Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:39 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
Miserable for Airbus, maybe, but not for Boeing. As JoeCanuck mentioned, if Boeing can get a close to a 50% market share without investing in an all new aircraft, then the investment is well worth it. While Airbus and its fans are hoping that the A350 will make the 777 'obsolete', all Boeing needs to do is to aim at keeping Airbus honest by upgrading the 777 enough to be able to compete with the A350. The 350-seat market is a massive one at the moment. It is not a small niche like ULH aircraft or VLAs. There is room enough for more than one manufacturer to offer a product in this range.

My personal opinion is that the 777X or whatever it is called will not be able to hold parity with a clean sheet design. The A350 will be preferred by carriers who are not interested in a remodel. IMHO.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
Boeing will offer a new aircraft when the market wants it. With 777 sales not even showing a hint of slowing down, I doubt very much the market wants Boeing to produce the Y3 yet.

The market will want it yesterday. That the 777 is holding strong is simply because it's what's available, it's a great aircraft, and it's low-risk. Once the A351 is defined and in production, the 77W will see just a trickle of orders. IMHO.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
Yes, Boeing will need to replace the 777 one day. But it won't be because of the A350, it'll be because the market wants Boeing to build a new plane.

Yes, it'll be because of the A350. No A350, no need to replace the 777. Or do you think Boeing would invest billions just for the sake of it? Boeing will NOT spend to do a complete clean sheet when the carriers want it WITHOUT the A350 as a competitor. They would milk the 777 for all it's worth. IMHO.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
Boeing decided to go down the route of upgrading the 737 because the market doesn't want to wait for Boeing to develop an all new plane.

Boeing likely wouldn't have done anything if Airbus hadn't done the NEO. The NEO absolutely forced them to do something BECAUSE the market responded. They didn't do it to be nice, they did it to save their a$$. The market demanded SOMETHING, but Boeing could only deliver a MAX. But they absolutely HAD TO do the MAX based on the NEO. IMHO.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
The A350-1000 is a lost cause, a case of going a "bridge too far". The a350-1000 is a plane that is actually a bit redundant in the marketplace. I give Airbus credit, though; they had Boeing shaking in their boots as to what Airbus will come up with against their cash cow 777. Boeing saw what they had, see what they can do to improve the 777, and normal service has been restored.

I give Airbus credit, too. However, I give them credit for designing what will be a remarkable family of Aircraft, including the -1000. To assume or predict that the A350-1000 is a lost cause - today, in 2011 - is simply "a bridge too far". IMHO.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:45 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
The A350-1000 is a lost cause, a case of going a "bridge too far". The a350-1000 is a plane that is actually a bit redundant in the marketplace. I give Airbus credit, though; they had Boeing shaking in their boots as to what Airbus will come up with against their cash cow 777. Boeing saw what they had, see what they can do to improve the 777, and normal service has been restored.

What a loaf of BS. I am sorry that I can not come up with a better reply. Have you even bothered to read all the arguments posted before your reply. Otherwise it is just flame-bait. Too bad, too bad, too bad.               
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20057
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:49 pm

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
Conversely, the A350 has not and will not obsolete the 777.

Some would tell you that the A359 has ALREADY obsoleted the 77E. The 777 wasn't good enough to prevent Airbus from selling 450 777-sized A350s to date, many years ahead of EIS.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
The A350-1000 is a lost cause, a case of going a "bridge too far".

Seriously?   
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.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:04 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
all Boeing needs to do is to aim at keeping Airbus honest by upgrading the 777 enough to be able to compete with the A350.



I think that this "all" is easy to write but rather difficult to achieve. It would be a major challenge for Boeing to reach such a goal within a reasonable budget.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 239):
Is it possible that with a higher DOW, the lower MZFW and MTOW of the A350-1000 had a great affect on performance at design range to a greater level (percentage wise) than it does the 777-300ER? And might the recent 6t rise in MZFW and 10t rise in MTOW be a response by Airbus to address this?



Impressive analysis indeed!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20057
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:56 am

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 254):
Maybe your braintrust can show me the mass amounts of orders for the A351. I somehow seemed to have missed it. Otherwise your pithy comments mean little in today's market reality.



You're fixated on one model at one specific point in time. That point in time even being several years ahead of EIS. How many 77Ws had Boeing sold at the same point in that model's history? Today's "market reality" may bare little resemblance to tomorrow's. Again, Airbus has sold 450 777-sized A350s and that number is only going to get bigger.

Insulting other members' intelligence doesn't help your case much either.   
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.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:03 am

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 248):
For airlines who are unlikely to put 9-abreast in B788(SQ/CX?), A332 is even more competitive for short/medium haul routes. I am still hoping for A332NEO with lighter alloy with RR paying for new engines. An 8-10% reduction in tsfc and 2% reduction in weight would make the A332NEO an 8,000nm design range aircraft with excellent economics against B788.

I agree. I think an A332NEO, if there ever is one, would be an excellent alternative to the 787-8 on shorter range missions.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 250):
My personal opinion is that the 777X or whatever it is called will not be able to hold parity with a clean sheet design.

To an extent, I agree that an upgrade of an existing frame would result in a compromised design. So perhaps it won't be able to reach parity as such, but close enough in terms of performance for the 777's advantages to be worth the extra fuel.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 250):
Once the A351 is defined and in production, the 77W will see just a trickle of orders. IMHO.

The 77W sales will slow down, perhaps. The 777X? That remains to be seen.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 250):
Boeing likely wouldn't have done anything if Airbus hadn't done the NEO. The NEO absolutely forced them to do something BECAUSE the market responded. They didn't do it to be nice, they did it to save their a$$. The market demanded SOMETHING, but Boeing could only deliver a MAX. But they absolutely HAD TO do the MAX based on the NEO. IMHO.

Point taken about the MAX being a response to the NEO, but Boeing could have launched a new plane instead. They didn't, because the market told them they can't wait for a new plane.

Likewise, Boeing will respond to the A350. Whether that takes the form of an upgraded 777 or an all new aircraft, that's for the market to decide. Do they want one by the end of this decade, or can they wait until the middle of the next decade? That's why I say it's the market that tells Boeing when it wants a new plane, or whether it wants something sooner, in which case Boeing will go down the upgrade path.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 252):
Some would tell you that the A359 has ALREADY obsoleted the 77E. The 777 wasn't good enough to prevent Airbus from selling 450 777-sized A350s to date, many years ahead of EIS.

Ah, but the 77E is already sandwiched uncomfortably between the A333, which beats it on shorter ranged missions, and the 77W/77L, which beats it on longer ranged missions. The 77E, such as it is, is practically dead already before the A359 was even a gleam in its designer's eye.

I would imagine that Boeing will address the A359 as well with a 777-8X.

Quoting abba (Reply 253):
I think that this "all" is easy to write but rather difficult to achieve. It would be a major challenge for Boeing to reach such a goal within a reasonable budget.

