smartplane wrote:

morrisond wrote:

smartplane wrote:

A very large cost, which grows bigger by the quarter, is compensation, which will either flow back into x re-orders (effectively launch prices for a decade after entering service), or be discounted to other models, or cashed up at a massive discount.

Boeing are currently undertaking a charm offensive with the finance industry, including leasing companies, but unless mind blowing performance figures are announced, Boeing will likely end up being the biggest direct and indirect financier of the X, the latter via buybacks.

Surely a point where the Board become uncomfortable with X contingent liabilities (compensation), low unit sale price, model proliferation development costs, buybacks, and ownership exposure? And GE too, as Boeing must be asking them to share the load? 8 gone, and any F 9 based?

And what does what you wrote have to do what I wrote. If they can sell them for more than what it costs to build them the program continues. If not they will stop it.

But how close are Boeing, GE and other risk sharing participants to covering costs? Seems like a moving target still searching for the start of the rainbow, especially if there are F development costs, and post-shipment finance to add.

Every quarter's delay, for those customers who remain on the journey, compensation grows. A QR F order will be at launch rates, and will likely include a swap from passenger to freight models.

When Airbus ended A380 production and Boeing 748i production, there was a noticeable sigh of relief the X price cap could be lifted. Hasn't worked out so well, with the BA and SQ (re-priced) orders.

How realistic are 500 sales with just the current single 9 offering and engines?

I never said anything about covering development costs. Those are sunk. I said the program will continue as long as they can sell them for more than they can build them on a cash basis. If the program is expected to generate cash it will continue - if not it shuts down.

smartplane wrote:

morrisond wrote:

smartplane wrote:

A very large cost, which grows bigger by the quarter, is compensation, which will either flow back into x re-orders (effectively launch prices for a decade after entering service), or be discounted to other models, or cashed up at a massive discount.

Boeing are currently undertaking a charm offensive with the finance industry, including leasing companies, but unless mind blowing performance figures are announced, Boeing will likely end up being the biggest direct and indirect financier of the X, the latter via buybacks.

Surely a point where the Board become uncomfortable with X contingent liabilities (compensation), low unit sale price, model proliferation development costs, buybacks, and ownership exposure? And GE too, as Boeing must be asking them to share the load? 8 gone, and any F 9 based?

So now Boeing is going to have to self finance all the deliveries? Why would they have to buyback the frames?

Boeing will need to offer buybacks where they don't directly finance. That was my reference to 'indirect'.

Financiers, without OEM support, won't be keen to finance a VLA WB for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be reluctant offers, but margins and terms will reflect. Boeing can protest all they like that the X isn't a VLA, but that's the label the finance industry has placed on it. And while Boeing PR can strive to distance the X from the A380, it's the biggest, and it's delayed.

Only a decade earlier Boeing were selling the 787 on the back of market fragmentation and P2P. Doubt those slides will be dusted off for the X.

Please provide some evidence Financiers won't finance the 777X.

Are you really suggesting that unless Boeing finances the purchases themselves they will have to buyback the frames as no one else will do it?

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

If all that you say is accurate, and I doubt that it is....then you have made a very good case for why the certification shouldn't be grandfathered under the 777. In the wake of the MAX fiasco, an entire certification and testing program looks appropriate.

787 systems? Is that marketing hype or reality? The fuselage is aluminum. When was the design frozen? Will the 777x have conventional packs (bleedless engines)? Wider fuselage? I thought the external barrel dimensioned the same and that they were just playing games with sidewalls. And the A380 has nothing to do with now. Boeing would hardly want to emulate the failed A380. But if you think they should.....well that's a hard sell.

For now, I'll stick with my assertion that the 777x is dated given that it is a modification of an existing early 1990s design.

The only thing that is dated on the 777X is the shape of the nose which came from the 757/767 program. The fuselage was widened internally using state of the art tools to design the ribs, wingbox is new, gear is new, wing is new, tail is new, engines are new, and a number of systems (more avionics than anything) are from the 787. The only thing they did not adopt is the 787 Bleedless tech. I believe it also has predictive maintenance like the 787 as well.

It's about as all new as you can get, hence why (and there failure on the MAX) the FAA is basically doing an about face and looking at it as basically a clean sheet again, which is what they should have done from the start.

Even 737NG's now have predictive maintenance.

