User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21174
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:33 pm

Last edited by qf789 on Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: non descriptive title
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:41 pm

Might help explain yesterday's Aviation Analyst story that Airbus were close to formal launch of a ULR version of the A35K.

Presumably Boeing wouldn't have frozen 778 development if they were still in contention for the Sunrise order.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17362
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:41 pm

Jon is normally a pretty reliable source, so I certainly wouldn't bet against it. There has been a lot of talk about it being dropped, but many here didn't give that much credit.

Given Boeing's other issues, it seems like a fairly obvious way to clear some stuff off their plate. The cost may be the loss of 777-8 orders to Airbus, especially if the rumoured A35KULR is launched, but it seems that's something Boeing might be prepared to swallow.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:48 pm

scbriml wrote:
Jon is normally a pretty reliable source, so I certainly wouldn't bet against it. There has been a lot of talk about it being dropped, but many here didn't give that much credit.

Given Boeing's other issues, it seems like a fairly obvious way to clear some stuff off their plate. The cost may be the loss of 777-8 orders to Airbus, especially if the rumoured A35KULR is launched, but it seems that's something Boeing might be prepared to swallow.



Reliable source.....depends on who you ask. Airbus fans said his story about a MTOW increase of the 787-10 was unverified and likely untrue in relation to NZ.

The story came out two months ago and it still remains unverified. So who knows?
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
tealnz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:13 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
Reliable source.....depends on who you ask. Airbus fans said his story about a MTOW increase of the 787-10 was unverified and likely untrue in relation to NZ. The story came out two months ago and it still remains unverified. So who knows?

Yeah there is still a question mark about the specifics. But Luxon definitely referred to a "game changer" that emerged from working with Boeing. Whether that was mainly better mileage from the GEnX, a lighter OEW, an increase in MTOW, better aero or what remains unclear. I think we can be pretty confident Ostrower wouldn't print a headline like this without a solid basis.
 
art
Posts: 2914
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:31 am

Why would they suspend development?
 
planecane
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:35 am

art wrote:
Why would they suspend development?


Because they need resources for other things and it wasn't exactly selling like hotcakes. They can focus on the 777-9, possibly stretch it to make the -10 for highest capacity. If the story about improvements to the 787-10 is true then it can potentially be their product for the 777-200ER replacement market and size. They can let Airbus have the ULH market just like Airbus let them have it with the 777-200LR which didn't sell very many.
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1750
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:38 am

scbriml wrote:
Jon is normally a pretty reliable source, so I certainly wouldn't bet against it. There has been a lot of talk about it being dropped, but many here didn't give that much credit.

Given Boeing's other issues, it seems like a fairly obvious way to clear some stuff off their plate. The cost may be the loss of 777-8 orders to Airbus, especially if the rumoured A35KULR is launched, but it seems that's something Boeing might be prepared to swallow.
Boeing it's better off working on it's strengths. The 774I didn't make sense either. A replacement for the 737 would have been a better idea.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 12:54 am

Well, that's presumably the Sunrise announcement. If QF wants the A350, and EK is looking at spacing out the 777X order, and EY is deferring most of the 777X, and QR is more concerned with taking any aircraft for geopolitical reasons than exactly which aircraft it's taking, then... there's not much urgency to build the thing.

They will have to un-mothball it eventually, as the 777-8F will be Boeing's next big high-utilization freighter. But it's entirely possible that no passenger version ever gets developed. As a Boeing fan I find that disappointing, but the business of it makes sense.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 944
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:03 am

Like all smaller versions, this version doesn't seem to be economically viable. Not sure how much it has already cost Boeing but if they dont see a commercial potential in it, they might as well stop the project. I dont think it is that much in terms of money to develop this derivative, but with present squeeze on resources it might be beneficial to focus on what is at hand rather than a derivative that is unlikely to see much revenue.

Everyone keeps talking about project sunrise. While that's fancy, the main reason for Airbus to add performance is likely to be more than just one project. A belief that with a minor investment, some present customers will be given further options, that through some minor tweaks their existing product can meet the requirements of even more business cases. Project sunrise is nice but if this was solely about it, the investment wouldn't be undertaken.