I don't think it's easy, although the way I wrote that probably makes it sound too easy. Yes, it will be a challenge, but it's not impossible. To paraphrase Spock (   ), "if you eliminate the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable" (or implausible) ... can and might be done. Things are only impossible until they're not.

[Edited 2011-11-24 18:18:37]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:37 am

The way i see it , Boeing allready has 777 orders for deliveries well into the 2015-2018 timeframe , and is likely to pick up more orders in the comming few years to keep them busy perhaps uptil 2020...A lot of analysts are predicting strong orders for the 777 family for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 , and if the A350 EIS and production ramp up slips then we could see yet another surge in orders by airlines .. Even at the peak of production in 2013-2014 boeing would only be able to deliver about a 100 of these aircraft in a year. Given these facts , if Boeing sees enough demand for the 777X with airlines like EK and others (SQ,QR perhaps along with others) to sell out production slots well into the 2020's then they will go ahead with it given the relativly modest cost of upgrade as compared to a totally new airframe and family. No doubt the A350-900 and the A350-1000 will out sell the 777X family over the entire life of its program ( which it should given that it is a full fledged program, with a high developmental cost and the risk associated along with that) however the 777X should have enough of a Niche market to keep Boeing busy uptil 2025 or so and give them a decent return on the investment required to bring appropriate changes required to stay competitive (even though in only a niche market)..The ammount of orders that Boeing can secure rests squarely on its ability to modernize the 777X and is most likely going to depend upon how much money they spend given that they have some time before it is required..I dont see Boeing directly competing with the A350-900 and the A3350-1000 with a all new ( double digit billion dollar) family unless they can make it much effective (efficient) and more in line with market demand..so far i do not see how that is possible until and unless7 huge amount of investment is made and even then time has to be given for technology to catch up...I see the widebody market changing a bit with boeing having a mid-term to long term advantage with the 788 and the 789 and Airbus having an advantage with the 359 and 35J ..Both Airbus and Boeing have to decide how best to compete "where they are weak" ie. with the A332 category for Airbus, and with the 777 family for Boeing...I guess boeing will go for the 777X as a logical NG version of the 777 Family to strengthen its position in that category even though that would not mean majority market share but i guess it would make better financial sense in the short - mid term until technology is mature enough for them to offer something that can secure them a clear advantage in this size category...
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:17 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 256):
Given these facts , if Boeing sees enough demand for the 777X with airlines like EK and others (SQ,QR perhaps along with others) to sell out production slots well into the 2020's then they will go ahead with it given the relativly modest cost of upgrade as compared to a totally new airframe and family.

They'll probably see enough orders of the current 777 to have strong deliveries into the 2020s.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 256):
however the 777X should have enough of a Niche market to keep Boeing busy uptil 2025 or so and give them a decent return on the investment required to bring appropriate changes required to stay competitive (even though in only a niche market).

Putting $5 billion or so into an upgrade will have to keep them going until well after 2025, but I don't think it will. And putting that kind of money into a niche market is not a great idea, and furthermore, they can serve that same niche just as well or better with a new plane.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 256):
I dont see Boeing directly competing with the A350-900 and the A3350-1000 with a all new ( double digit billion dollar) family unless they can make it much effective (efficient) and more in line with market demand..

The technology is there to make it that much more efficient. GE is developing the GE9x, plus all of the CFRP and aerodynamic tricks used on the 787 and A350 in addition to whatever further advancements that will have been made in the decade or so since 787 development. Let's not forget that composites scale up better than they scale down.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:31 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 257):
Putting $5 billion or so into an upgrade will have to keep them going until well after 2025, but I don't think it will. And putting that kind of money into a niche market is not a great idea, and furthermore, they can serve that same niche just as well or better with a new plane.

This is ofcourse assuming that Boeing's board and development teams find a sweet spot interms of Capability (upgrade), cost/time-frame and Customer demand , and are able to offer a product that sees modest expenditure (for upgrade) yet secures enough orders to prolong the 777's life and keep healthy profits in that category..The fact that many are talking about the 777X at boeing as well as in the media suggests that there is a case to be made for it , and atleast some in Boeing think it can be feasible , of course pending study of alternatives etc.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 257):
The technology is there to make it that much more efficient. GE is developing the GE9x, plus all of the CFRP and aerodynamic tricks used on the 787 and A350 in addition to whatever further advancements that will have been made in the decade or so since 787 development. Let's not forget that composites scale up better than they scale down.

I am not sure that Boeing can deliver a "significantly" better All new 359,35J competitor within say 3-5 years of the EIS of these aircraft..MARGINALLY better in my opinion cannot justify the huge development cost , specially when you factor in the risks involved with the whole program...It is not wise in my opinion to have essentially 2 HUGE DEVELOPMENTAL PRODUCTS in the XWB and Y3 with their associated costs to be essentially at par in technology and compete head on. I think Boeing will delay the Y3 until they can significantly better the technology and offer a product replacement for the 777 and 748 family .. That for me would also have to match or better the CASM for the A388/9 and for that i think Boeing needs time .... Until then i do not think it is wise to sink 10-12 billion dollars just to compete with the A350-1000 in the medium term specially when its sales havent been stellar nor has its design and performance specs been frozen..Airbus is still developing the XWB family and with delays there is still uncertainty regarding how many XWB's they can deliver in 2015-2020 timeframe ? How fast can they ramp up production? , How many A350-1000's can be delivered between 2017 and 2025 etc etc...Boeing has the Luxury of time ...

[Edited 2011-11-24 20:45:13]

[Edited 2011-11-24 20:49:04]

[Edited 2011-11-24 20:49:58]
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:53 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
I am not sure that Boeing can deliver a "significantly" better All new 359,35J competitor within say 3-5 years of the EIS of these aircraft..MARGINALLY better in my opinion cannot justify the huge development cost , specially when you factor in the risks involved with the whole program...It is not wise in my opinion to have essentially 2 HUGE DEVELOPMENTAL PRODUCTS in the XWB and Y3 with their associated costs to be essentially at par in technology and compete head on. I think Boeing will delay the Y3 until they can significantly better the technology and offer a product replacement for the 777 and 748 family .. That for me would also have to match or better the CASM for the A388/9 and for that i think Boeing needs time .... Until then i do not think it is wise to sink 10-12 billion dollars just to compete with the A350-1000 in the medium term...

  

I agree. I think it would be rather foolish to spend that much money on an all new aircraft if it doesn't leap-frog the A350 in terms of technology and performance capabilities. While the technology is not yet available for Boeing to do that, then I think they're better off spending a smaller amount of money to upgrade an existing frame to keep it competitive until the middle to end of next decade. If the upgrades are significant enough, I don't see why it can't keep selling until then (or whenever Airbus decides to build an "A350NG" further down the track). As long as the 777 keeps selling, an upgrade may be the more profitable option. To me, the costly and risky development of an all new aircraft is only wise if the technology is there for them to leap-frog its direct competitor.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:10 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
The fact that many are talking about the 777X at boeing as well as in the media suggests that there is a case to be made for it

There's a case, but I don't think it's a particularly strong one considering.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
All new 359,35J competitor within say 3-5 years of the EIS of these aircraft..MARGINALLY better in my opinion cannot justify the huge development cost ,

Marginally better compared to the 787 justified the A350. And the same can justify the Y3 considering that a 777X will have limited appeal. And it can justify the cost better than less investment can get you a plane that will be more than marginally less economical.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
.It is not wise in my opinion to have essentially 2 HUGE DEVELOPMENTAL PRODUCTS in the XWB and Y3 with their associated costs to be essentially at par in technology and compete head on.