So you're saying that the X has the 787 5,000 psi hydraulic system and the 787 250 kva generators with the distributed architecture? (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2_3.device?

And you're saying that the X has the 787 electric brakes and the 787 electric wing deice?

Putting a modern FANS suite in the airplane (contractor btw) doesn't mean that it has "all new" systems. In fact, I'll reiterate my earlier point that I made to another poster. If it had all new systems, the X wouldn't be a derivative and would have to have a full certification and testing program. Pick your poison....Boeing fanboys seem to be arguing both side of the street.

You seem to have problems reading what I wrote. I said "and a number of systems (more avionics than anything)". My main point is that it's structure is almost all new and not like previous derivatives and why it probably should have been certified as new.

morrisond wrote:

smartplane wrote:

morrisond wrote:

So now Boeing is going to have to self finance all the deliveries? Why would they have to buyback the frames?

Boeing will need to offer buybacks where they don't directly finance. That was my reference to 'indirect'.

Financiers, without OEM support, won't be keen to finance a VLA WB for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be reluctant offers, but margins and terms will reflect. Boeing can protest all they like that the X isn't a VLA, but that's the label the finance industry has placed on it. And while Boeing PR can strive to distance the X from the A380, it's the biggest, and it's delayed.

Only a decade earlier Boeing were selling the 787 on the back of market fragmentation and P2P. Doubt those slides will be dusted off for the X.

Please provide some evidence Financiers won't finance the 777X.

Are you really suggesting that unless Boeing finances the purchases themselves they will have to buyback the frames as no one else will do it?

Repeat. Financiers, without OEM support, won't be keen to finance a VLA WB for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be reluctant offers, but margins and terms will reflect.

Pre-Covid, was possible to on-sell bundled commercial aircraft funding / leases to investors, where WB's represented up to 40% of the offered portfolio. Now a struggle to place one WB with nine NB's. In such a risk averse market, the X is considered a WB outlier, a position previously occupied by the A380.

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

My only question is are you willing to say the 321NEO and 330NEO are dated?

Mais oui, certainment!

But those two that you mentioned had a "base" airplane that was already very advanced though with their FBW system.

I try to call then as I see them. For most of my career Boeing was the standard bearer. Now, they're floundering.

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Thanks for your opinion. Others may disagree.

There is no problem, other than Boeing's non-performance causing them to lose in the marketplace.

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

morrisond wrote:

The only thing that is dated on the 777X is the shape of the nose which came from the 757/767 program. The fuselage was widened internally using state of the art tools to design the ribs, wingbox is new, gear is new, wing is new, tail is new, engines are new, and a number of systems (more avionics than anything) are from the 787. The only thing they did not adopt is the 787 Bleedless tech. I believe it also has predictive maintenance like the 787 as well.

It's about as all new as you can get, hence why (and there failure on the MAX) the FAA is basically doing an about face and looking at it as basically a clean sheet again, which is what they should have done from the start.

Even 737NG's now have predictive maintenance.

So you're saying that the X has the 787 5,000 psi hydraulic system and the 787 250 kva generators with the distributed architecture? (https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2_3.device?

And you're saying that the X has the 787 electric brakes and the 787 electric wing deice?

Putting a modern FANS suite in the airplane (contractor btw) doesn't mean that it has "all new" systems. In fact, I'll reiterate my earlier point that I made to another poster. If it had all new systems, the X wouldn't be a derivative and would have to have a full certification and testing program. Pick your poison....Boeing fanboys seem to be arguing both side of the street.

You seem to have problems reading what I wrote. I said "and a number of systems (more avionics than anything)". My main point is that it's structure is almost all new and not like previous derivatives and why it probably should have been certified as new.

Apparently we agree that a full certification and testing program should be required. There is still time. My guess is that Steve Dickson doesn't have the nerve to require it. Gotta love that home cookin'.

smartplane wrote:

morrisond wrote:

smartplane wrote:

Boeing will need to offer buybacks where they don't directly finance. That was my reference to 'indirect'.

Financiers, without OEM support, won't be keen to finance a VLA WB for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be reluctant offers, but margins and terms will reflect. Boeing can protest all they like that the X isn't a VLA, but that's the label the finance industry has placed on it. And while Boeing PR can strive to distance the X from the A380, it's the biggest, and it's delayed.

Only a decade earlier Boeing were selling the 787 on the back of market fragmentation and P2P. Doubt those slides will be dusted off for the X.

