Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:18 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
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.

It will be 23 years old by the time the A350-1000 hits the market. Substantial upgrades cost money, and get you less than a new plane. And for an upgrade that would only keep the plane competitive in a fairly narrow segment, excluding much, or likely most, of the market.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
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,

There will be more technology there to make the Y3 better than the A350. The Y3 would see another 5 years or so of development, and materials technology scales up better anyway. Furthermore, what wonderful technology is waiting just around the corner for the Y3 to exploit?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
when they can spend a lot less and get somewhere close to it with a significant upgrade to the 777?

Because it wouldn't be close to it. And getting the 777 close to the A350 in terms of costs requires moving it away from the current capacity point, which seems to be a pretty nice size.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
But it's not impossible.

You could change everything and slap the 777 name on it. More practically, the 777 will have to grow, and considering the timing and investment involved, it just doesn't make a lot of sense at this point. The 777X would be a significant investment for Boeing to keep for a little bit longer what they'd likely have anyway.

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.

When does the 737 replacement get done in all of that? What's the point of coming out with a 777X that is attractive to only a small segment of the market in 2018-2019 when a few years later Boeing could have an all new plane to really compete with the A350-1000, replace the 747-8, and compete with the A380? When talking about the period between 2018 and 2024 or so, Boeing won't be selling that many more 777X than 777s. And beyond that period, the Y3 would be far better saleswise than either.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4170
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:45 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 298):
But it's not impossible.

It's not about if its possible its if its worth doing.

My basic guess is:
Rewing:$4-5bn
GE9x:$2bn
New Fuselage (CFRP): $3-4bn
Full systems overhaul:$3bn

a)Which of these do you do?
b)at what point are you just limiting yourelf to make a new aircraft within the constraints of an old one?
C)Will the impetus be there to do them rather than just slash the price?

Fred
 
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 3:51 pm

@flipdewaf: your numbers are probably a bit too high. But the point you make is valid. All improvements can be made on the B777. But then effectively it is the Y3 already. And the question which follows is valide too: why not a complete new clean sheet design?
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:55 pm

Quoting bringiton (Reply 299):
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..
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 300):
When does the 737 replacement get done in all of that? What's the point of coming out with a 777X that is attractive to only a small segment of the market in 2018-2019 when a few years later Boeing could have an all new plane to really compete with the A350-1000, replace the 747-8, and compete with the A380? When talking about the period between 2018 and 2024 or so, Boeing won't be selling that many more 777X than 777s. And beyond that period, the Y3 would be far better saleswise than either.

I should've been a bit more clear. When I said 2025 at the earliest, what I was hinting at is if the 777X doesn't live up to expectations, then they will need the Y3 sooner rather than later. If it does, and it manages to reap a substantial market share against the A35J (and I firmly believe it will), then there would be no need for the Y3 until Airbus decides to upgrade the A350, which would possibly be towards the end of the 2020s.

I am aware that such a strategy will leave Boeing without a competitor for the A380 until the late 2020s. But the A380 market isn't exactly a large one. The 777/A350 market is where the money is, and having a competitor for the A35J as soon as possible is imperative. The quickest way to do that is to have a 777X ready by the time the A35J enters service, then develop the Y3 for EIS beyond 2025.

As for the 737 replacement, why can't the Y3 and the NSA be developed at the same 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 4:02 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 302):
All improvements can be made on the B777. But then effectively it is the Y3 already. And the question which follows is valide too: why not a complete new clean sheet design?

I think if any 77x upgrade is done for EIS before 2020 then it would be moderate at best to offer better performance in order to command a better margin .. By upping deliveries between 2013-2017, boeing is aiming to deliver over 500 airframes (777) between 2012 to when the 350-1000 is expected to be delivered , If the delivery schedule or production ramp up slips for the XWB expect more ... Thats a lot of aircrafts and that eats into a lot of demand...would that leave enough demand between say 2018 to 2025 to justify an upgrade( If boeing intends to go all out with the y3 by 2025) ? I think we will only see a substantial 77x (4-5 billion upgrade) if the y3 gets pushed beyond y1 , otherwise a few moderate changes and they will keep on milking the market for the lack of competition.

[Edited 2011-11-25 08:04:44]
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:08 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
As for the 737 replacement, why can't the Y3 and the NSA be developed at the same time?

Not that it cannot , However one would imagine that the Boeing Board having been burned on one brand new program (dream liner) and one upgrade (748) would be a bit reluctant to launch 2 brand new programs at the same time , or ones which have significant overlap. Although i am always advocating best allocation of resources and boeing is not the only one that is going to have tough choices to make both B and A have to decide how to deliver on "what is on their plate" and then move on.. Boeing is not out of the woods as far as the 787 is concerned , production issues have to be sorted out , and then production ramped up in a way where they can maximize their profits...then they have to deliver the -9 version. Airbus has critical 5-6 years ahead of them as far as the XWB program is concerned , and this will determine where they stand in the widebody race...Both have major NEO and MAX expectations to fill. So both are quite busy till say 2020 or near abouts..
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:10 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
When I said 2025 at the earliest, what I was hinting at is if the 777X doesn't live up to expectations, then they will need the Y3 sooner rather than later.

Why take the risk? Just jump and do the Y3 to avoid another potential embarrassment like the 747-8I.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
If it does, and it manages to reap a substantial market share against the A35J (and I firmly believe it will),

Define substantial. I think they'd at best capture 40%, assuming that Emirates keeps on buying planes like there's no tomorrow. And who knows at what prices.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
The 777/A350 market is where the money is, and having a competitor for the A35J as soon as possible is imperative.