Works pretty well with the 787 and A350 don't you think?

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
I think Boeing will delay the Y3 until they can significantly better the technology and offer a product replacement for the 777 and 748 family

That significantly better technology is here. And there isn't some other great thing around the corner either, since BWB is still a long way off.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 258):
Until then i do not think it is wise to sink 10-12 billion dollars just to compete with the A350-1000 in the medium term...

You sink $10-12 billion into putting the best product on the market from the A350-1000 on up. A ten wide design with the latest technology will be marginally better than the A350 in terms of seat costs, but the gap would grow with size. An A350-1100 would likely not compete well with a ten wide Y3. And a composite Y3 powered by the GE9x should easily beat the A380-800 in seat costs and be competitive with an A380-900, depending on what it actually ends up being.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 259):
To me, the costly and risky development of an all new aircraft is only wise if the technology is there for them to leap-frog its direct competitor.

Considering how well the 77W has done, building a new plane that is lighter and more efficient and has the same capacity and range capabilities would be a can't miss prospect. Moving the 777 away from the current capacity point and still not matching the A350's costs is a pretty risky proposition. It would sell better than the 747-8, but competitive is relative. It might make airlines buy 60 A350s and 20 777Xs instead of 80 A350s, but it won't be sweeping orders away.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:13 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 259):
I agree. I think it would be rather foolish to spend that much money on an all new aircraft if it doesn't leap-frog the A350 in terms of technology and performance capabilities. While the technology is not yet available for Boeing to do that, then I think they're better off spending a smaller amount of money to upgrade an existing frame to keep it competitive until the middle to end of next decade. If the upgrades are significant enough, I don't see why it can't keep selling until then (or whenever Airbus decides to build an "A350NG" further down the track). As long as the 777 keeps selling, an upgrade may be the more profitable option. To me, the costly and risky development of an all new aircraft is only wise if the technology is there for them to leap-frog its direct competitor.

Airbus has to first fully develop the XWB , then ramp up production . This task is not easy and many challenges remain as the A380 and the 787 programs have shown us. Then they have to deliver close to 500 or so -900 and 800 XWB's so i assume that not many production slots will be offered for the -1000 version until back orders of the -900 (mainly ) are cleared...Add to that the fact that the 340 is not on offer , it means that Boeing can sell the 773ER at a fairly good profit margin given that in the 2017-2025 only a "limited" number of 35J's will be available over and above the ones that have allready been sold so even though the 35J will be available it will most likely not dent the profit margins for Boeing 777 orders for deliveries in the 2017-2025 time frame. This gives boeing over a decade to decide in my opinion on what to do with the Y3 .. They can go early and compete head on with the XWB and be at par or marginally superior to it , or wait some time and replace its portfolio of 777 and 748 family with one family of aircraft , as was the plan when y3 was conceived iirc..
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:18 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 260):
Marginally better compared to the 787 justified the A350

But the XWB is essentially a size in between the 330/787 and the 777...If you look at it , Airbus went for the "two birds with one stone" approach   and not just a direct competitor to the dreamliner..


For the rest , these are interesting times for sure for both Airbus and Boeing..I think with time we will know more on how each approaches the situation ... Right now both have a lot on their plate with the dreamliner/MAX and the XWB/NEO..
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:27 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 262):
.If you look at it , Airbus went for the "two birds with one stone" approach

The Y3 would also be a two birds with one stone approach. Compete with the A350-1000 and a potential -1100, replace the 747-8 and offer a plane with slightly less capacity and better seat costs than an A388.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7413
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:31 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 260):
And a composite Y3 powered by the GE9x should easily beat the A380-800 in seat costs and be competitive with an A380-900, depending on what it actually ends up being.

On an equivalent seats per m2 basis, Y3 would have to deliver a 25% improvement in seat costs over the 773ER to beat today's A380-800.

And to "easily" beat it would require better than that

To match even a 79m A380-900 if it existed today would require better than 30% improvement in seat cost over a 773ER...

And the A380 won't stand still if it is threatened...

Rgds
 
qfa787380
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:37 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 264):
And the A380 won't stand still if it is threatened...

Why not......................it's only a niche market  
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:39 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 264):
On an equivalent seats per m2 basis, Y3 would have to deliver a 25% improvement in seat costs over the 773ER to beat today's A380-800.

And to "easily" beat it would require better than that

To match even a 79m A380-900 if it existed today would require better than 30% improvement in seat cost over a 773ER...

And the A380 won't stand still if it is threatened...

Precisely why i think that to seek those type of performance gains in the XWB time frame is rather impossible and makes little sense specially when there is not much pressure on the 777 sales until middle of next decade...
 
astuteman
Posts: 7413
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:41 am

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 265):
Why not......................it's only a niche market

Question and answer in the same sentence  

Rgds
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:44 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 255):
The 77W sales will slow down, perhaps. The 777X? That remains to be seen.

I simply do not believe that a 777X family will sell in significant quantities relative to the A350. More than a 77W/L combo would at that time, but not significant. I imagine it would be $4-$7 billion to do a really good warmover of the 777, and low-mid teens to do an all-new family. Depending on the expected demand and price point of each option, the all-new plane may be the way to go. I wish I could get excited for the 777X, but I'm frankly tired of Boeing getting one more redo out of their models. Again, that's just me.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 255):
Boeing could have launched a new plane instead. They didn't, because the market told them they can't wait for a new plane.

The market didn't have faith that they could ramp it up fast enough, the market was split between all-new and keep it simple, and going MAX was a much easier decision than going all-new, as it will cost a fraction of the $$ and will achieve most of what the NEO will. It simply was a no-brainer.

The 350-777 battle will be very different. I don't see it as a no-brainer because the 350 is a brand-new, clean-sheet design. You can do a lot of things with a re-done 777X, but you can't make it as efficient or capable as a clean-sheet design without putting it into a narrower niche above the 350. That's just how I see it. I'd be excited to see Boeing blow our socks off in a few years when they decide what to do, but if it's another 767-400, 737-900, or 747-8i, I'll be very dissappointed.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 262):
But the XWB is essentially a size in between the 330/787 and the 777...If you look at it , Airbus went for the "two birds with one stone" approach and not just a direct competitor to the dreamliner..

It remains to be seen exactly how that will work out for them. Initially I thought it was a brilliant approach, but the -800 sounds perhaps not quite ideal and the -1000 is still being figured out. Had they just gone -900/-1000 I think it might have been a slightly cleaner project. But that's just an enthusiasts viewpoint.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:47 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 264):
On an equivalent seats per m2 basis, Y3 would have to deliver a 25% improvement in seat costs over the 773ER to beat today's A380-800.