Please provide some evidence Financiers won't finance the 777X.

Are you really suggesting that unless Boeing finances the purchases themselves they will have to buyback the frames as no one else will do it?

Repeat. Financiers, without OEM support, won't be keen to finance a VLA WB for the foreseeable future. Yes, there will be reluctant offers, but margins and terms will reflect.

Pre-Covid, was possible to on-sell bundled commercial aircraft funding / leases to investors, where WB's represented up to 40% of the offered portfolio. Now a struggle to place one WB with nine NB's. In such a risk averse market, the X is considered a WB outlier, a position previously occupied by the A380.

Repeat - please provide some evidence. I would be genuinely interested to see some. That might have been the case last year but by the time of 777X delivery that should not be an issue.

This Boeing report from April would suggest that the 787 and 777 deliveries from last year had no issues with no manufacturer involvement. Things have gotten better since then in the Capital markets.

https://www.boeing.com/company/key-orgs ... arket.page

Personally I do not consider even an 777-9 a VLA - it is only marginally larger than an A350-1000 or 77W. Unless you are suggesting that no one is providing financing for those either.

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

My only question is are you willing to say the 321NEO and 330NEO are dated?

Mais oui, certainment!

But those two that you mentioned had a "base" airplane that was already very advanced though with their FBW system.

I try to call then as I see them. For most of my career Boeing was the standard bearer. Now, they're floundering.

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Is a lack of feedback a sign of old technology or is it a design choice?

MrHMSH wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Mais oui, certainment!

But those two that you mentioned had a "base" airplane that was already very advanced though with their FBW system.

I try to call then as I see them. For most of my career Boeing was the standard bearer. Now, they're floundering.

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Is a lack of feedback a sign of old technology or is it a design choice?

No dog in fight here but is yoke old technology or design choice? As steel chair eluded to earlier?

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

My only question is are you willing to say the 321NEO and 330NEO are dated?

Mais oui, certainment!

But those two that you mentioned had a "base" airplane that was already very advanced though with their FBW system.

I try to call then as I see them. For most of my career Boeing was the standard bearer. Now, they're floundering.

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Are we really still stuck on this point. We have been through this before and there are thousands of pilots successfully flying with the Airbus FBW system (even though it is not a force feedback as you point out).

I am also sure that there have been many enhancements of the software over the time since it was first created and certified. Thus you seem to be calling it Apollo ear technology based purely on this point.

Opus99 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Is a lack of feedback a sign of old technology or is it a design choice?

No dog in fight here but is yoke old technology or design choice? As steel chair eluded to earlier?

I'd say design choice, but that's very tangentially related to my question as the implication seems to be that a lack of force feedback means a system is outdated, 'Apollo era technology' apparently. .

Opus99 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Is a lack of feedback a sign of old technology or is it a design choice?

No dog in fight here but is yoke old technology or design choice? As steel chair eluded to earlier?

Considering that the 787 —which very supposedly is so much more advanced than the 777 it shares pretty much everything with— also uses that, I am thinking the answer is fairly certain.

Personally I think the time has long since come to do away with those, but for whatever reason, BCA seem to prefer yokes for their more advanced FBW aircraft as well.

StTim wrote:

Are we really still stuck on this point. We have been through this before and there are thousands of pilots successfully flying with the Airbus FBW system (even though it is not a force feedback as you point out).

I can say the same about the certification basis of the 777X. It's been agreed to by FAA, EASA and other world regulators yet it keeps coming up here time and time again.

If "grandfathering" was such a bad thing, then A321XLR should be getting re-certified from scratch. The most important bit of structure, the wing box, is all new, and the wing's high lift devices are all new as well. They are interfacing to bits certified via stacks of paper in the 80s, yet somehow we're not hearing calls for elimination of "grandfathering" on the dated yet well packaged A320 family.

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

Are we really still stuck on this point. We have been through this before and there are thousands of pilots successfully flying with the Airbus FBW system (even though it is not a force feedback as you point out).

I can say the same about the certification basis of the 777X. It's been agreed to by FAA, EASA and other world regulators yet it keeps coming up here time and time again.

If "grandfathering" was such a bad thing, then A321XLR should be getting re-certified from scratch. The most important bit of structure, the wing box, is all new, and the wing's high lift devices are all new as well. They are interfacing to bits certified via stacks of paper in the 80s, yet somehow we're not hearing calls for elimination of "grandfathering" on the dated yet well packaged A320 family.