They already have one. And they'll have one during the interim, since some airlines want the capacity anyway, and then the Y3 will be superior in terms of costs anyway and offer more capacity. The 777X isn't going to appeal to many airlines in the 2018-2023 period that a less upgraded 77W wouldn't. It's not just absolute sales, but sales that Boeing wouldn't get otherwise, and that isn't going to be that many. The A350 doesn't offer what Emirates and a few other carriers want and it doesn't offer a freighter either. Boeing isn't going to be hurting for work while developing the Y3.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
As for the 737 replacement, why can't the Y3 and the NSA be developed at the same time?

Because engineers don't grow on trees. Money doesn't either for that matter.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:22 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 306):
Why take the risk? Just jump and do the Y3 to avoid another potential embarrassment like the 747-8I.

I think you and I are in agreement here . I feel that there is no need for a substantial upgrade to the 777 (if any) if boeing decide between now and 2017 to go for a Y3 by 2025 . Of course it would require looking into what boeing has in the pipeline as far as R and D is concerned and what engine gains they are promised by Ge by 2025. If after looking at all that information boeing decide to go in for the Y3 to EIS between 2023-2025 time frame then there is no need to spend much money on the 777. I dont expect much pricing pressure on the 777 family in the comming years , For all those seeking deliveries prior to 2017 , they have NO OTHER CHOICE...Given that airbus has 600 odd 359's and 358's and add to that 70 odd 35J's on back order , this date will most likely extend to 2020 for any realistic size 350-1000 deliveries given everything goes according to plan and no further delays ... So for everyone seeking deliveries between 2012 -2020 (that is minimum 500 orders (new) if not more) boeing can command a premium .. Beyond that we have to factor in that the 777 market is not infinite and should plateau out , and boieng cannot expect to deliver 100 per annum for more then a few years...

If on the other hand , Boeing feels that it has the tech. to compete (with a new airframe ) with the 350-1000 by 2023-2025 but needs more time to refine it in order to make the family more competitive against a potential 389 then they can well use the 77x as a stop gap or as a transition towards the y3 which would then be delayed by 3-5 years to 2026 and beyond... In either case , Boeing finds itself in an enviable position having all the market to itself with huge amount of demand predicted between now and 2020 for the 777 family...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 306):
Because engineers don't grow on trees. Money doesn't either for that matter.

And the Board looks at your past performance and is usually conservative after having been burnt once before...The 748 and 787 delays have surely left a scar...

[Edited 2011-11-25 08:27:11]
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:43 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 239):
The 777-300ER is fuel-volume limited at design range. I expect the A350-1000 is, as well.

Fuel volume limited is the definition of the quoted design range shown on charts and published. The number shown by both Airbus and Boeing is full tanks and MTOW. At that point, the airplane is taking payload restrictions, which means it is not at its cited capacity. For that reason, almost no airline ever operates an airplane at its quoted max range unless it is in a low density configuration.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 243):
Overall I can't see a revamped 777 to fare much better than a revamped A330 would have done. If the first A350 offerings are anything to go by such a revamped 777 would offer a sub-standard market share (by Boeings standards) and quite vocal customer critics.

I agree that a revamped 777 will face the same challenges that the proposed revamped A330 did. We'll see if Boeing can get by with a 777x, but Airbus' decision in the past showed that it is challenging.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 243):

Any of these listed scenarios (that woudl require either Boeing or Airbus to be incompetent) are unlikely. That means:
- The 787 will have the bulk of the A330 market
- The A350 will have the bulk of the 777 market

The A350 likely will get the bulk of the 777 current generation market. I think that's why the 777x is being discussed as Boeing is trying to figure out what to do. I don't think there are enough details yet on the 777x to say that the A350 would get the bulk of the market compared to it. When the A320 beat out the 737 classics, Boeing was able to revamp the 737 with a new wing and enhanced engine to get parity with the A320. It appears they are at least reviewing the possibility of doing it with the 777.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 255):
I agree. I think an A332NEO, if there ever is one, would be an excellent alternative to the 787-8 on shorter range missions.

Airbus tried that with their A330 Lite/re-engine and decided against it. I think a A330NEO or 767NEO would be a total waste of money.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 269):
The A350 is promising 20% over the 777-300ER.

Can you clarify that? I don't think numbers shown indicate A350 getting 20% CASM improvement over the most efficient 777 model. 20% CASM over what the airplane is replacing (A340) is more reasonable. 20% fuel burn is also reasonable since the A350 is smaller. However, I agree with Astuteman that the number 13% is more reasonable for apples to apples comparison.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 306):
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 303):
As for the 737 replacement, why can't the Y3 and the NSA be developed at the same time?

Because engineers don't grow on trees. Money doesn't either for that matter.

Boeing has a large number of engineers coming off the 787 and 747-8 programs. The Tanker, 737-MAX, 777x and 787-10 is too many programs at once in my mind, but I think the 737-MAX means that a 777x can happen if Boeing doesn't fall into major mission creep with that model. Boeing is wrapping up the design of the latest 737 derivative right now, so there is a large pool of 737 engineers.
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:10 pm

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

Conversely, the A350 has not and will not obsolete the 777. 777 is a bit larger than the A350, and plus the A350 was "initially" touted as Airbus' answer to the 787, plain and simple. Even now, the A350-1000 hasn't come close to the 777 in market penetration, and so far, the market is speaking with their cash and continue to but the 777.