In regards to the author of the article. I think the main reason that the source is that he kept spreading Boeing propaganda without any critical evaluation during the early 787 years. Ridiculous marketing lines were parroted as facts. The relationship between him and the Boeing propaganda department at that time was way to close and hence he was correctly called out for spreading misinformation.
If a 'reporter' has once been proven not to have been able to be unbiased, the reputation of exaggerations and wishful thinking is difficult to avoid. Thats definitely the case in this instance.
I hope he learnt from his mistakes back then but he comers with a proven track-record of bias and linkage to one manufacturer rather than being seen as someone attempting to present an unbiased reality. hence his articles will be called out as propaganda by half of the airline world. Its what it is.
he has good Boeing connections though so with Boeing he is likely to be right (as long as no one quotes him of performance etc)
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Topic Author
Posts: 21174
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:13 am

planecane wrote:
They can let Airbus have the ULH market just like Airbus let them have it with the 777-200LR which didn't sell very many.

I think the ULH market brings a lot of prestige but not a lot of orders. SQ flew the A340-500 on SIN-NYC and it was a nice ride but didn't lead to many sales for the family. However it is nice icing on the cake for Airbus and A350-1000 which is an excellent product, and another PR hit for Boeing.

MillwallSean wrote:
Like all smaller versions, this version doesn't seem to be economically viable. Not sure how much it has already cost Boeing but if they dont see a commercial potential in it, they might as well stop the project. I dont think it is that much in terms of money to develop this derivative, but with present squeeze on resources it might be beneficial to focus on what is at hand rather than a derivative that is unlikely to see much revenue.

I think a lot of this is about focusing on other things. If they weren't dealing with MAX they probably would have a lot more will to stick things out longer. Now they can say to the board that they are cutting back on projects so they can focus more on MAX and cut down spending till after MAX is flying again.

The initial thought was the -8 would be a bit longer than the 77L so maybe fill a market need for something almost as big as 77W but with longer range, but the market did not support the product very strongly so now it's time for mothballs.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tealnz
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:47 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:47 am

It may also be that the 778 suffered more than the 779 from the intrinsic weight disadvantage of the 77X design. Apart from the extreme case of London and to some extent New York we can assume the Qantas arithmetic will have been dominated by less demanding sectors (the likes of DFW, ORD, GRU as well as US west coast and the Asian routes Joyce has mentioned). I suspect all the A35K then had to do was demonstrate it could reliably carry a commercial payload (250 pax?) westbound to London and full pax or better to every other destination.
 
User avatar
Erebus
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:40 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:06 am

If it is mothballed, Boeing would be better off using the extra resources on improving the 787-10 instead.
 
Dave05
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:47 am

Wouldn't a 250 seats configuration 777-8x be enough for project sunrise?
 
Antarius
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:54 am

art wrote:
Why would they suspend development?


Putting all the leaks together, it appears that A won Project Sunrise. As this is a limited upside, B is shelving future development; limited downside and they have major problems to deal with already.

Obviously this is speculation, so we will see.
2019: SIN HKG NRT DFW IAH HOU CLT LGA JFK SFO SJC EWR SNA EYW MIA BOG LAX ORD DTW OAK PVG BOS DCA IAD ATL LAS BIS CUN PHX OAK SYD CVG PHL MAD ORY CDG SLC SJU BQN MHT YYZ STS BIS DOH BLR MAA KTM
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:58 am

Honestly, never found the case for this model too enticing (as a purely armchair aviation enthusiast).

It seemed to be quite redundant to other models, and a strange replacement to the B77E/L (which I understand on its face sold well, but was far outclassed by the 77W variant which still needs replacement eventually).

In the current duopoly even this type of admission of mistake will have little long term impact for Boeing, but it puts a whole lot of pressure in the B779, and for Boeing they have to hope the A350-1100 doesn't eventually become a thing.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1072
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:59 am

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boei ... SKCN1V503W

Apparently delayed, but supposedly B is offering something to keep in the game...I'm assuming some cheap Dreamliners, -9X, or early 797 access as they've expressed a lot of interest in that.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1092
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:05 am

ericm2031 wrote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-airplane/boeing-delays-delivery-of-ultra-long-range-version-of-777x-idUSKCN1V503W

Apparently delayed, but supposedly B is offering something to keep in the game...I'm assuming some cheap Dreamliners, -9X, or early 797 access as they've expressed a lot of interest in that.


Might be easier to announce as a delay that eventually turns into forever.

