Matt6461 wrote:SteinarN wrote:The other option Boeing have is to cut the asking price for the 77X so much that they sell it for a substantial loss or at best break even on a recuring cash flow basis. But that is no viable option either.
"Market intelligence", IIRC, says Boeing can build the 77W for less than $100mil right now. I don't expect the 779 to be much above that figure.
So I think there's room for Boeing to see positive cash flow from 779 sales for at least half a decade - whether it's enough to cover the ~$5bn investment is a different story.
It may be that Boeing never expected full recoupment of 777X development costs, but saw no other option at the time to keep its engineers paid and stay at the bleeding edge of wing/engine tech for the next project. Had Boeing not launched 777X it either (1) would have lost the entire market above 787 and a good portion of its engineering talent or (2) would have had to spend ~$15bn on a clean sheet replacement that probably couldn't be pushed out far enough for Ultrafan engines.
Had option (2) been a double-decker of ~450 seats it might have been a world-beater, but maybe the 777X is a placeholder for such a Y3 project next decade, after early 777X death.
I would believe the 77X will be (substantially) more costly to build, the huge carbon fibre wing must cost much more to build than the smaler aluminum wing, and the engines too must cost substantially more to build. However the rest of the aircraft stays more or less the same, so as a percentage of the total aircraft it might just be in the single digit percentage more costly to build.
Regarding which opportunities Boeing had in 2013 regarding the 77W. They couldnt wait for GE to develop a geared engine, thats for sure. Maybe they could have developed an all new carbon fibre aircraft, but I wont even in hindsight dare to say if that would have been a better solution either. So i think there was no clearly better option than what they ended up doing.