Your second statement invalidates your claim. Your favortism towards Boeing is blinding your impartiality methinks. Sorry, but the 787 which has how many firm, non-cancelled, orders now at EIS. 815 /-? And this tells you that the 787 will wipe the A330 out, while the new A350 with 2+ years until EIS has 600+/- in firm and pending orders, and yet the A350 cannot compete, is a "lost cause", and the 777 will remain.



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
Boeing has a large number of engineers coming off the 787 and 747-8 programs. The Tanker, 737-MAX, 777x and 787-10 is too many programs at once in my mind, but I think the 737-MAX means that a 777x can happen if Boeing doesn't fall into major mission creep with that model. Boeing is wrapping up the design of the latest 737 derivative right now, so there is a large pool of 737 engineers.

The reason Boeing can't bring the 737MAX to market until 2017 is specifically for the lack of unencumbered engineering and development resources. The soonest Boeing has any capability to start even incrementally at designing / engineering a 777X or 777NG is mid-year 2017.

Additionally, one of the main reasons, if not the #1 overriding reason, Boeing has upped the production rate of the 777 line, is to bring in more cash, as the 787 will be burning substantial cashflow until 2014 / 2015. A number of analysts have cautioned that if Boeing cannot ramp up the 787 at their very aggressive rate, it will burn an additional $4 in cashflow until 2014 / 2015. Hence, why we are seeing why Boeing is interested in stepping up production so much on the 777 line, as well as the 737 line. It will be the end of the decade before Boeing has the resources and free cashflow to take on any Y3 type program.

[Edited 2011-11-25 12:11:11]
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:52 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
Can you clarify that? I don't think numbers shown indicate A350 getting 20% CASM improvement over the most efficient 777 model. 20% CASM over what the airplane is replacing (A340) is more reasonable. 20% fuel burn is also reasonable since the A350 is smaller. However, I agree with Astuteman that the number 13% is more reasonable for apples to apples comparison.

Here's what I get on a 6,300 nm mission:

------------------------------------A350J(350)---------------B77W(365)----------------B77W(388)
GSM(gallon seat mile) --------0.0125-----------------------0.0157 ----------------------0.0148
GTM(gallon ton mile)-----------0.0655-----------------------0.0849 ----------------------0.0865

GSM for A35J(350 seats) is about 20% lower than B77W(365 seats, 9-abreast), and about 15% lower than B77W(388 seats, 10-abreast). Assuming fuel at 40% of total cost, A35J is expected to have about 8% in operating cost advantage over B77W(365 seats), and about 6% over B77W(388 seats).

EK is a special case with 7-abreast in 77W and 10-abreast in Y. In EK's configuration, B77W should have a 45 seat advantage over A35J(7J and 38Y) over A35J. The extra cost of $25,000 (8,500 gallons more for 6,300nm mission) may be fully offset by additional passenger revenues of nearly $34,000 under the assumption of 70% load factor.

The above example suggests that for airlines like EK(and others with 7-abreast J and 10-abreast Y), B77W will continue to be competitive against A35J.
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:05 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 310):
The above example suggests that for airlines like EK(and others with 7-abreast J and 10-abreast Y), B77W will continue to be competitive against A35J.

If that would be true, Boeing would not study a B777-8X and 777-9X...
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:14 pm

Quoting 328JET (Reply 311):
Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 310):The above example suggests that for airlines like EK(and others with 7-abreast J and 10-abreast Y), B77W will continue to be competitive against A35J.
If that would be true, Boeing would not study a B777-8X and 777-9X...

777-9X would help get business from other airlines who may opt for 10Y but not 7J. I don't expect SQ(or CX) ordering B77W over A35J(post EIS) given their generous cabin configurations, but B777-9X may give Boeing a shot at getting some orders from the likes of SQ and CX.
 
81819
Posts: 2008
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 9:13 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:31 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 292):

Yes, fair enough, but you also find the ratios of first, business and economy seating differ greatly depending on size of aircraft. The numbers are hard to define.

I like using Boeing's published seat count data as the base metric. I find on the whole it is representative for economy and business (but representative of premium economy). As for business and first class I think Product offering far outweighs CASM, so there is really little value to be derived from focusing simply on seat count numbers..... And this where cost per sqm is probably the more important number.

The recent Emirates order and associated announcement for the 777 stated some aircraft will be used to replace A330's. This is suggesting there can be benefit from abusing a 777 on short haul missions......and the flexibility of a fleet type can have real benefits for the bottom line.

I think the 777 is going to be here for the longer term.
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:42 pm

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 310):
EK is a special case with 7-abreast in 77W and 10-abreast in Y. In EK's configuration, B77W should have a 45 seat advantage over A35J(7J and 38Y) over A35J. The extra cost of $25,000 (8,500 gallons more for 6,300nm mission) may be fully offset by additional passenger revenues of nearly $34,000 under the assumption of 70% load factor.

Looking up SeatGuru, I should amend the above example by giving EK 77Ws a 38 seat advantage(6J and 32Y). It reduces the additional revenue numbers by nearly $5,000 to nearly $29,000.

B777-9X, as defined in a recent FG article, should save 3,500 gallons of fuel over the current B77W on a 6,300nm mission. One can see why EK may end up ordering B777-9X(B77W size) over(or along with) A35J when both are available if it maintains the current configuration in its B77W.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 313):
I think the 777 is going to be here for the longer term.

777 and the likely 777-9X will still be a good choice for many airlines. The decision, to a major extent, will be driven by cabin configuration.

[Edited 2011-11-25 13:45:46]
 
qfa787380
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:49 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:43 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 271):
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.



