|Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):|
My gut instinct is that going cheaper is not the right move. It takes so much time and energy to come out with a new model, and once you go through that cost, you're stuck with the results for a long time. My big concern is that the 777x will end up like the A340ng - a good airplane, but half a step behind the A350xwb.
That would be my concern as well. If Boeing doesn't do enough to make the 777X competitive with the A350XWB, then I think they'd just be wasting money which they could've used more effectively on a better 777X. If they're going to do the 777X, they may as well do it properly rather than a half-hearted attempt in the name of 'cost saving'.
|Quoting seabosdca (Reply 3):|
The big, light CFRP wing is an essential piece. I understand why Lars Andersen threw up his hands in frustration.
Absolutely. There is an opportunity here for Boeing to build a bigger, lighter CFRP wing to make the 777X a more efficient aircraft. I can see no disadvantages (costs aside) in opting to go down that route as opposed to doing a "cheaper" upgrade, but conversely, the advantages in terms of performance could be dramatic.
|Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):|
Although I suppose a GE9X 77L might finally make LHR-SYD a reality.
I suppose so, but then so too would a GE9X powered 777-8LX which is proposed, and it'll probably be able to do that route with better costs per seat too.
|Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):|
I'm guessing they are also realizing how good the potential 787-10 is going to be. At 69M it's cabin length will be about the same.
Except it wouldn't have the range of the 777-300ER.
|Quoting morrisond (Reply 7):|
With 2020 Engines isn't a range of 7-800- 8,000 NM seemingly possible with 787-10? Just like the 77W has gone from 7250NM since intro to 7930 in less than 8 Years?
Aside from pre-release predictions, when has the 77W been a 7250nm plane? The 77W has been one of the few aircraft that exceeded design specifications at EIS. I don't think even Boeing imagined quite how good it turned out to be.
|Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):|
Well a 777X with a new CFRP wing will certainly not be cheaper. Per the article, only EK and QR seem ready to spent 10-15% more for a more capable airframe.
I guess the question is not whether it'll cost more than the 777-300ER, but whether it'll cost more than the A350-1000. If Boeing can deliver a 777X that has significant improvements over the 777-300ER, then it only stands to reason that they would charge more for that aircraft.
I wouldn't imagine that the 777X program - even if they were going to go with Mr Andersen's proposal as outlined in that article, would cost Boeing more than it costs Airbus to build the A350XWB. If Boeing can sell a 777-9X for less than what Airbus sells their A350-1000 for, I don't think airlines would be overly hesitant over acquisition costs.
|Quoting LHCVG (Reply 9):|
There is certainly a big tradeoff in going with a 778 when a 787-10 can do basically the same thing with fewer models (phase out 777 earlier, leaving more room for 787 production). To me, even though there are some issues in getting a 787-10 to the specs you posit, once you start talking about a new wing on a 778, the cost becomes so high that the 787-10 seems that much more attractive.
I agree to the extent that the 787-10 would be much more attractive for airlines that don't require the added capacity and range capability of the 777-8X. The 787-10 will most likely outsell the 777-8X many times over, but it can't do everything a 777-8X can - certainly not the rumoured 777-8LX version, anyway. The 777-8X is also likely to form the basis for the new 777F, and as yet, no 787Fs are even talked about, let alone under development.
So while there is indeed some overlap between the two models, each retain its distinct advantages over the other. Replacing one with the other will leave gaps in the line up.
|Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 17):|
So while there's little doubt that a new airplane would gain in fuel efficiency, the acquisition price also goes up. Boeing sells airplanes based on lifecycle and total ownership & operating costs. More efficient engines are great for the operating costs, but if the acquisition price goes up by 20%, the new derivative starts looking worse.
Fair point, but as I alluded to earlier, I think what's more important is the acquisition costs of the 777X relative to the A350-1000 rather than the 777-300ER. If Boeing can keep its price below Airbus' price for the A350-1000, acquisition costs shouldn't be too much of a hinderance.
|Quoting davs5032 (Reply 25):|
It's fine for Boeing to give up *some* market share, if for example, it were to sell @ 40:60 disadvantage to the A35J, but this is only an acceptable plan if they are limiting costs while doing so, therefore making a healthy profit. If this cannot be done in a way that allows Boeing to undercut its more expensive competitor (if needed) without hemorrhaging money, I don't think it should be done.
I would agree to a point - that if they can't do the 777X project without making a loss, they shouldn't do it.
But even if the 777-9X cannot undercut the A350-1000 on price, it is a larger aircraft with greater revenue potential. If the 777X is good enough, it can potentially recover the difference in acquisition costs over the life cycle of the aircraft. That is why I think it is important for Boeing to spend the money on making the 777X as good as it can be.
|Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):|
To me the real nightmare scenario is where sales convinces itself that it's OK to just slap new engines and wingtip treatments and a new fairing or two on a "777MAX" and they then get trounced in the market by the clean-sheet A350-1k, and are stuck high and dry for at least 4 and more likely 8 years while the problem gets solved "the right way". The current sales folks will be perfectly OK with it because they will get bonuses for the few years worth of "777MAX" sales that get made before the world figures out the A350-1k is worth whatever Airbus is charging for it.
I agree entirely.
In what way is the 777X not a "proper solution to any needed MTOW increase"?
|Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):|
Offer range/payload capabilities that easily cover anything that is offered by the 777 today or the A351 in the future.
If it were that easy, Boeing would be doing it already.
An increase in payload/range capabilities and a stretch would be a costly project and would result in loss of commonality with the rest of the 787 family.
|Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 43):|
Adress the limited ground clearance. The 787 is so low sitting, that stretches beyond a certain limit could be restrained by the 737-ground-clearance-plague. It is weird, that Boeing did not spend the 787 the ground clearance, that would allow unlimited stretches. Maybe, just maybe, this was another side-effect of "designing" the 787 into a spot below the 777
Or maybe the fact is that the 787 wasn't meant to be a 77W replacement in the first place? The 787 was designed primarily as a 767/A330 replacement. If they had designed it to be able to stretch that frame for it to be capable of being a 77W replacement as well, then the 787-8's efficiency will suffer because it'll be too heavy - the problem that the A350-800 is facing. If they optimise the frame around a medium size widebody - which is what they have done, then stretching it would require significant re-engineering and compromising. As you rightly point out, stretches beyond a certain point will require some revisions or even a complete redesign to the main landing gear, which will make it a costly project.
One size does not fit all.