Fair comment to a point. The issue is those on here who talk commonality with the existing 777 such that grandfathered but then when posters claim it is old tech they trot out a very long list of where is is new. Abit of having your cake and eating it.

Finally I think the agreement to consider as a derivative was made by the FAA back when EASA accepted their lead on USA designed/manufactured frames.

StTim wrote:

Fair comment to a point. The issue is those on here who talk commonality with the existing 777 such that grandfathered but then when posters claim it is old tech they trot out a very long list of where is is new. Abit of having your cake and eating it.

Finally I think the agreement to consider as a derivative was made by the FAA back when EASA accepted their lead on USA designed/manufactured frames.

And the US will accept Airbus's treatment of A321XLR as a derivative of A320neo which is a derivative of the 1980's "classic" A320, yet we're still allowed to discuss how good an airplane the A321XLR is without a bunch of people complaining. Just as much a "having your cake and eating it too" situation, new tech being used to modernize a platform to preserve investment at both the OEM and the operator.

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

Fair comment to a point. The issue is those on here who talk commonality with the existing 777 such that grandfathered but then when posters claim it is old tech they trot out a very long list of where is is new. Abit of having your cake and eating it.

Finally I think the agreement to consider as a derivative was made by the FAA back when EASA accepted their lead on USA designed/manufactured frames.

And the US will accept Airbus's treatment of A321XLR as a derivative of A320neo which is a derivative of the 1980's "classic" A320, yet we're still allowed to discuss how good an airplane the A321XLR is without a bunch of people complaining. Just as much a "having your cake and eating it too" situation, new tech being used to modernize a platform to preserve investment at both the OEM and the operator.

Well said Revelation.

Revelation wrote:

And the US will accept Airbus's treatment of A321XLR as a derivative of A320neo which is a derivative of the 1980's "classic" A320, yet we're still allowed to discuss how good an airplane the A321XLR is without a bunch of people complaining. Just as much a "having your cake and eating it too" situation, new tech being used to modernize a platform to preserve investment at both the OEM and the operator.

Totally different, the A320 has many engine choices even before the neo, the A320neo is a marketing name for a A320 with a new engine choice. Likewise the XLR is still an A321 where it has a modified centre tank, like a 744ER had a modified centre tank.

Neither of those aircraft are supporting a changed fuselage, wing, or a total revamp of the avionics architecture. The 777X is more like going from the 737 classic to 737MAX skipping the NG with the change in engines (and location), change in fuselage, revamped avionics architecture.

The 777X will have very little parts commonality with the 77W.

ILNFlyer wrote:

Revelation wrote:

StTim wrote:

Fair comment to a point. The issue is those on here who talk commonality with the existing 777 such that grandfathered but then when posters claim it is old tech they trot out a very long list of where is is new. Abit of having your cake and eating it.

Finally I think the agreement to consider as a derivative was made by the FAA back when EASA accepted their lead on USA designed/manufactured frames.

And the US will accept Airbus's treatment of A321XLR as a derivative of A320neo which is a derivative of the 1980's "classic" A320, yet we're still allowed to discuss how good an airplane the A321XLR is without a bunch of people complaining. Just as much a "having your cake and eating it too" situation, new tech being used to modernize a platform to preserve investment at both the OEM and the operator.

Well said Revelation.

I don't think anyone discussing the XLR is saying how many systems are new or substantially updated. But I may have missed those.

For what it is worth I think the XLR strays much closer to being "new" (non derivative) than the standard neo's did.

I am just pointing out here how the same posters here take contradictory positions on the 777X depending whether they are defending grandfathering or lauding how much has been changed. I am not trying to start a flame war. It is pointless. Both companies have good and bad points and make some great planes, and some not so good.

StTim wrote:

I am just pointing out here how the same posters here take contradictory positions on the 777X depending whether they are defending grandfathering or lauding how much has been changed. I am not trying to start a flame war. It is pointless. Both companies have good and bad points and make some great planes, and some not so good.

At the end of the day both Airbus and Boeing are using the same regulatory processes. We've had people post the certification basis of the A320neo here before, it's a long list of "grandfathering". There is no lack of regulatory scrutiny on the 777X. EASA is on-board with the certification of the 777X. The media has reported they've made comments that have lead to changes in the actuators for instance. IMO it's just noise to keep bringing up this "grandfathering" concern. FAA is doing a deep dive on the 777X, the plane's already been delayed once to accommodate this, and it appears that it could be delayed again. Every indication we have is the 77X is being heavily scrutinized. I don't think changing the process to recertify everything would add value. If it did, wouldn't we see EASA insisting that it be done that way?