Yes I know that and that is to be expected. But how much will Airbus be prepared to spend in the VLA market when all the volume will be in 320/330/350 sales? As long as they are content they have a better product than the 748I and can offer competitive pricing for sales in this smaller market, apart from natural incremental improvements, what more should they do/spend?
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 9:48 pm

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 309):
The reason Boeing can't bring the 737MAX to market until 2017 is specifically for the lack of unencumbered engineering and development resources. The soonest Boeing has any capability to start even incrementally at designing / engineering a 777X or 777NG is mid-year 2017.


Isn't that first of all a question of the engines being ready?
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:01 pm

Quoting abba (Reply 316):
Isn't that first of all a question of the engines being ready?

If the engines were ready today, that is the scenario. If engines won't be ready until 2020 or 2025, well then it's pretty obvious, that a 777NG or 777X wouldn't be ready until such time.

It just flummoxes me why some people think that Boeing's engineering and development staff are "freed up" now because the first 787 and 748 has been delivered. There's still a long way to go, especially on the 787 program. Not to mention the tanker, and then the 737Max, which won't begin in earnest until late 2013 / early 2014.
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

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

Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:10 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 232):
Boeing will offer a new aircraft when the market wants it.
Quoting qfa787380 (Reply 315):
when all the volume will be in 320/330/350 sales?

All the volume? I think I found the problem.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:12 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 293):
It's been argued here that this won't appeal to as many airlines as the A35J, and perhaps that's true.

Well, just how many airlines it will appeal to - and in what quantities - is quite important in deciding to do the X or a clean sheet.

-Dave
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:20 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 319):
Well, just how many airlines it will appeal to - and in what quantities - is quite important in deciding to do the X or a clean sheet.

Agreed! Not only that, but so many of the pro-Boeing people on this site seem to think cramming ever more seats into a limited space is the panacea for Boeing. I find that reasoning highly suspect. The EK high density seating on a 773ER is already 427. How many more seats are they really going to smash into the 777? 457 seats? At what point does a 777X become a VLA with very limited appeal? Cramming another 35 economy seats into a 777 doesn't seem like a good business case to me.

As a regular J class traveler myself on SQ, I wouldn't step foot near the pathetic, nonsense, that is EK. I love that Timmy Clark pisses his pants that his airline isn't a 5 star airline in SkyTrax because he's "forced" to deal with his old aircraft, rather than realize that NO 5 STAR AIRLINE HAS 10 ABREAST IN ECONOMY IN A 777 CONFIGURATION. Timmy, is insane, stupid, or a liar, take your pick. Sorry, but EK has not been, nor is, nor ever will be, in its current biz environement a 5 star airline. Nope..... EK is a piss poor, 4 star airliner at best.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:57 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 307):
Of course it would require looking into what boeing has in the pipeline as far as R and D

Likely what they're doing now but a little bit better. There is no step change around the corner.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 307):
what engine gains they are promised by Ge by 2025.

They're developing the GE9x, it's just a matter of what airframe it goes on.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
We'll see if Boeing can get by with a 777x, but Airbus' decision in the past showed that it is challenging.

They could get by, since the A350 won't offer as many seats nor will it offer a freighter. But it would definitely be "getting by" and not being a market leader.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
Can you clarify that? I don't think numbers shown indicate A350 getting 20% CASM improvement over the most efficient 777 model. 20% CASM over what the airplane is replacing (A340) is more reasonable.

I think I made a mistake and quoted the fuel burn numbers.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
When the A320 beat out the 737 classics, Boeing was able to revamp the 737 with a new wing and enhanced engine to get parity with the A320.

There were no major technology jumps though. Unless Boeing finds a way to make the 777 out of composites, they likely will have a very difficult time getting close to the A350, especially if they don't want to add seats. The A350 would most likely retain the bulk of the market, and whether it competes with the current 777 or a 777X may not even make that much of a difference.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
The Tanker, 737-MAX, 777x and 787-10 is too many programs at once in my mind,

I don't see the 787-10 as being a hugely important program for Boeing. It would be more of a luxury more than a necessity in the product lineup, since they'll sell plenty of 787-9s anyway. I think that Boeing will get more sales doing the Y3 instead of the 777X than they would by adding the 787-10.

And maybe the 787-10X could be pushed back for a 2018 or so launch to enter service around 2022.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 320):
The EK high density seating on a 773ER is already 427. How many more seats are they really going to smash into the 777? 457 seats?

Likely none, unless there's a stretch. The 777X would make ten across in coach the rule not the exception.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 320):
rather than realize that NO 5 STAR AIRLINE HAS 10 ABREAST IN ECONOMY IN A 777 CONFIGURATION.

Which could change if Boeing can find a little more room here and there.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:28 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 308):
When the A320 beat out the 737 classics, Boeing was able to revamp the 737 with a new wing and enhanced engine to get parity with the A320.

There were no major technology jumps though.

I disagree. The technology and engineering complications of fly-by-wire are a far bigger technology jump than composite fuselage panels in my opinion. Boeing was able to get around the handicap of mechanical driven controls with the 737 and still be able to have a lighter plane seating more passengers in the 737-800 vs A320.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
The A350 would most likely retain the bulk of the market, and whether it competes with the current 777 or a 777X may not even make that much of a difference.

That's another point I disagree on. What market are you referring to? If you are talking about the widebody twin engine market, I forsee relatively equal market share between A and B. Airbus is stretching one model to cover it all while Boeing offers the smaller 787 and may offer a revamped larger 777x. Together, I'd expect close to 50-50 market share with Boeing probably having a bit more than half the market since you can add freighters to the lineup and since the small and large extremes are not covered by the A350.