I think they’d be wise to use the engineering resources to develop a new narrowbody/797.
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 1133
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:26 am

I have to agree with Revelation on this. The ULH routes are really not going to amount to a large number of frames being purchased by anyone. Realistically, there are not that may city pairs that can support such a service. While I am a fan of Boeing, they are a bit of a mess at the moment. IMO, they should focus on the 779 as a replacement and upgrade for existing 2 and 4 engine fleets.
I have been on this site 15 years. A unrecoverable email account led me to starting over. Those of you who call me a rookie, you may stop ok?
 
DCA350
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:44 am

Dave05 wrote:
Wouldn't a 250 seats configuration 777-8x be enough for project sunrise?



Yes but Sunrise is about more than just Sydney to London, it's about eventually shifting Qantas from an airline that flies passengers in bulk ie 747/A380 and distributes those said passengers to their partners, into a leaner more direct airline. As previously mentioned a whole list of routes are being looked at besides London, and while the 778 might have been the best option to London the A350 is the better overall frame when factoring in the other NS destinations.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6492
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:06 am

ericm2031 wrote:
Apparently delayed, but supposedly B is offering something to keep in the game...I'm assuming some cheap Dreamliners, -9X, or early 797 access as they've expressed a lot of interest in that.


Not sure what they could offer. A 260 t 787-9 would do a lot of things for Qantas, but not quite LHR. Same with a low-density (or seats-blocked) 777-9. A very cheap lease on interim 777-200LR might accomplish LHR, but at considerable extra operational cost compared to the A350, and it's not a very compelling PR story for Qantas -- "look at our longest flight in the world, flown on our brand-new 2004-technology airplane!"

Pretty clear that there's no real answer to a beefed-up A350-1000 in the absence of the 777-8.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8605
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:08 am

It is simply a matter of resources. The 777-9 will dominate the upper end of the market unchallenged and the manpower saved from not doing the 777-8 right now, will help to keep the 797 on track and reach the 2025 EiS. Boeing is only getting stronger.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:18 am

A351 ULR can be created with minor and incremental engineering improvement, most notably adding a cargo fuel tank and strengthening the center fuselage, based on the proven and well received A351.

Airbus can launch it within very little time and insignificant budget.

Also A351 ULR is far more fuel efficient than 778.

I do not see a business case for 778.
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:24 am

seabosdca wrote:
Not sure what they could offer.


Discounts on additional Dreamliners (which QF are probably going to use to replace some of their A330s), or perhaps on 797s (which will likely do a lot of A330-200 replacement, as well as transcon and trans-Tasman duties if they don't use the A321XLRs for that).

Boeing are having a lot of trouble recently, but the fact they're going to be focusing on smaller jets (presumably the MoM/797 and eventually the NSA/737+757 replacement) in the upcoming years does mean they are likely to have a smooth landing. Fragmentation is, after all, the long-term trend.
 
User avatar
SQ32
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 2:18 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:34 am

45 out of a total of 325 existing 777x orders are the 778 model. The buyers are unanimously Gulf carriers. That is to say 778 is a niche aircraft.

The economics of 777x series is a concern. The 779 may (may not ) beats A351 simply because it is a larger plane. The fuel efficiency of A351 vs 779 are roughly on par. But yield quickly fall off if 779 cannot be filled up. Hence 779 is a very risky bet, while A351 is a better investment.

778 that requires not an insignificant R&D cost is less fuel efficient than A351. Meanwhile due to delay and engineering uncertainty of NPI, one never knows if it will be launched or will 778 has significant engineering issues.

I bet we wont see 778.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10777
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:52 am

seahawk wrote:
It is simply a matter of resources. The 777-9 will dominate the upper end of the market unchallenged.


which may not in itself be all that valuable given that the hunger for frames bigger than the A359 and 781 has been pretty muted...

EvanWSFO wrote:
I have to agree with Revelation on this. The ULH routes are really not going to amount to a large number of frames being purchased by anyone. Realistically, there are not that may city pairs that can support such a service.


There have been a lot of new routes recently that would have qualified for ULH/UULH just a decade ago. It may just be that the latest ilk of TwinJets, doing those flights without a shrink, has gotten so much more economic to fly that this expensive flying has gotten competitive to 2-leg routings because the extra fuel just stopped being more expensive than the time spend on the ground, on approach and departure, plus the associated fees on a one stop, making many more citiy pairs viable.
Large O&D destinations may have the traffic to support a dozen or so routes, and if you find just a hand full of those you are suddenly looking at 200 aircraft. Plus, as those are essentially just higher MTOW versions of a stock highly economic twin jets, you can do it without a dedicated fleet if you want to, with all the economy of scale and scheduling advantages that come with it.