StTim wrote:

morrisond wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Mais oui, certainment!

But those two that you mentioned had a "base" airplane that was already very advanced though with their FBW system.

I try to call then as I see them. For most of my career Boeing was the standard bearer. Now, they're floundering.

Well there's the problem then. You think the A320 FBW is vey advanced. It's Apollo era technology, with no feedback at all.

Are we really still stuck on this point. We have been through this before and there are thousands of pilots successfully flying with the Airbus FBW system (even though it is not a force feedback as you point out).

I am also sure that there have been many enhancements of the software over the time since it was first created and certified. Thus you seem to be calling it Apollo ear technology based purely on this point.

It is a good system - it's just not "Very Advanced" which was what the poster was saying - not me. It has some pitfalls which can be argued have led to some large disasters and could be improved on.

morrisond wrote:

It is a good system - it's just not "Very Advanced" which was what the poster was saying - not me. It has some pitfalls which can be argued have led to some large disasters and could be improved on.

Yes, we've read posts here saying the A220's cockpit is actually more advanced than A320's, and that the world's regulators are meeting to discuss raising the bar on regulations for new cockpit designs.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

And the US will accept Airbus's treatment of A321XLR as a derivative of A320neo which is a derivative of the 1980's "classic" A320, yet we're still allowed to discuss how good an airplane the A321XLR is without a bunch of people complaining. Just as much a "having your cake and eating it too" situation, new tech being used to modernize a platform to preserve investment at both the OEM and the operator.

Totally different, the A320 has many engine choices even before the neo, the A320neo is a marketing name for a A320 with a new engine choice. Likewise the XLR is still an A321 where it has a modified centre tank, like a 744ER had a modified centre tank.

Neither of those aircraft are supporting a changed fuselage, wing, or a total revamp of the avionics architecture. The 777X is more like going from the 737 classic to 737MAX skipping the NG with the change in engines (and location), change in fuselage, revamped avionics architecture.

The 777X will have very little parts commonality with the 77W.

Do you realize what you're suggesting? If we insist on re-certifying any area on the 777X where there is little commonality with the 777, then that might require Boeing to do:

• A full certification of the engines
• A full scale static test
• A full scale fatigue test
• A thorough review of the avionics
• Potentially special certification conditions for any novel features like folding wingtips
• An extensive flight test program (perhaps even similar to what the clean-sheet A350 did)

And they would have to fix any deficiencies found by all that testing! Unless Boeing had all that work planned in previously, how can they possibly complete it all now?

* Hint: each of those bullet points has a link to a relevant topic

Just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with Zeke that the 777X needs a much more thorough level of certification than the A320NEO. I don't know what exact criteria should determine if that is an amendment or new type certificate, but the key point in my mind is that regardless of the fact that it will be an amended type certificate instead of a new type, the regulators have conveyed their expectations, and the 777X is getting a very thorough certification review.

It even looks like it could exceed the flight test hours that the clean sheet A350 had prior to certification (just 35 minutes of flying per aircraft per day in 2022 would put the 777X fleet over that level).

iamlucky13 wrote:

I don't know what exact criteria should determine if that is an amendment or new type certificate, but the key point in my mind is that regardless of the fact that it will be an amended type certificate instead of a new type, the regulators have conveyed their expectations, and the 777X is getting a very thorough certification review.

Indeed, the argument should be if 77X is getting a sufficient review, and from all reports it is, which is what one would expect in the current environment. A switch to a new type certificate rather than adding the type to the 777 family would almost certainly result in an inferior utilization of resources by both the OEM and the regulators.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with Zeke that the 777X needs a much more thorough level of certification than the A320NEO.

That is not what I was trying to say, just a different engine on an existing type is a lot more straightforward.

The rules that was needed for that is the same rules that the 77X is working with, there is no shortcut being made here by anyone.

zeke wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with Zeke that the 777X needs a much more thorough level of certification than the A320NEO.

That is not what I was trying to say, just a different engine on an existing type is a lot more straightforward.

The rules that was needed for that is the same rules that the 77X is working with, there is no shortcut being made here by anyone.

You’re playing up the changes in the 777X while downplaying changes to the A320neo program.

sxf24 wrote:

You’re playing up the changes in the 777X while downplaying changes to the A320neo program.

Negative, the A320CEOs that were built at the same time as the NEOs had the same fuselage, wing, gear, avionics, parts were interchangeable. The main difference was a different engine.

The parts being used on the 77W are totally different to the 77X line, parts are not interchangeable.

That was my point. The certification rules are the same.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

You’re playing up the changes in the 777X while downplaying changes to the A320neo program.

Negative, the A320CEOs that were built at the same time as the NEOs had the same fuselage, wing, gear, avionics, parts were interchangeable. The main difference was a different engine.

The parts being used on the 77W are totally different to the 77X line, parts are not interchangeable.

That was my point. The certification rules are the same.

The non-engine parts on CEO and NEO are not 100% interchangeable.

The parts on the 777-300ER and 777X are not 100% different.

zeke wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Just in case it wasn't clear, I agree with Zeke that the 777X needs a much more thorough level of certification than the A320NEO.

That is not what I was trying to say, just a different engine on an existing type is a lot more straightforward.

The rules that was needed for that is the same rules that the 77X is working with, there is no shortcut being made here by anyone.

Thank you for clarifying.

For my own part, I want to clarify that the key point in my view is that parts that get changed need to have those changes validated in the certification process. More is being changed on the 777X than on the A321XLR, so it makes sense the certification is more involved.

But posts by others in this thread and other threads have to continued to raise over and over again objections to grandfathering, which they substantiate by making points like, "the wings are redesigned," or the "the fuselage frames have been changed."

So although your post was perhaps not the best place to make my point, I do really want to emphasize that the portions of the 777X being used as examples for why grandfathering should not be allowed are actually not being grandfathered.

sxf24 wrote:

The non-engine parts on CEO and NEO are not 100% interchangeable.

The parts on the 777-300ER and 777X are not 100% different.

The wing on the CEOs being made at the same time as the NEOs were interchangeable, you could put the ailerons, flap, rudder, THS, vertical stab from onto the other. The gear was the same, the fuselage sections the same. Sure there were minor changes to account for different engine controls, they were a lot more in common than a 772 to 77L. That being said the 772 to 77L have more in common than the 77W to 77X.

You cannot put a wing, ailerons, flap, rudder, THS, gear, fuselage from a 777X to the 77W. The parts commonality you are talking about are things like fasteners, where I was talking about major sub assemblies and components.

What are technically the biggest challenges for the ongoing 777-9 certification?
Boeing knows how to build 777s for sure, Boeing knows how to reengine existing aircraft, Boeing knows how to build CFRP wings and Boeing knows to certify.
What makes it harder this time taking so much longer? Is it really just "the FAA"?

Noshow wrote:

What are technically the biggest challenges for the ongoing 777-9 certification?
Boeing knows how to build 777s for sure, Boeing knows how to reengine existing aircraft,

*cough*MAX*cough*

Noshow wrote:

Boeing knows how to build CFRP wings

Mitsubishi do...

Noshow wrote:

and Boeing knows to certify.

Technically or politically?

Noshow wrote:

What makes it harder this time taking so much longer? Is it really just "the FAA"?

The FAA was too lax on Boeing, it bit them both in the arse and now the FAA are maing up for it by not rolling over any more. Politically Boeing cant really do anything about it because of 346(?) dead people they have to pretend to have on their conscience,

Fred

The MAX is fixed, the 777X wing is made at Everett and certification got sorted and the MAX ungrounded.
So what else is left for the 777-9? Did it hit any brick wall?

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

The non-engine parts on CEO and NEO are not 100% interchangeable.

The parts on the 777-300ER and 777X are not 100% different.

The wing on the CEOs being made at the same time as the NEOs were interchangeable, you could put the ailerons, flap, rudder, THS, vertical stab from onto the other. The gear was the same, the fuselage sections the same. Sure there were minor changes to account for different engine controls, they were a lot more in common than a 772 to 77L. That being said the 772 to 77L have more in common than the 77W to 77X.

You cannot put a wing, ailerons, flap, rudder, THS, gear, fuselage from a 777X to the 77W. The parts commonality you are talking about are things like fasteners, where I was talking about major sub assemblies and components.

The wing is not interchangeable because there’s this structure called a pylon.