The A350 is promising 20% over the 777-300ER. A stretched Y3 could probably manage enough improvement to beat the A380.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 266):
Precisely why i think that to seek those type of performance gains in the XWB time frame is rather impossible and makes little sense specially when there is not much pressure on the 777 sales until middle of next decade...

If you wait until there is pressure on sales, you're too late. Boeing should seek to stay ahead of the curve on their products lest they end up with a situation like the 767 again. And there has to be something so that Boeing avoids a brain drain like they experienced after the 777 program.

But if the pressure would come in the mid 2020s, I think a few years earlier, but still, that would be a nice time for a replacement.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:51 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 268):
It remains to be seen exactly how that will work out for them. Initially I thought it was a brilliant approach, but the -800 sounds perhaps not quite ideal and the -1000 is still being figured out. Had they just gone -900/-1000 I think it might have been a slightly cleaner project. But that's just an enthusiasts viewpoint.

I agree the -900 and the 1000 are the strongest two variants in the family..

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 268):
I imagine it would be $4-$7 billion to do a really good warmover of the 777, and low-mid teens to do an all-new family.

It would depend upon what sort of upgrades they want to do . I would imagine that a low end upgrade would be available for around 2-3 billion , and a more highly modified version around 4-6 billion.. depending upon where the sweet spot is , such an upgrade could well be launched if the market situation warrants . As of now , doing the math of production slots, delivery schedules and pricing pressure , i see the 773ER not facing much as far as challenge is concerned well into the next decade...So Boeing has time to see how the competition performs , what its customers want , and what it can deliver as far as time line is concerned to be best placed in the replacement market for its 777's .
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20057
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:23 am

Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 265):
Why not......................it's only a niche market



Improvements have already been made and will continue to be made, regardless of the final market size. BA's A380s will soon be the best delivered. Yet.
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.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:05 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 269):
If you wait until there is pressure on sales, you're too late. Boeing should seek to stay ahead of the curve on their products lest they end up with a situation like the 767 again. And there has to be something so that Boeing avoids a brain drain like they experienced after the 777 program.

The point i am trying to make is that the pressure on sales will most likely not occur until about a decade or so given the various factors at play (some of those i mentioned earlier)...It would give Boeing ample time to size up the competition , get a pretty good idea of what their 777 customers want as far as replacements are concerned ( both in terms of what capability they want , and in what time frame they are looking for a product replacement) and then go on to either , Upgrading the 777 for the short term - medium term , or to go in for a Y3. Surely how competitive the Y3 would be against the likes of the A388 and a prospective A389 would depend upon how long Boeing can push it out and let technology catch up (both for the engines , as well as for their suppliers who would have had good amount of experience pushing out hundreds of dreamliners by then) .
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:22 am

Out of the almost 1300 777's ordered till date, 600 odd were delivered around the end of 2006, Giving a 20 year aprox. life before replacement one can say that out of the 600 odd replacements due by 2025 , Airbus has secured a lot with the A350-900 and the A350-1000 , given the initial round of replacements are concerned ( i bet airbus took this cycle into account when they offered the XWB in the form that they did)..Boeing meanwhile has continues to respond to the demand for the 777 and many believe that demand will continue to grow in the coming years for expansion and growth...The major chunk of the fleet replacements for the T-7 family will be in the second and the third wave which will start post 2025-2026 and carry on beyond that..Boeing in my opinion will position itself for that eventually with a product in the Y3 that waits for the technology to mature and "de-risk" until they can safely offer an aircraft sized up from a A-350-1000 to cover close to the market of the 748..For this they would need significant ammount of reduction in CASM over and above the current 773ER,748I and 787-9 which offer the three best CASM in their fleet/portfolio (iirc) ... Such a boost requires both time and money ..

[Edited 2011-11-25 00:26:15]
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:35 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 264):

I would like to know where you are getting these numbers from. Allan Joyce of QF status recently asserted a 777 in a QF configuation would have CASM costs 7% higher than the A380's. He is also on record as saying the 777X would be a fabulous aircraft.

I'm working from. My I-phone so it is a little to hard to find links. A little hypocritical of me I know!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:21 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 272):
The point i am trying to make is that the pressure on sales will most likely not occur until about a decade or so given the various factors at play (some of those i mentioned earlier).

Which is plenty of time to bring a new airplane to market without having the bottom fall out of 777 sales.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 273):
Airbus has secured a lot with the A350-900 and the A350-1000 , given the initial round of replacements are concerned ( i bet airbus took this cycle into account when they offered the XWB in the form that they did).

It likely had more to do with needing a 787 competitor and a better horse in the race against the 777 when the A340-600 more or less fell flat. The timing was pretty well decided for them.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 273):
.Boeing meanwhile has continues to respond to the demand for the 777 and many believe that demand will continue to grow in the coming years for expansion and growth...

Good things don't last forever: see 747.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 273):
The major chunk of the fleet replacements for the T-7 family will be in the second and the third wave which will start post 2025-2026 and carry on beyond that.

Incidentally right around the time that a Y3 could come to market. Realistically, 2025-2026 would be a fairly conservative estimate.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:36 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 275):
It likely had more to do with needing a 787 competitor and a better horse in the race against the 777 when the A340-600 more or less fell flat. The timing was pretty well decided for them.

Clearly the market wanted Airbus to develop a highly efficient wide body in response to the dreamliner , however the cross section , and the size of the -900 (launch varient) clearly suggests that it is targeted towards a market segment the 787 does not cater ie. the 777-200,A340 class which incidentally will see some replacements (required) beginning the time of the EIS of the XWB...Both Boeing and Airbus have concentrated highly on areas of their wide body portfolios which were weak...


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 275):
Incidentally right around the time that a Y3 could come to market. Realistically, 2025-2026 would be a fairly conservative estimate.

If they need an aircraft family to EIS around 2026 , they needn't launch until the A350-1000 is well into service..If they have the technology in hand , can confidently apply the lessons learned in the development and production of the Dreamliner and enough "de-risking" has been done , then a 2022 launch for EIS around 2026-2028 can well be acheived...They can still continue to deliver 777's beyond the 2023-2025 time frame (when 350-900,1000 slots will open up) , although market share will reduce and so would profit margins , but i doubt that sales would come to a zero specially not with constant upgrades....It all depends when BOEING wants to replace the T7 and 748 family , and if they want to do it ahead of the NSA or not (or have some years of overlap between the two programs)...The one option they have is to delay the y3 development because they have a competitive product in the T-7 which can deliver good amount of profit margins till perhaps 2023-2025 and after that they offer discounts or bring about upgrdes to pre-long the program until the NSA is complete...

[Edited 2011-11-25 01:41:22]
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:43 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 276):
If they need an aircraft family to EIS around 2026 , they needn't launch until the A350-1000 is well into service..

2026 is pushing it. I'd be shooting for launch in 2017 with EIS 2023 if it were me.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 276):
They can still continue to deliver 777's beyond the 2023-2025 time frame (when 350-900,1000 slots will open up) , although market share will reduce and so would profit margins

But not to the level they did with the 767 before 787 EIS. The 777, with incremental improvements, will continue to sell in some quantity to airlines that need more capacity and freight carriers.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 276):
It all depends when BOEING wants to replace the T7 and 748 family , and if they want to do it ahead of the NSA or not (or have some years of overlap between the two programs)...

They'd better want to do it ahead of the NSA. Launching the NSA before 2025 or so at the earliest probably signals that the MAX has not gone well.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Cerecl
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:50 am

Quoting travelhound (Reply 274):
Allan Joyce of QF status recently asserted a 777 in a QF configuation would have CASM costs 7% higher than the A380's

I think he was talking about total operating cost over a route/a number of routes. 7% CASM difference between 77W and A380 would mean no one in their sane mind would order A380. As a reference, SQ said A380 is 21% cheaper per seat and 3% lower in overall cost when they switched 10 77W to 7 A380 on SIN-CDG.
Fokker-100 SAAB 340 Q400 E190 717 737 738 763ER 787-8 772 77E 773 77W 747-400 747-400ER A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A346 A359 A380
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:51 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 277):
2026 is pushing it. I'd be shooting for launch in 2017 with EIS 2023 if it were me.

If they secure enough orders for the 777 without much pressure (given production slot restrictions on the 350-1000 and any future delays which could happen) well into the 2025 timeframe (for delivery) why do they need to jump the gun early? Specially when they have the NSA at the back of their mind , given that airbus can potentially launch the A320 replacement soon after it finishes development of the XWB !!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 277):
They'd better want to do it ahead of the NSA. Launching the NSA before 2025 or so at the earliest probably signals that the MAX has not gone well.

Not necessarily, although both boeing and airbus would like to prelong there investments in the MAX and NEO , both know that they have to launch as soon as the market demands and if one jumps the gun the other has to follow not much behind. The relative ammount of money required for the MAX and NEO development should be recovered with a decent margin given that both B and A will deliver them in the 4 digit numbers ....
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:04 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 279):
If they secure enough orders for the 777 without much pressure (given production slot restrictions on the 350-1000 and any future delays which could happen) well into the 2025 timeframe (for delivery) why do they need to jump the gun early?

Because those airlines that will be buying it at that point won't have the A350 as alternative, since there is no freighter variant and the A350 won't fit ten seats across in coach.

You won't see the 777X being ordered instead of A350s, they'll be ordered together. And that's part of why the 777X is not an ideal solution: it doesn't appeal to as many airlines as the A350-1000 will. Not that many airlines need that kind of capacity, and some of those that do already have A380s anyway. In order to compete on a cost basis, the 777X needs to add seats, and that makes it not an option for some airlines.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 279):
given that airbus can potentially launch the A320 replacement soon after it finishes development of the XWB !!

They won't. Even with open rotor off the table, the new narrowbodies won't be launched until the mid 2020s.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:12 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 268):
The market didn't have faith that they could ramp it up fast enough, the market was split between all-new and keep it simple, and going MAX was a much easier decision than going all-new, as it will cost a fraction of the $$ and will achieve most of what the NEO will. It simply was a no-brainer.

And the number of commitments they have scored for the MAX is already impressive and fairly comparable to the NEO-sales. As John Leahy predicted all along.  .

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 268):
The 350-777 battle will be very different. I don't see it as a no-brainer because the 350 is a brand-new, clean-sheet design. You can do a lot of things with a re-done 777X, but you can't make it as efficient or capable as a clean-sheet design without putting it into a narrower niche above the 350. That's just how I see it. I'd be excited to see Boeing blow our socks off in a few years when they decide what to do, but if it's another 767-400, 737-900, or 747-8i, I'll be very disappointed.

   Very true. The clean sheet design will most certainly always be the clear winner in such a battle. Going Y3 to counter the A35J, which is still a moving target by now, is the only real viable answer Boeing can come up with and be (very) competitive.

The B777-X will not be able to fulfil that role just as the A350-mk1 could not do so against the all-new B787. It is all not rocket science, but is just the logical consequences if one monitors market developments as they have evolved over the last years.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:16 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 280):
And that's part of why the 777X is not an ideal solution: it doesn't appeal to as many airlines as the A350-1000 will.

But it requires only a fraction of the development cost , and the associated risk (350XWB) therefore requiring to sell only a fraction of the 350 in order to give Boeing a decent ROI .

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 280):
They won't. Even with open rotor off the table, the new narrowbodies won't be launched until the mid 2020s.

I estimate that Boeing will take the lead in launching the next narrow body (heck they were ready to do it NOW had airlines been willing to wait ) around 2022 is when i expect them to Launch for an EIS around 2026-2027 , I expect Airbus to either launch along side of Boeing , or follow a year or 2 behind...If Indeed the tech is not available to launch a successful Narrow body by 2025-2026 , then Boeing may well consider going for the Y3 ahead of it , however i still think they will wait till the A350-1000 is well in service to decide whether to launch the 777X or the Y3.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:17 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 280):
And that's part of why the 777X is not an ideal solution: it doesn't appeal to as many airlines as the A350-1000 will. Not that many airlines need that kind of capacity, and some of those that do already have A380s anyway. In order to compete on a cost basis, the 777X needs to add seats, and that makes it not an option for some airlines.

   Only the airlines with a specific need for that capacity might go for the B777-X as an addition to i.e. the A35J. Airlines who need something bigger which is really attractive will select the continuously improving A380. If they need something the size of the current B777, but with at least 20% efficiency increase, they will no doubt select the A35J.  .
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:20 am

Does anyone know how many A350's airbus plans to deliver between 2017-2020 , and the breakup of -1000's and 900's and 800's during that time frame...
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:28 am

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 281):
The B777-X will not be able to fulfil that role just as the A350-mk1 could not do so against the all-new B787.

The 777X would fare better than that, since it can cover a couple niches the A350 cannot, but it would not be able to compete on the same level as the A350.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 282):
But it requires only a fraction of the development cost , and the associated risk (350XWB) therefore requiring to sell only a fraction of the 350 in order to give Boeing a decent ROI .

It isn't about decent ROI, it's about maximum ROI. Narrowing the market isn't really a way to do that.

Get the 777 improved with incremental upgrades, keep selling it, then go come up with a plane in the same size plus a stretch or two with the latest technology and incorporate all the lessons learned from the 787. That's the plane Boeing needs, and that's the plane customers are going to want for the next couple decades. In the meantime, they'll keep buying 777s.

Whenever the NSA might be launched, Boeing should not wait around with the Y3. It isn't a question of technology (at least for the airframe, but if GE is talking GE9x on the 777X it shouldn't be an issue), it's a question of when the resources are available to launch the development program. In my estimation, that would be around 2017 when the MAX enters service. The 787 may have to remain as a family of two for the time being, but that's probably okay. Maybe a derivative program could be run alongside the Y3 for a higher gross weight 787, but frankly, the Y3 is more important.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:57 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 284):
Does anyone know how many A350's airbus plans to deliver between 2017-2020 , and the breakup of -1000's and 900's and 800's during that time frame...