So, it may very much be a marketing instrument "See, you have those three destinations 8000nm away that many of your passengers go to one-stop, with the A350-1000 you can fly to those and cover all your other large aircraft needs, without having a mixed fleet of our competitors product requires you to do it." or something like that.

dmstorm22 wrote:
In the current duopoly even this type of admission of mistake will have little long term impact for Boeing, but it puts a whole lot of pressure in the B779, and for Boeing they have to hope the A350-1100 doesn't eventually become a thing.


It is also not strictly impossible that the 779 is turning out so well in the numbers they may already have, that it is reducing the potential 778 market to being irrelevant.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:01 am

Seeing how the 777F outsold the 77L by a large margin it could be much more interesting for Boeing to develop a 777XF just as a freighter. Creating an aircraft or even 2 versions that will not just replace the 777F but also the 747-8F.

For an ULR aircraft they could be better off doing one from the 787 platform. As it will remain a niche market it would be smarter to base it on an aircraft which will have a much bigger customer base then the 777X.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10777
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:08 am

Momo1435 wrote:
For an ULR aircraft they could be better off doing one from the 787 platform. As it will remain a niche market it would be smarter to base it on an aircraft which will have a much bigger customer base then the 777X.


an ULH 787 may very well be more expensive to build than a straight shrink of the 779.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Eyad89
Posts: 625
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:16 am

Revelation wrote:
Sunset rather than sunrise?

Didn’t you had a poet in you.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:16 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
For an ULR aircraft they could be better off doing one from the 787 platform. As it will remain a niche market it would be smarter to base it on an aircraft which will have a much bigger customer base then the 777X.


an ULH 787 may very well be more expensive to build than a straight shrink of the 779.

best regards
Thomas

But in the long term it could be much more popular and consequently have a much bigger return on investment.

Boeing would also not have an aircraft which is directly placed against it's rivals offering in a still niche market segment.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13104
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:28 am

I would not be surprized if Boeing prefers to invest in a bigger, more capable 787 version over time than put it bets on the heavy, expensive 777-8. There is a gab in the portfolio, between 787-9 and 777-9. And the 787-10 in its current form isn't the solution..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10777
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:34 am

Momo1435 wrote:
Boeing would also not have an aircraft which is directly placed against it's rivals offering in a still niche market segment.


So .. no ULH from Boeing, as there is the A359 already in the 787 size class, the A351 seems to take the 778 place, and if you need something smaller you can buy the A338 that already has range to offer.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
Checklist787
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:21 am

ElroyJetson wrote:
scbriml wrote:
Jon is normally a pretty reliable source, so I certainly wouldn't bet against it. There has been a lot of talk about it being dropped, but many here didn't give that much credit.

Given Boeing's other issues, it seems like a fairly obvious way to clear some stuff off their plate. The cost may be the loss of 777-8 orders to Airbus, especially if the rumoured A35KULR is launched, but it seems that's something Boeing might be prepared to swallow.



Reliable source.....depends on who you ask. Airbus fans said his story about a MTOW increase of the 787-10 was unverified and likely untrue in relation to NZ.

The story came out two months ago and it still remains unverified. So who knows?


The real problem is that many will give credit only when it suits them and reject what bother them. It is quite predictable that the 777-8X is not the best-selling version. On the other hand we have recalled many times that there could be a 777-8X Freighter / 777-XF
 
Geoff1947
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 11:28 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:32 am

The 777-8 never gained many orders. At one stage Boeing reported 53 sales to the ME3 but long ago stopped reporting numbers for the 777-8 and instead reported a combined 777X total. I presume the ME3 orders are convertible to the -9 and that ongoing discussions with EK and EY, about their plans, have not been encouraging for the 777-8.

Geoff
 
musman9853
Posts: 772
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 12:30 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:40 am

My bet is we'll only see the 778 as a freighter then. Like 30 orders isn't enough to make imo
Welcome to the City Beautiful.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3183
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:54 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
For an ULR aircraft they could be better off doing one from the 787 platform. As it will remain a niche market it would be smarter to base it on an aircraft which will have a much bigger customer base then the 777X.


an ULH 787 may very well be more expensive to build than a straight shrink of the 779.

best regards
Thomas


Less expensive to build does not mean it's the better choice. The airlines would care more about the performance & fuel burn.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 9781
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:01 am

musman9853 wrote:
My bet is we'll only see the 778 as a freighter then. Like 30 orders isn't enough to make imo


Would they make on;y a freighter?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1173
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:02 am

How long can Boeing continue to produce the current 777 freighter. Is the line compatible with the -9?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8690
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:20 am

fcogafa wrote:
How long can Boeing continue to produce the current 777 freighter. Is the line compatible with the -9?