Noshow wrote:

The MAX is fixed, the 777X wing is made at Everett and certification got sorted and the MAX ungrounded.
So what else is left for the 777-9? Did it hit any brick wall?

The only thing I know of is an uncommanded pitch event that happened during testing after autopilot was disengaged. I don't know if this issue has been rectified but the FAA did mention this as part of the delay and wanted fixed before FAA inspectors were going up with the aircraft.

sxf24 wrote:

The wing is not interchangeable because there’s this structure called a pylon.

The pylon is not part of the wing, that is evidenced by any photo you care to look at of the wing assembly transportation to the FAL. Every engine type on the A320 has its own pylon. Been that case on the CEO as well.

That is not unusual, the different engine types on the classic 777s had different pylons also. We operated one 777 that had an engine type change since it was originally manufactured, and that involved changing the pylon.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

The wing is not interchangeable because there’s this structure called a pylon.

The pylon is not part of the wing, that is evidenced by any photo you care to look at of the wing assembly transportation to the FAL. Every engine type on the A320 has its own pylon. Been that case on the CEO as well.

That is not unusual, the different engine types on the classic 777s had different pylons also. We operated one 777 that had an engine type change since it was originally manufactured, and that involved changing the pylon.

Have you done an engine type change on an A320? If not, why don’t we end this discussion with an agreement that while both the A320neo/ceo and 777X/-300ER have many similarities, they also have difference.

zeke wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

You’re playing up the changes in the 777X while downplaying changes to the A320neo program.

Negative, the A320CEOs that were built at the same time as the NEOs had the same fuselage, wing, gear, avionics, parts were interchangeable. The main difference was a different engine.

The parts being used on the 77W are totally different to the 77X line, parts are not interchangeable.

That was my point. The certification rules are the same.

Many of the A320Neo's upgrades were already incorporated in the CEO, e.g. introduction of sharklets to the wingtips, as part of the A320 family's continuous improvement measures. They were already certified before the new engines came on board. Certifying the B777X requires more work (probably similar to B747-8) as there were a lot of never seen before parts that go into that aircraft.

sxf24 wrote:

Have you done an engine type change on an A320? If not, why don’t we end this discussion with an agreement that while both the A320neo/ceo and 777X/-300ER have many similarities, they also have difference.

Sure have, there is something like 47 engine types certified on the A320 series, with engine intermix permitted.

These differences are nothing like a new wing, new gear, new fuselage, new avionics on the 777X.

According to Boeing https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/ ... simplicity

787 Technologies
Laminar flow nacelle
Advanced flight controls and high lift design
Flight deck displays and functionality
Computing and Network Architecture

777 Technologies
Highly reliable systems architecture
Composite floor beams and empennage

NEW Technologies
High span composite wing with folding tip
Clean sheet engine design
New passenger experience

Noshow wrote:

The MAX is fixed, the 777X wing is made at Everett and certification got sorted and the MAX ungrounded.
So what else is left for the 777-9? Did it hit any brick wall?

The FAA issued Boeing a letter back in May detailing the matters they wanted addressed before they issued the type inspection authorization (TIA). The crux of their concerns seemed to be that some of the systems still receiving updates, or that the FAA had requested additional documentation or deeper analysis on (eg - failure modes and effects analysis) had enough potential for downstream effects on other systems that they felt it critical for those tasks to be complete before the formal certification begins.

There is discussion of this in the 777X testing thread from when the letter became public, I think in late June.

Boeing had several months prior to receiving that letter pushed their expected time frame for certification back to 2023. The FAA letter mentions this date as well, so presumably the letter was the formal communication of discussions Boeing was already having with the FAA, with 2023 reflecting the amount of time this remaining work was expected to take.

Thanks, but this was like half a year ago without that much visible progress.

Maybe Boeing should try to sell 53 777X to Qatar?

JohanTally wrote:

Noshow wrote:

The MAX is fixed, the 777X wing is made at Everett and certification got sorted and the MAX ungrounded.
So what else is left for the 777-9? Did it hit any brick wall?

The only thing I know of is an uncommanded pitch event that happened during testing after autopilot was disengaged. I don't know if this issue has been rectified but the FAA did mention this as part of the delay and wanted fixed before FAA inspectors were going up with the aircraft.

I seem to remember that EASA was raising issues over the Computing and Network Architecture. Cannot recall the details