Plans are for 10 a month, so 110 per year. Mixture is completely undefined, and like on the A320 Airbus just wants to know the model when they start to build it.
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:27 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 264):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 260):And a composite Y3 powered by the GE9x should easily beat the A380-800 in seat costs and be competitive with an A380-900, depending on what it actually ends up being.On an equivalent seats per m2 basis, Y3 would have to deliver a 25% improvement in seat costs over the 773ER to beat today's A380-800.And to "easily" beat it would require better than thatTo match even a 79m A380-900 if it existed today would require better than 30% improvement in seat cost over a 773ER...And the A380 won't stand still if it is threatened...

If Y3 would cause a threat to A380 sales, we could see an an A380NEO launched...

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 281):
The clean sheet design will most certainly always be the clear winner in such a battle. Going Y3 to counter the A35J, which is still a moving target by now, is the only real viable answer Boeing can come up with and be (very) competitive.The B777-X will not be able to fulfil that role just as the A350-mk1 could not do so against the all-new B787. It is all not rocket science, but is just the logical consequences if one monitors market developments as they have evolved over the last years.

Well, and this is where I see a change now: Back in the time when Airbus launched the A350mk1 to counter the 787, everyone was still in the hype the a new revolutionary airplane with new materials and engines could be developed in a 5 year time-frame. The A350mk1 was criticised as "not enough" by some major players like EK, SQ and ILFC. Still, Airbus sold about 200 of them in a short time-span, but Airbus themselves were unhappy because they lost a few important campaigns (QF, AI, AC). Now, after the delays of not just the 787 but also the A350XWB, things could be regarded differently. In 20/20 hindsight, the A350mk1 wasn't as bad an idea, certainly not had it met its original EIS of 2010. Lots of people are talking about an A330NEO now, which is even less advanced as the A350mk1 (which would have an Al-Li fuselage amongst other improvements).

So will the 777NG really fare so badly? On the long term, it won't match the A35J's sales. But let's say it gets 30% of the 777 replacement market: around 500? I think it will be the minimum, so it's up to Boeing to decide whether it's worth it or not. I really don't know. But I do know airlines are hesitant of committing to all new designs, see A35J, see NSA, and see the success of warmed over models like the 737MAX and A320NEO.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 285):

Must admit, I am a fan of the 777 and would like to see a NG, but your case is becoming more and more compelling.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 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
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:42 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 287):
The A350mk1 was criticised as "not enough" by some major players like EK, SQ and ILFC. Still, Airbus sold about 200 of them in a short time-span, but Airbus themselves were unhappy because they lost a few important campaigns (QF, AI, AC). Now, after the delays of not just the 787 but also the A350XWB, things could be regarded differently. In 20/20 hindsight, the A350mk1 wasn't as bad an idea, certainly not had it met its original EIS of 2010. Lots of people are talking about an A330NEO now, which is even less advanced as the A350mk1 (which would have an Al-Li fuselage amongst other improvements).

The Old A350 (no XWB) would have done reasonably well and would have competed with the 787 for marketshare , what airbus did however with the XWB was even better as far as finances are concerned they cornered a market with a new family that Boeing had a good hold on , and that had a replacement cycle around the corner from when they could deliver the Family (even factoring in any prospective delays)..The 350-900 fits right in for replacements of the 777-200 family as well as the A340...A category for which boeing could only offer no new aircraft (787-10 could not have come before the 350-900 given the amount of orders boeing had for the 788)...The A 350-1000 positions Airbus for the 777-300 market when it is ready for replacement and makes Boeing spend extra money to keep itself "in the game" . Had they gone for a "Head on" competition with Dreamliner and developed the original A-350 , they would have no doubt made money due to the sheer size and demand for the size/class market and Boeing's limited ability to deliver X ammount per annum , but they would have had a DEAD 340 and nothing to compete against the 777 family which was not only selling very well but making a lot of money for Boeing without any competition.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4168
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:48 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 237):
The difference between the A330 vs the 787 is that the A330 is narrower than the 787. The 787 is able to be configured at 9-across, which gives it an advantage over an 8-across A330. I've said in another thread that I do believe that if Boeing never offered the 787 with a 9-across configuration, then Airbus would have every chance of competing with it (by that I mean getting a significant market share) simply by putting Trent XWBs and all new A350-style wings on a significantly lightened fuselage. The 787 has both a capacity advantage and a fuel burn advantage over the A330, while the A350 only has fuel burn as its advantage against the 777. The 777 can carry more passengers and more payload. The two cases are quite different.

But you assume that more payload and more pax is an advantage where as I think most airlines would say that it is a risk.

If It was that much of an advantage then we would be seeing the A380 running away with the orders as it can make huge revenue and has very low CASM. We do not see this.

The arguments against the A380 size do not flip when talking about the smaller aircraft.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 260):
And a composite Y3 powered by the GE9x should easily beat the A380-800 in seat costs and be competitive with an A380-900, depending on what it actually ends up being.

The Y3 would have to drop its CASM by around 30% (as mentioned previously) but CASM isn't just fuel burn it is everything so I'd wager that fuel burn would have to drop by some 40-45% to allow this to happen.

Fred
Image
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:57 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 287):
Must admit, I am a fan of the 777 and would like to see a NG, but your case is becoming more and more compelling.

I originally thought the 777NG would be a pretty good idea until three things happened:
1. The 737MAX was launched. Boeing will have no new aircraft programs scheduled after 2017, and even a 787-10X could overlap with the end of the 737MAX development and beginning of the Y3. The NSA gets pushed back to the middle of the next decade, and not doing a Y3 could force Boeing into making some tough decisions regarding which of two all new programs they do.
2. The A350-1000 got redefined and pushed back a year. One more year of not having a competitor on the market buys Boeing one more year to develop a new plane and keep selling the old planes to keep money rolling in. At the end of this decade Boeing could, if everything goes near plan, have three product lines making money to building a bankroll for Y3 development.
3. The 777 had its best sales year ever, and Emirates is pushing for more and not especially happy with the A350. They cannot pack ten seats across in the A350. Sure they and airlines like them are exactly who is pushing hardest for the 777X, but they aren't going to run off to the A350. Boeing should make some improvements to the 777, but more along the lines of weight reduction and engine upgrades rather than major investment. Cargo carriers and airlines that need more capacity aren't going to go away as soon as the A350 enters service, meaning that it isn't critical for Boeing to have something for them in 2018. They might have to cut production rates a bit, but it won't end up like the 767.