All talk has been that the 777 production line is "type agnostic".
( and it has been revamped for some efficiency gains and adjustment to 777X details.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
StudiodeKadent
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:21 am

keesje wrote:
I would not be surprized if Boeing prefers to invest in a bigger, more capable 787 version over time than put it bets on the heavy, expensive 777-8. There is a gab in the portfolio, between 787-9 and 777-9. And the 787-10 in its current form isn't the solution..


You mean an A350-900? Because that's the jet currently in the 777-200ER/"one size up from the A330-300 but capable of longer range" market segment.

Boeing can PiP the 787-10 a bit, as shown by Air New Zealand's recent order, to act as something pretty close to a 777-200ER replacement (perhaps not perfect, but close enough).

However, why would Boeing need to develop a 787-10LR version? They can PiP the current 787-10 to meet the requirements of the vast majority of big carriers, and anyone that really needs 320-330pax jets with much more performance already has signed up for the A350-900.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13104
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:10 am

The 300-350 seat 8000NM segment was dominated by Boeing (777-200ER,-300ER) for 20 years.

I think it has been clear for some time (& furiously denied) the 787-10 / 777-8 combo wasn't well placed against the A350-900 and -1000 on typical heavy flights from Asia. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339277

I expect Boeing engineering taking a serious look at the 787 wing & develop business cases fro beefing it up / enlarging it. The original 787-9 / -10 wing was planned to be larger, Boeing decided to not further complicate ramp during the dramatic 2008-2011 delays.

MillwallSean wrote:
In regards to the author of the article. I think the main reason that the source is that he kept spreading Boeing propaganda without any critical evaluation during the early 787 years. Ridiculous marketing lines were parroted as facts. The relationship between him and the Boeing propaganda department at that time was way to close and hence he was correctly called out for spreading misinformation.
If a 'reporter' has once been proven not to have been able to be unbiased, the reputation of exaggerations and wishful thinking is difficult to avoid. Thats definitely the case in this instance.
I hope he learnt from his mistakes back then but he comers with a proven track-record of bias and linkage to one manufacturer rather than being seen as someone attempting to present an unbiased reality. hence his articles will be called out as propaganda by half of the airline world. Its what it is.
he has good Boeing connections though so with Boeing he is likely to be right (as long as no one quotes him of performance etc)


This is blatant misinformation in my opinion, I have to step in for Jon. You can check out 2004-20010 events on this site.

Jon was indicating program issues on 787 early in the program, as an indpendent free blogger / on this site too. His revelations were first denied and widely attacked as unconfimed, rumours, from disgrunted employees, etc. Over time it became clear, his program updates were more accuratec and factually correct than the media circus created by Boeing PR and their loyal followers and more embedded journalists. As events developped, analists started listening to Jon iso of Boeing. That seems to have launched his carreer at Fightglobal and WSJ.

Image
Last edited by keesje on Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 1373
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:14 am

From FG, a rather weak statement considering it will have been thoroughly "PR'd" before release:

"Boeing says it will continue to work with current and potential 777X customers. “This includes our valued customer Qantas,” it adds."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-460286/
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:24 am

Revelation wrote:
The initial thought was the -8 would be a bit longer than the 77L so maybe fill a market need for something almost as big as 77W but with longer range, but the market did not support the product very strongly so now it's time for mothballs.

Apparently the 777-8 was designed specifically for EK, they required a 350 seater with ULH capacity. But times have changed for EK, they need smaller planes. Other 777-8 customers were EY who certainly don't need that kind of aircraft anymore, and QR, who already 319t A35K's on order and can easily convert the 777-8 order to 9s as A380 replacement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see EK converting their 35 778s to 40-50 787-10s, and use the A350 as ULH platform.

Momo1435 wrote:
Seeing how the 777F outsold the 77L by a large margin it could be much more interesting for Boeing to develop a 777XF just as a freighter. Creating an aircraft or even 2 versions that will not just replace the 777F but also the 747-8F.