If you are talking about the A330-300/777-200ER market only, then that is where I see the A350 excelling as their -900 model will be highly successful. The -1000 will get some sales, but won't be the leader of its family. It may push Boeing to increase the capacity and wingsize of the 777 to compete on CASM, but I don't think that is a bad thing for Boeing as it moves the 777 away from the 787.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:51 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 322):
The technology and engineering complications of fly-by-wire are a far bigger technology jump than composite fuselage panels in my opinion.

More complications, but not really more implications. Fly-by-wire isn't going to produce the major fuel burn reductions that things like composites and more advanced engines will.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 322):
What market are you referring to?

The market above the 777-200 size and below the A380 size. The 787 and A350-800/-900 will likely see approximate parity. It's the segment above where the 777-300ER and A350-1000 would be competing where Airbus will likely win the bulk of the sales against various guises of 777. An all new plane from Boeing could shift that significantly though.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:27 am

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 301):
a)Which of these do you do?

Rewing, GE9X, full systems overhaul, structural updates. Whatever it takes to make the 777 compete with the A350.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 305):
Not that it cannot , However one would imagine that the Boeing Board having been burned on one brand new program (dream liner) and one upgrade (748) would be a bit reluctant to launch 2 brand new programs at the same time
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 306):
Because engineers don't grow on trees. Money doesn't either for that matter.

Point taken.

But does this not imply, then, that the 737MAX is a short term solution? With the planned EIS of the 737MAX later this decade, they probably won't be introducing a replacement until late next decade. So why would the replacement for the 737MAX need to be considered so soon?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 306):
Why take the risk? Just jump and do the Y3 to avoid another potential embarrassment like the 747-8I.

Because I'm not convinced that this is a lost cause. I'm not convinced that the only way for Boeing to take on the A350 is to come up with an all new plane. Yes, it will probably need major revisions. But like the 737NG, Boeing can come up with a significantly upgraded 777 to compete with an all new clean sheet design, depending on how far they go with upgrades. (And before you say there was no major technological paradigm shift in that era, I agree with RoseFlyer that having fly-by-wire on the A320 was one) The 777X program will also undoubtedly cost less than the Y3.

Quoting bringiton (Reply 307):
If on the other hand , Boeing feels that it has the tech. to compete (with a new airframe ) with the 350-1000 by 2023-2025 but needs more time to refine it in order to make the family more competitive against a potential 389 then they can well use the 77x as a stop gap or as a transition towards the y3 which would then be delayed by 3-5 years to 2026 and beyond...

I think this is more likely to happen. If they can get the 777X into the market by the end of this decade, they have practically all of next decade to consider the options and come up with the Y3 towards the end of the 2020s, or even into 2030. I think that having the technology to build a Y3 that leap-frogs the A350 and the A380 is vital. Spending billions on a Y3 only to achieve parity doesn't make sense when an upgrade can do the job.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 319):
Well, just how many airlines it will appeal to - and in what quantities - is quite important in deciding to do the X or a clean sheet.

I don't know. I'm not Boeing, and it's not my job to do market research. I'm merely speculating, as are the people who are speculating that the 777X will have no chance. Nobody knows what Boeing has up its sleeve.

If my speculated version of the 777X comes to fruition - same size and seat count as the current 77W, but lighter and a small enough SFC deficit that can be overcome by the 777's inherent ability to lift extra revenue cargo, I don't see why it wouldn't be attractive for airlines whose cargo business is a major contributor to their gross income.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 320):
so many of the pro-Boeing people on this site seem to think cramming ever more seats into a limited space is the panacea for Boeing. I find that reasoning highly suspect. The EK high density seating on a 773ER is already 427. How many more seats are they really going to smash into the 777? 457 seats? At what point does a 777X become a VLA with very limited appeal? Cramming another 35 economy seats into a 777 doesn't seem like a good business case to me.

Seat count is all up to the airlines. ANA has 215 seats in their 77Ws. EK, as you mentioned, has 427 in their high density configuration, which is nearly double. Boeing offers the planes, the airline decides on the configuration. If an airline crams its seats into a plane, then it's the airline's fault, not Boeing. What would you like them to do? Certify the plane for only 300 seats?  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:32 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
They could get by, since the A350 won't offer as many seats nor will it offer a freighter.

Airbus is at least planning a freighter version of the A350-900, but it might be a bit before it does launch as the 777 Freighter is proving to be a popular model (as freighters go).
 
Cerecl
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:02 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 292):
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.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I think to achieve similar per seat cost one needs to compare EK's A380 to its 427-seat 77W.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:03 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
Rewing, GE9X, full systems overhaul, structural updates.

At some point it becomes an all new plane. Boeing will have time, they'll have money, and they'll have resources.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
Whatever it takes to make the 777 compete with the A350.

That likely means more seats. Boeing cannot just take the measurements for each part and tell subcontractors to start making them out of composites.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
So why would the replacement for the 737MAX need to be considered so soon?

If Boeing screws up.