So basically, Boeing will have time, they'll have money, they'll have resources, they'll have the new engine, and they'll have everything they learned from the 787 to come up with a new aircraft around the turn of the decade to cover the size range from the 77W up to the 748 and possibly a bit bigger than that that should keep current 777 customers happy and compete with the A350-1000.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:58 pm

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 287):
So will the 777NG really fare so badly? On the long term, it won't match the A35J's sales. But let's say it gets 30% of the 777 replacement market: around 500? I think it will be the minimum, so it's up to Boeing to decide whether it's worth it or not. I really don't know. But I do know airlines are hesitant of committing to all new designs, see A35J, see NSA, and see the success of warmed over models like the 737MAX and A320NEO.

The success that the MAX and the NEO have had , is not due to the fact that they provide lesser risk etc because they are warmed over products , but because the fact that they are available many years earlier to customers who are wanting better airplanes and wanting them tommorow....With the 777 replacement it is going to be a bit different because the next cycle or cycles are a fair bit ahead for the larger 777-300 and 777-3ER families , so both BOEING as well as airlines can sit on it , see where the 35J is headed and then decide once its design is frozen or even after it has been in service...I think boeing has till very close to 2020 to make a call on it (if they want to wait ) and even after that , the sheer fact that the robust sale of the 350-900 model will eat into production slots for the XWB , so the limited ability of airbus to respond to the demand in a time frame with the -1000 will mean that we will see many airlines order the 777 (perhaps more so then the -1000) for deliveries in the 2020 time frame and maybe even beyond if there are delays etc to the XWB...I see Boeing's descision to go for close to 100 deliveries a year post 2013 as a move of few good " sales years" to come for the 777 ...Given boeing may need 5-6 years to build something new and around 3 years or so for an NG , it is safe to assume that they can keep airbus guessing till 2020 ( if they like) and keep on working with their customers on fine tuning a product which may be an all new family or the 777 NG .
 
astuteman
Posts: 7413
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 269):
The A350 is promising 20% over the 777-300ER. A stretched Y3 could probably manage enough improvement to beat the A380.

Airbus promise that.

In truth, I think the supposed 21% or so TRIP fuel burn delta translates into an OVERALL operating cost difference in the 13% - 15% range between the A350-1000 and the 773ER.
And the 773ER is slightly more capacious, so in the real world, I think the A350-1000's PER SEAT advantage over the 773ER is never going to be better than about 13%

Quoting travelhound (Reply 274):
I would like to know where you are getting these numbers from

From Singapore Airlines with 773ER's and A380's in similar configurations in terms of seats per size of cabin.

The relevance is the similarity in "product".

If you compare EK's "shoehorned" 365 seat 773ER's to their "luxury" 489 seat A380's, the per seat costs are near-on identical.

For me, because airline configurations vary, the only relatively safe "per seat" comparison is on a "space" basis.
And that isn't perfect either.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 278):
As a reference, SQ said A380 is 21% cheaper per seat and 3% lower in overall cost when they switched 10 77W to 7 A380 on SIN-CDG.

Correct.

They also did this on SIN-ZRH.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 289):
The arguments against the A380 size do not flip when talking about the smaller aircraft.

And you've been an A-net member for how long?      

Rgds
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:49 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 260):
Moving the 777 away from the current capacity point and still not matching the A350's costs is a pretty risky proposition.

That's why I'm saying that the 777X should not be a stretch over the current 77W. It should be the same size, because otherwise, it'll be placed into the niche that the 747-8 is in now. If they did that, the 777X will succeed in killing off the 747-8, but not much else. The 777X needs to tackle the A35J head on in the 350 seat market.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 268):
You can do a lot of things with a re-done 777X, but you can't make it as efficient or capable as a clean-sheet design without putting it into a narrower niche above the 350. That's just how I see it. I'd be excited to see Boeing blow our socks off in a few years when they decide what to do, but if it's another 767-400, 737-900, or 747-8i, I'll be very dissappointed.

I disagree that the only way for the 777X to compete is to upsize. The 777 has an inherent payload advantage over the A35J. What the 777X needs to be is a plane that highlights its inherent payload advantage, and reduce its operating costs to the point where that bit of extra revenue cargo in the belly will make up for the deficit in fuel costs. It's been argued here that this won't appeal to as many airlines as the A35J, and perhaps that's true. But if you have a plane that can carry a bit more revenue cargo for a bit more fuel, why not? From my limited technical knowledge, wings and engines play a very big part in an aircraft's operating costs. Now, with the GE9X under its wings (an upsized version of the GENx, rather than a half-breed GE90+GENx), and entirely new wings giving it better aerodynamics, then couple that with some structural revisions to reduce weight, I don't see why the 777X can't reduce its SFC enough that its payload advantage will cover the deficit. (Now, some might say that GE might not want to pour money into making a GE9X competitive with a Trent XWB because the 777X might not sell enough to offer a return on investment. But I think that if the GE9X is good enough, it'll not only power the 777X but a derivative of it can also power the Y3 as well). If they succeed in doing that, I don't think 40%-50% market share is out of the question.

I'm convinced that it will work. I'm also convinced that it'll fare better than the 764, 739 or 748i. If I'm not mistaken, Boeing built the 764 as an answer to the A332. Trouble is, while the 764 had an operating cost advantage, the A332 could lift more payload and carry it further. The 739 was a stretch too far that gave it extra capacity over the 738 at the expense of range. As for the 748i, being sandwiched between two excellent alternatives either above or below its size doesn't do it any favours (if the 748i had been an 80m 500-seater, I think it'd have sold better). Don't forget that the 777 itself is still a very young, very advanced and very capable airframe. It's nowhere near as old as the 737 or the 747, which are still selling (the 747 as a freighter) in its updated form despite the original frame dating back to the late 60s.

Yes, I realise I'm speculating here. But so are the people who say that the 777X has no chance before the project has even begun, let alone rolled out and flown.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 272):
It would give Boeing ample time to size up the competition , get a pretty good idea of what their 777 customers want as far as replacements are concerned ( both in terms of what capability they want , and in what time frame they are looking for a product replacement) and then go on to either , Upgrading the 777 for the short term - medium term , or to go in for a Y3. Surely how competitive the Y3 would be against the likes of the A388 and a prospective A389 would depend upon how long Boeing can push it out and let technology catch up (both for the engines , as well as for their suppliers who would have had good amount of experience pushing out hundreds of dreamliners by then) .

I'd say go for a two-pronged approach. The 777X to EIS late this decade and hold the fort until mid-late 2020s. The way I see it, the 777X is a necessary exercise in damage control. If Boeing leaves the 77W untouched when the A35J enters service, they'll have a very hard time moving 777s while waiting for the Y3. With the 777X, they can have a source of income from selling 777Xs while developing the Y3. The 777X will undoubtedly sell better than an untouched 77W after the A35J comes online.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 273):
The major chunk of the fleet replacements for the T-7 family will be in the second and the third wave which will start post 2025-2026 and carry on beyond that..Boeing in my opinion will position itself for that eventually with a product in the Y3 that waits for the technology to mature and "de-risk" until they can safely offer an aircraft sized up from a A-350-1000 to cover close to the market of the 748

Precisely. I think the Y3 should be timed for the 77W replacements. By the mid 2020s, the first 77Ws will be 20 years old, and being phased out. Also, by the mid 2020s, it is likely that technology will be available for Boeing to leap-frog the A350.

[Edited 2011-11-25 05:51:34]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:07 pm

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 289):
But you assume that more payload and more pax is an advantage where as I think most airlines would say that it is a risk.

If It was that much of an advantage then we would be seeing the A380 running away with the orders as it can make huge revenue and has very low CASM. We do not see this.

First, the A332's greater payload capability proved to be a winner against the 764.

Second, the A388 has a relatively small cargo bay proportionally to its size. Once all 500 pax's bags are on board, and below deck crew rests installed, there's very little room for revenue cargo. Yes, the A388 has great CASM, but the 77W and 748i beats it in revenue cargo capability.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:15 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 245):
Why does everything have to be so absolute? There is no such thing as one having an absolute superiority over another.

Absolute superiority in aviation maybe is something like the 77W sales this year. It happens fairly often. The A380 vs 849i also would fall in this category.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 246):
It's apples and oranges. A new CFRP narrowbody could absolutely render older aircraft obsolete, but there were not step changes in technology like that between the 737 and A320.

Exactly. My assesement is fundamentally based on the fact that the 777 is one technology paradigm shift older than the A350 will be.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
A330 was or is in the process of being obsoleted by the 787. There is no bias in saying that.

I agree.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 247):
Conversely, the A350 has not and will not obsolete the 777.

I don't agree. Here you are biased.

True, until now the A350 has not obsolete the 777 (except for 772, 773, 772ER and 772L). But one day the A350, including the 1000 (and maybe the 1100) will make the 777 obsolete. Having a larger wing area will enable the A350 to ultimatively offer any capability of any thinkable 777 version.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 249):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 243):The A330, because it is slightly less in many aspects than the 787 (fuselage-diameter, freight volume, payload, range, size), is able to maintain an astonishing small efficiency gap
A lot of that has to do with 787 delays. Had the development and ramp up gone nearly as planned the A330 would not be "competing" nearly as much.

Absolutely, early availability is the no1 driver of the recent A330 sales. You can see this factor loosing weight already now.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 250):
-Dave

Great post, thanks Dave.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7413
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:19 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 295):
Absolutely, early availability is the no1 driver of the recent A330 sales. You can see this factor loosing weight already now.

I don't disagree about the availability argument, but A330 sales haven't exactly been anaemic this year.

The backlog hasn't gone down any, despite record output....

The 773ER's huge year has without question been influenced by it's primary competitor's availability going back 2 years..

Rgds
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:26 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
That's why I'm saying that the 777X should not be a stretch over the current 77W.

Even if there is no stretch, they have to add seats. Otherwise the costs will never be competitive with the A350.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
The 777X needs to tackle the A35J head on in the 350 seat market.

It cannot do that without becoming effectively a new plane.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
What the 777X needs to be is a plane that highlights its inherent payload advantage, and reduce its operating costs to the point where that bit of extra revenue cargo in the belly will make up for the deficit in fuel costs.

The payload advantage is not that large and the amount of weight it would have to lose is not that small.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
The way I see it, the 777X is a necessary exercise in damage control.

Why bother with damage control when Boeing can avoid the problem all together?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
If Boeing leaves the 77W untouched when the A35J enters service

It won't be untouched.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
they'll have a very hard time moving 777s while waiting for the Y3.

Unless Airbus manages to stuff ten seats across and come up with a freight variant of the A350 by 2017, Boeing will not have a problem keeping the 777 line moving. They won't have any years like this one after 2014 or so, but they'll move the merchandise enough to keep the assembly line going until the Y3 enters service.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
Precisely. I think the Y3 should be timed for the 77W replacements. By the mid 2020s, the first 77Ws will be 20 years old

...a plane that was first delivered in 2004. And there are A340-600s and 747s slightly older than that. So, for EIS 2022-2023, the plane would need to be launched around 2017. In other words, exactly what I've been saying.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:50 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 295):
True, until now the A350 has not obsolete the 777 (except for 772, 773, 772ER and 772L)

  

The 772 was made obsolete when the 772ER came along.
The 773 was made obsolete when the 773ER came aong.
The 772ER was made obsolete when the 773ER and 772LR came along.
The 772LR is not obsolete. It fills a very small niche of ULH aircraft, carries more, flies further and uses less fuel than the A345.

None of which has anything to do with the A350.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 297):
It cannot do that without becoming effectively a new plane.


This is where I disagree. The 777 itself is not that old, and it is still an extremely competitive aircraft. I think that substantial upgrades will keep it competitive with the A35J, even if it doesn't dominate that market. The reason why I don't think Boeing should go down the Y3 path yet is because the technology isn't there for them to leap-frog the A350. What's the point in spending billions of dollars for a Y3 that would be at best on par with the A350 technology wise, when they can spend a lot less and get somewhere close to it with a significant upgrade to the 777?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 297):
The payload advantage is not that large and the amount of weight it would have to lose is not that small.


But it's not impossible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 297):
In other words, exactly what I've been saying.

I'm thinking 2025 at the earliest. Closer to the latter half of the 2020s. In the meantime, have the 777X EIS around 2018-2019.

[Edited 2011-11-25 06:58:31]
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: A350-1000: To Be Redefined? If So, How?

Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:14 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
I'd say go for a two-pronged approach. The 777X to EIS late this decade and hold the fort until mid-late 2020s. The way I see it, the 777X is a necessary exercise in damage control.

How many Airbus A350-1000's can be delivered between 2017,18 and 2023-2025 , factor in any unforeseen delays either in development , or production ramp up. Add to that the fact Airbus has to also deliver around 600 odd 359's and 358's along with the -1000. The production ramp up for the 777 post 2013 suggests to me that boeing sees robusts sales for the 777 in the next 3-4 years , thereby ensuring deliveries into the early-mid 2020's...If the 777x is to be a strict short-term stop gap then it needs to be cheap and quick..i would expect in this case it would be weight reduction and maybe thinner sidewalls etc (no new wing etc ) which could add further value to the product and command some premium. Having said that i do not see much competition for 777W sales in the comming 3-4 years , given that the 340 is now not an option and the 35J wont be ready for some time ... This shrinks the case for the 777X if boeing is to launch a full fledged Y3 to EIS around 2025-2026 as , the 777 should hold its ground for a large part of that time frame....777's will need replacement a loong time from now , boeing will deliver close to 450-500 777's between january ist of this year , and december 2015...and considering that they are ramping up to 100 frames a year (nearly) by 2013 , it suggests that they would like to sustain that rate for a few years before winding down...We could end up in a situation where the largest replacement cycle of the 777 is closer to 2030 given how many intends on delivering by 2017-2018 according to their revised ramp up.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
I'm thinking 2025 at the earliest. Closer to the latter half of the 2020s. In the meantime, have the 777X EIS around 2018-2019.

That is one approach , however in that case i would expect a moderate upgrade to the 777 rather then a full on 737NG like upgrade..

[Edited 2011-11-25 07:41:57]
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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