me brightly!

    Who is online