But the issue is that they pushed the NSA back to the late 2020s, and if they do the 777X the Y3 will be pushed back to the late 2020s as well. It means that Boeing could have to make some tough decisions. And Boeing has essentially no major development programs planned after 2017, a time when the 787 and 737 line should be churning our planes and the 777 line will be moving nicely as well. Boeing will be building a war chest with nothing to spend it on, and they'll want to avoid a loss of talent like they saw after the 777.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
(And before you say there was no major technological paradigm shift in that era, I agree with RoseFlyer that having fly-by-wire on the A320 was one)

The weight savings from FBW are not that large compared to those from composite construction. It was a significant change, but for Boeing to compete with a composite aircraft it really will take a composite aircraft unless they add seats.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
Spending billions on a Y3 only to achieve parity doesn't make sense when an upgrade can do the job.

The Y3 will be able to do better than parity. They'll have another 5-10 years of technology and newer engines. The 77W and A350-1000 sit right on the border between 9 and 10 wide seating, but a Y3 will kill an A350-1100 in terms of efficiency. And an upgrade will never achieve market parity with the A350-1000. Maybe steal 30-40% of the market based on airlines that really need the extra seats and payload.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
If my speculated version of the 777X comes to fruition - same size and seat count as the current 77W, but lighter and a small enough SFC deficit that can be overcome by the 777's inherent ability to lift extra revenue cargo, I don't see why it wouldn't be attractive for airlines whose cargo business is a major contributor to their gross income

The weight and SFC can only go down so much before you have an all new plane. To get the seat costs close to the A350 they will need to add seats.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 325):
Airbus is at least planning a freighter version of the A350-900, but it might be a bit before it does launch as the 777 Freighter is proving to be a popular model (as freighters go).

And it will be a bit smaller and likely harder to get production slots.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 630
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:07 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
But does this not imply, then, that the 737MAX is a short term solution? With the planned EIS of the 737MAX later this decade, they probably won't be introducing a replacement until late next decade. So why would the replacement for the 737MAX need to be considered so soon?

737MAX and A32xneo are both short term solutions. Airbus repeatedly mentioned that it planned to introduce a "true" successor of A32x family at around the middle of next decade. Boeing needs to think about Y1 fairly soon after 737MAX EIS, and this assumes there is no major hiccup with 737MAX program.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:10 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 323):
More complications, but not really more implications. Fly-by-wire isn't going to produce the major fuel burn reductions that things like composites and more advanced engines will.

I know this isn't the place to make the point, but fly by wire has huge aerodynamic, maintenance and weight implications. Maintenance is a big relieve as rigging and maintaining all the cable is not required. Weight goes down since there aren't all the brackets, cables, pulleys, etc going through the fuselage. Weight also goes down because active control surfaces and load alleviation can cut structural stiffness and weight down. Aerodynamic improvements like drooped ailerons and spoilers, variable camber wing, pitch augmentation, roll augmentation, etc all help to improve aero performance, reduce weight and reduce fuel consumption. Fly-by-wire was a huge change and my point is that I wouldn't underestimate the engineering capabilities of Boeing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 323):
The market above the 777-200 size and below the A380 size. The 787 and A350-800/-900 will likely see approximate parity. It's the segment above where the 777-300ER and A350-1000 would be competing where Airbus will likely win the bulk of the sales against various guises of 777. An all new plane from Boeing could shift that significantly though.

Engines, weight and aero are where fuel savings happens. The 777 can get all of these with a new wing and engines. The 777 already extensively uses composites, but not for primary structure. It's one of the limitations of the design, but I don't think that is enough to claim that only a clean sheet design will compete against the A350-1000. The -1000 is not optimized against the 777 as well as the 787 was against the A330 (Boeing went after the A330-200 and -300 almost exactly with the 787-8/9 vs the A350 platform being stretched further to cover the 787 and 777). The drawback of aluminum primary structure can likely be overcome partially on price. Going to a design utilizing composite structure is so high that the cost savings from the weight savings might not be enough to overcome the higher purchasing price that would be required to pay the design and manufacturing costs.

Doing a lower cost upgrade to the 777 to position it above the 787 is the goal of the program. Keeping margins high enough to continue earning a profit is the goal. Market share is a tertiary goal, but having both the 777 and 787 widebody twins vs the A350 is a pretty strong line up and I expect to see pretty even comparisons between Boeing and Airbus. The two are relatively close to 50-50 market share now, and I don't think it is going swing wildly. There's always the chance that a 777x would turn out to be a failure like the A340-500/600 were, but I think there are enough challenges with the A350-1000 pushing the airframe, wing and engines to leave enough room in the market for a revamped 777. Airbus tried to revamp an airplane that never was that great in the A340 where Boeing is starting with the 777 which is a great baseline that already killed off two of its competitors (MD11 and A340). There's opportunity, so I don't think the A350-1000 will completely dominate it. The A350-1000 I hope will gain more sales than it has so far once Airbus gets closer to firm configuration.

I think Airbus has the advantage vs the 777x as they are starting with a newer platform, but with neither airplane at firm configuration it is hard to know what will happen as both models have some drawbacks. I don't think it is safe to say that Airbus will get the bulk of the sales comparing just the -1000 and 777x with the information known.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:07 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 329):
I think Airbus has the advantage vs the 777x as they are starting with a newer platform, but with neither airplane at firm configuration it is hard to know what will happen as both models have some drawbacks. I don't think it is safe to say that Airbus will get the bulk of the sales comparing just the -1000 and 777x with the information known.