Boeing wouldn't be in a hurry to develop a 777XF, they already have a monopoly on large freighter aircraft. At one point they will have to of course, but probably not before Boeing placed their 'last call' for 747-8F orders.
Or when Airbus launches an A350F of course!

tommy1808 wrote:
Momo1435 wrote:
For an ULR aircraft they could be better off doing one from the 787 platform. As it will remain a niche market it would be smarter to base it on an aircraft which will have a much bigger customer base then the 777X.


an ULH 787 may very well be more expensive to build than a straight shrink of the 779.

best regards
Thomas

With current engines, yes. But new engine tech would make the 787-9 an ULH platform and could possibly make the 787-10 outrange the 77E.
Perhaps Boeing will decide to make a 787-9F and skip the 777XF altogether, if it can't compete with an A350F.

keesje wrote:
There is a gap in the portfolio, between 787-9 and 777-9. And the 787-10 in its current form isn't the solution..

I don't agree, the 787-10 isn't selling that badly. Could be better, but Boeing may just decide to eventually do a re-engine to boost range.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1668
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:34 am

keesje wrote:
The 300-350 seat 8000NM segment was dominated by Boeing (777-200ER,-300ER) for 20 years.

I think it has been clear for some time (& furiously denied) the 787-10 / 777-8 combo wasn't well placed against the A350-900 and -1000 on typical heavy flights from Asia. https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1339277

I expect Boeing engineering taking a serious look at the 787 wing & develop business cases fro beefing it up / enlarging it. The original 787-9 / -10 wing was planned to be larger, Boeing decided to not further complicate ramp during the dramatic 2008-2011 delays.

The larger wing for the 787-9 was an extension of the wingtip of the same wing as the 787-8, not that much different than the revised winglets of the 280t A359. Boeing could still do it, but I guess they still think the trade off with the additional weight doesn't make it worthwhile. But maybe we haven't seen the last of it, let's wait and see.

keesje wrote:
Jon was indicating program issues on 787 early in the program, as an indpendent free blogger / on this site too. His revelations were first denied and widely attacked as unconfimed, rumours, from disgrunted employees, etc. Over time it became clear, his program updates were more accuratec and factually correct than the media circus created by Boeing PR and their loyal followers and more embedded journalists. As events developped, analists started listening to Jon iso of Boeing. That seems to have launched his carreer at Fightglobal and WSJ.

Fully agreed, Jon deserves far more credit.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13104
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:38 am

Apparently the A350-1000 in service weighs indeed ~155t empty (OEW) as foreseen. The 777-9 comes in at ~185t.

So the difference in empty weight between an 777-9 and A350-1000 will be in the 25t-30t area.

The 777-8 would probably end with an OEW of around 168t, based on 772LR/773ER weight difference references.

Empty weight (OEW) doesn't tell the complete story on aircraft efficiency. But the ~15t extra means a lot of fuel to fly around for 25 yrs, even for ME carriers.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
planecane
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is simply a matter of resources. The 777-9 will dominate the upper end of the market unchallenged.


which may not in itself be all that valuable given that the hunger for frames bigger than the A359 and 781 has been pretty muted...

EvanWSFO wrote:
I have to agree with Revelation on this. The ULH routes are really not going to amount to a large number of frames being purchased by anyone. Realistically, there are not that may city pairs that can support such a service.


There have been a lot of new routes recently that would have qualified for ULH/UULH just a decade ago. It may just be that the latest ilk of TwinJets, doing those flights without a shrink, has gotten so much more economic to fly that this expensive flying has gotten competitive to 2-leg routings because the extra fuel just stopped being more expensive than the time spend on the ground, on approach and departure, plus the associated fees on a one stop, making many more citiy pairs viable.
Large O&D destinations may have the traffic to support a dozen or so routes, and if you find just a hand full of those you are suddenly looking at 200 aircraft. Plus, as those are essentially just higher MTOW versions of a stock highly economic twin jets, you can do it without a dedicated fleet if you want to, with all the economy of scale and scheduling advantages that come with it.

So, it may very much be a marketing instrument "See, you have those three destinations 8000nm away that many of your passengers go to one-stop, with the A350-1000 you can fly to those and cover all your other large aircraft needs, without having a mixed fleet of our competitors product requires you to do it." or something like that.

dmstorm22 wrote:
In the current duopoly even this type of admission of mistake will have little long term impact for Boeing, but it puts a whole lot of pressure in the B779, and for Boeing they have to hope the A350-1100 doesn't eventually become a thing.