Boeing is making a killing with the 7773ER , and would deliver a huge number between now and the time the 350-1000 EIS around 2017 (w/o any further delay). I am not sure that between 2020 and 2025 , given the huge demand for this type of aircraft between 2012-2020 (for deliveries around that time frame) that we will see the surge continue..I predict that the demand for the A-350-900 will keep its pace post XWB EIS , and the 350-1000 will keep on selling and playing second fiddle to the -900. Boeing may wish to delay the Y3 to make it more competitive against the 389, and in the meantime may launch the 777x for airlines like EK , QF , QR and others that will keep it busy for a few more years and will keep the demand in the niche market for an aircraft catered to 4-5 customers (with moderate upgrades) .. Personally i dont see this surge in the demand for 773ER category continue for over a decade... The A350-1000 would have done extremely well had it been 3-4 years early (EIS) , but i think even though it promises to be a great flying aircraft it would play second fiddle to the -900 which meets a demand (replacement cycle) much better while the -1000 will see a spurt in and around the 2025 time frame.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:26 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 329):
The A350-1000 I hope will gain more sales than it has so far once Airbus gets closer to firm configuration.

It will, Zeke has repeatedly stated that CX and thereby many other customers of the 350-900 has freedom to change 350-900 orders and options to 350-1000. So why tie your airline to 350-1000 up front, you are more flexible and pay a lower deposit if you order the 350-900 and later convert the numbers you need to -1000 when you firm up the delivery spec.

So when we list the division between the variants and crow about the low -1000 numbers we are refusing to see the reality:

Airbus has 567 orders for the A350 period. Variant spread? It will pan out at delivery and is anyone's guess. A very good situation for the Airliners and a good sales argument for the A350 range, gives the customers plenty of capacity flexibility.

B does not have quite the same possibility as the 787-10 (mid-range) and 77W/77X (different slot allocation system) are not complimentary frames to 788 and 789.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:35 am

Quoting ferpe (Reply 331):
It will pan out at delivery and is anyone's guess. A very good situation for the Airliners and a good sales argument for the A350 range, gives the customers plenty of capacity flexibility.

Although some exceptions might well exist , i do not see any significant exodus from the -900 to the 1000 variant given the -900 offers great capability and is more "in time" for the replacement cycle for the airlines..The -1000 will sell , but later on once it is in service and start to think about replacing their earlier built 7773 and ER's.

[Edited 2011-11-25 23:37:02]
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20091
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:36 am

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 320):
EK is a piss poor, 4 star airliner at best.

No, they're a very well run, highly profitable 4-star airline. There's a significant difference.   

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 321):
They could get by, since the A350 won't offer as many seats nor will it offer a freighter.

Airbus has always had a freighter version of the A350 on the table. The A350 was conceived as a 5-member family: -800, -900, -1000, -900R & -900F. I have some doubts about the value of the R, but I have no doubt the F will eventually appear. It may be a while yet, but I do expect to see it.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:39 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 333):
No, they're a very well run, highly profitable 4-star airline. There's a significant difference.

Any airliner that holds 41% of the A380 backlog, 12 odd % of the 350 backlog and 24% of the 777 backlog can definitely not be poor  
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:58 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
I don't know. I'm not Boeing, and it's not my job to do market research. I'm merely speculating, as are the people who are speculating that the 777X will have no chance. Nobody knows what Boeing has up its sleeve.

I wasn't asking you to provide an answer, as it wasn't a question. What I was replying to was you stating that it was uncertain what demand there might be for a theoretical 777X. I was just saying that where Boeing sees that demand going will play into their decision. It might be that, as good as the 777X turns out to be, airlines tell Boeing they simply want something better than Boeing can deliver without going clean-sheet - at least in significant enough quantities to allow Boeing to avoid "Y3" for a while.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
If my speculated version of the 777X comes to fruition - same size and seat count as the current 77W, but lighter and a small enough SFC deficit that can be overcome by the 777's inherent ability to lift extra revenue cargo, I don't see why it wouldn't be attractive for airlines whose cargo business is a major contributor to their gross income.

It very well might be. But - rhetorically speaking - how many aircraft will that be? If you take all the possible aircraft that that niche might include, and then allow for some split between the 777X and the A350 family, you might find that the true final number of "likely" 777X orders is simply not that impressive.

That's what I'm thinking is a likely outcome. To me, an EK with 100-ish A380's on order may be willing to take some 777X's, but now you are getting closer to the A380's territory. Does EK want an A380 Junior? I don't know, but I would think that the closer in size that it gets to the A380 - an efficiency king - the fewer X's that EK will need.

Perhaps CX would go A389/77X/359. Ok, that's 20-30 777X's. Realistically, just imagining what the demand might ultimately be like, I could see 200-300 777X's. If remotely accurate, is that enough to justify the program? Maybe. But that certainly won't be anything close to parity with the A350.

-Dave
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:08 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 335):
Realistically, just imagining what the demand might ultimately be like, I could see 200-300 777X's. If remotely accurate, is that enough to justify the program? Maybe. But that certainly won't be anything close to parity with the A350.

Depends for how long boeing wants to keep on selling the 777x , A modest 2-3 billion or so upgrade , then they will be happy to sell 200-300 777x variants between say 2019 and 2025 , it would bring them down to around a 60-70 aircraft per annum production rate (given pending orders that they will secure between now and 2017) ... I think if boeing can deliver 60-70 777's for a sustained period post 2020 , then it would be a satisfactory achievement until they wait for the tech. to mature for the y3. I agree with the notion that the more you try to compete with the CASM of the -350 , the more niche you become , but a market for 200-300 new 777's between 2020-2025 is worth it in my opinion given they go for a modest upgrade and not the full Monty.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:16 am

Quoting bringiton (Reply 334):
Quoting scbriml (Reply 333):
No, they're a very well run, highly profitable 4-star airline. There's a significant difference.

Any airliner that holds 41% of the A380 backlog, 12 odd % of the 350 backlog and 24% of the 777 backlog can definitely not be poor

But to me EK is more well run Ryanair than anything else. The fact that they have the reputation to be this high class airline when they are flying long haul 7-abreast J is impressive.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20091
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:42 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 337):
The fact that they have the reputation to be this high class airline when they are flying long haul 7-abreast J is impressive.

BA manages 8 across in J and most consider that product to be "high class".
 
MoltenRock
Posts: 1030
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:35 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:44 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 338):
BA manages 8 across in J and most consider that product to be "high class".
BA's J class is far superior, as in their 8 across 1/2 face forward, 1/2 face rearwards, so there is no seat you must step over to get out to the bathroom. Additionally, BA's J has 73" or more of pitch, with EK has 46" (+/-).

That said BA is still a 4 star airline, not a 5 star either.

[Edited 2011-11-26 05:49:29]
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:51 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 335):
Perhaps CX would go A389/77X/359. Ok, that's 20-30 777X's. Realistically, just imagining what the demand might ultimately be like, I could see 200-300 777X's. If remotely accurate, is that enough to justify the program? Maybe. But that certainly won't be anything close to parity with the A350.

   That is exactly how I see it as well. A lot of maybe's on the B777-X, and in the end no real parity with the A35J, and at what cost. A real Y3 is much more likely then spending at 4-6, maybe 8 Billion in trying to get close to the A35J. At least, that is what I would do if I were Boeing.  .

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 326):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 292):
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.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I think to achieve similar per seat cost one needs to compare EK's A380 to its 427-seat 77W.

I disagree. Per seat a passenger in SQ's configuration has almost an identical number of m2 or sq/ft to his or hers disposal. In EK's variant I believe these number differ. That is why the SQ case is so fitting as they both operate the A380 and the B77W in their fleet and know them both very well.
 
flipdewaf
Posts: 4170
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:28 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:14 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 324):
Rewing, GE9X, full systems overhaul, structural updates.

So you think a ~$10bn upgrade to achieve parity?

Fred
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26580
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:08 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 269):
If you wait until there is pressure on sales, you're too late.

Yet historically that's exactly what Boeing has done. 737NG didn't happen till after UA defected to A320. 777 didn't happen till customers said 767 (in particular -400) wasn't enough and till after MD11 and A340 were producing said pressure. 787 didn't happen till 767 got crushed by the A330. Boeing didn't snap out of their prolonged indecision and launch 737MAX till AA signed a MOU for A320NEO.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 297):
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.

Which to means Boeing will wait till orders drop to near-nil before launching something new. I'd be glad to be proven wrong, but history is on my side.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 300):
There will be more technology there to make the Y3 better than the A350. The Y3 would see another 5 years or so of development, and materials technology scales up better anyway. Furthermore, what wonderful technology is waiting just around the corner for the Y3 to exploit?

I'm glad you are so optimistic, but 787 and now A350 delays show this wonderful technology has its risks.

Quoting MoltenRock (Reply 309):

The reason Boeing can't bring the 737MAX to market until 2017 is specifically for the lack of unencumbered engineering and development resources.

If you mean resources at SNECMA, then I agree. Otherwise I do not. The long pole in the tent is the engines.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 327):
Boeing will be building a war chest with nothing to spend it on, and they'll want to avoid a loss of talent like they saw after the 777.

IMHO the Boeing BOD will make sure any stagnant cash ends up in the hands of the investors, after they grant the executives and themselves a big slice of it first.

As for now, Boeing is publically admitting they are digging themselves out of the hole that the 787 has created and continues to create. The wonderful all-new high-tech planes still cost far more to make then they were sold for. Remember what I said about risk above?
 
328JET
Posts: 348
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:16 pm

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:57 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 342):
The long pole in the tent is the engines

No. it is the airplane.

It forces CFM to develope an engine-version with smaller than optimum fan diameter.
The original engine itself would be available two years earlier.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:43 pm

It's not just EK with 10 abreast in their 777's...AF/KLM, United and Air New Zealand are other airlines that can be added to the list.

Regardless of the seating preferences of some, these airlines aren't having much trouble filling those seats.

Like it or not, 10 abreast seating is a viable business option and it's here to stay. It's one example of why floor area doesn't manage to tell the whole story when it comes to the usefulness of that space.
 
LAXDESI
Posts: 2775
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 8:13 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:49 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 344):
Like it or not, 10 abreast seating is a viable business option and it's here to stay. It's one example of why floor area doesn't manage to tell the whole story when it comes to the usefulness of that space.

I fully agree. I expect the 777-9X(as defined in FG article) in EK configuration(7J, 10Y) to have higher net operating revenue than A35J(6J,9Y) for most mission lengths.

A35J should have higher net operating revenue with 777-9X restricted to 6J and 9Y configuration.
 
trex8
Posts: 5694
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:08 pm

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 344):
It's not just EK with 10 abreast in their 777's...AF/KLM, United and Air New Zealand are other airlines that can be added to the list.

United has 10 abreast 777s???
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:50 pm

Quoting trex8 (Reply 346):

Good catch...their odd 2-5-2 arrangement messed with my mind.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

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

Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:14 am

That odd 2-5-2 is how most 777s were originally delivered and matched up well with the DC-10s they had.

Personally, I think 3-3-3 is horrifying.

NS
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

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

Sun Nov 27, 2011 2:39 am

Quoting gigneil (Reply 348):

Never tried it but it seems like a good idea to me. From what I understand, United is going away from that layout.
  • 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