It is also not strictly impossible that the 779 is turning out so well in the numbers they may already have, that it is reducing the potential 778 market to being irrelevant.

best regards
Thomas


The 779 performance can't be known yet because it hasn't flown yet. They could have done better than predicted on weight and know that. If the 779 was doing better than expected that would probably help the case for the 778, not hurt it.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 10777
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: 778x mothballed?

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:07 am

planecane wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
It is simply a matter of resources. The 777-9 will dominate the upper end of the market unchallenged.


which may not in itself be all that valuable given that the hunger for frames bigger than the A359 and 781 has been pretty muted...

EvanWSFO wrote:
I have to agree with Revelation on this. The ULH routes are really not going to amount to a large number of frames being purchased by anyone. Realistically, there are not that may city pairs that can support such a service.


There have been a lot of new routes recently that would have qualified for ULH/UULH just a decade ago. It may just be that the latest ilk of TwinJets, doing those flights without a shrink, has gotten so much more economic to fly that this expensive flying has gotten competitive to 2-leg routings because the extra fuel just stopped being more expensive than the time spend on the ground, on approach and departure, plus the associated fees on a one stop, making many more citiy pairs viable.
Large O&D destinations may have the traffic to support a dozen or so routes, and if you find just a hand full of those you are suddenly looking at 200 aircraft. Plus, as those are essentially just higher MTOW versions of a stock highly economic twin jets, you can do it without a dedicated fleet if you want to, with all the economy of scale and scheduling advantages that come with it.

So, it may very much be a marketing instrument "See, you have those three destinations 8000nm away that many of your passengers go to one-stop, with the A350-1000 you can fly to those and cover all your other large aircraft needs, without having a mixed fleet of our competitors product requires you to do it." or something like that.

dmstorm22 wrote:
In the current duopoly even this type of admission of mistake will have little long term impact for Boeing, but it puts a whole lot of pressure in the B779, and for Boeing they have to hope the A350-1100 doesn't eventually become a thing.


It is also not strictly impossible that the 779 is turning out so well in the numbers they may already have, that it is reducing the potential 778 market to being irrelevant.

best regards
Thomas


The 779 performance can't be known yet because it hasn't flown yet.


That isn´t the problem anymore, it is quite rare to be off calculations these days, as the available computing power allows for pretty fine grained simulation, and Engine SFC and weight should pretty much be known by now too.

best regards
Thomas
This Singature is a safe space......
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:08 am

Would a 777-8 freighter have a significant performance gain over a 777-200 freighter? Would there be an increase in range or payload worth mentioning?
Also, over a 3000nm distance (common for freight?) would the fuel saving be significant?
Should Boeing just scrap the 777-8 altogether?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
User avatar
Faro
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:08 am

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:10 am

All things considered this is quite a rational business decision by B. In fact I suspect they actually decided to cancel the 778 outright but will announce it in stages to save face somewhat.

They need the resources for the 737MAX which still has no crystal-clear visibility on its return to service timing as well as the NMA. I think the 779 delay is not that much of a drag on resourses since it's essentially GE's baby .

Besides which 778 sales weren't stellar and the 789's briliant success would make B look very hard indeed at a 787-10ER. I can see such a project launching in 1.5 to 2 years' time after both the MAX and 779 are flying commercially. The main consideration as I understand it for such an ersatz-778 would be the main landing gear which IIRC is presently maxed out at the 787-10's MTOW. Eaking out more fuel volume and fitting higher-thrust engines are not, IMHO, insurmountable stumbling blocks.

I think the 787-10ER will be the 778's phoenix , and this should also help close the OEW gap somewhat with any potential A350-1000 ULR contender.


Faro
The chalice not my son
 
planecane
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Boeing delays 777-8X entry into service

Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:11 am

keesje wrote:

I expect Boeing engineering taking a serious look at the 787 wing & develop business cases fro beefing it up / enlarging it. The original 787-9 / -10 wing was planned to be larger, Boeing decided to not further complicate ramp during the dramatic 2008-2011 delays.



I agree that there will likely be development of a 787-10ER and/or 787-11 in lieu of the 777-8X. Can either or both be done with wing and MLG modifications with the current engines or will they need more thrust?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos