|Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13):|
The point of a derivative would be to develop something to hit the market quickly, but if they're pushed back to the early 2020s anyway, what's the point?
That's just part of it. The other point of doing derivatives is to develop something cost effectively (I wouldn't say cheaply because no commercial airliner program is ever cheap). A derivative would cost less than doing a new build, and there's a possibility that the derivative could yield a better return on investment if it can gain a big enough slice of the market - which I believe it can.
|Quoting zeke (Reply 15):|
Why would any airline buy a 777-300ER to cover a short term stop gap with an A350 delay ?
For the same reason as airlines that bought A330s in light of 787 delays.
|Quoting Atlflyer (Reply 17):|
Boeing really needs to just come up with a true 777 replacement for EIS in mid-2020s.
Why? The current 777 is still an extremely efficient aircraft. An update in the form of the 777X as is currently being proposed by Boeing is going to strengthen its prospects further into the future. I don't think Boeing really needs an all new 777-sized aircraft until around early to mid 2030s, because the upgraded 777X will be good enough to hold the fort until then.
|Quoting na (Reply 22):|
You think that a date set by Boeing 8 (!) years before is remotely exact? Where have you been the last ten years? You´re hopelessly optimistic if you think there wont be at least two years more delay. If it will ever be built, and I see chances are getting lesser, then we´ll see a service entry not before 2022. Bet on it. But, as others said before, a complete replacement of the 777 has just become more likely.
I'm under no illusions that there could
be further delays to the program, but until it has been publicly announced by Boeing, stating a 2022/23 EIS as though it is fact is quite preposterous. Likewise, Boeing has come out and publicly stated that they remain "absolutely committed" to the 777X. It's not a matter of whether it'll come, but when, and what form it'll take.
And incidentally, in the last 10 years, neither the 777-300ER, nor the 777-200LR, nor the 777F arrived substantially late, and the 777-300ER exceeded
its design targets.
|Quoting cosmofly (Reply 23):|
An all CFRP, body included, 80m long 777-9X, with some galley and toilets in the cargo area, could arguably take the EK 3 class configuration to 450 pax level. A twin of this size can put a lot of pressure on the 4 holer A388, leaving only the A389 with no equals. Such 777-9X will still have a lot of cargo capacity. Another good thing is that GE90-115B thrust level may be good enough so new engine risk is much mitigated.
If Boeing designs an all CFRP body, then it'd be an all new plane. It wouldn't be a derivative any longer. Besides, I have serious doubts that the 777 body can be stretched that far, and even if it could, it would cause ground manoeuvring issues. I believe that Boeing chose only a 2.7m stretch for a reason.
|Quoting EPA001 (Reply 34):|
I am not so sure that is the case. I see Boeing hesitating and trailing now
I don't agree. Boeing are in no hurry to release the 777X - not because they're hesitating, but because they're waiting for Airbus to show its cards first. It has always been maintained that until the A350-1000's design is frozen, there will be no 777X. When Airbus firms up its plans for the A350-1000, I think you'll find that Boeing will launch a response within six months.
|Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 38):|
Depending upon how good the 351 ends up, Boeing can make more evidence based decisions, on where to take the 777, and possibly save billions of dollars in the process.
I hadn't thought of it as a cost saving measure, but more of a design target measure, but you're quite right. If Boeing knows exactly what the A350-1000 is going to be like, they can produce a more cost effective design rather than having a "stab in the dark".
|Quoting boilerla (Reply 40):|
With the 77W still selling very well, I don't think Boeing is in any hurry to offer up its replacement. Considering it'll have deliveries well into 2017 with the current order book, that alone keeps the line going assuming no new orders.
There's still time. I fail to see why Boeing should rush into the 777X program when the 77W is still the best in its class.
|Quoting StickShaker (Reply 42):|
How about a 777X lite (or 77W upgrade).
Existing metal wing with enhancements, interior widening - 10 abreast, new engines, no stretch---------($2 billion (or less), 400 units)
I'm not sure about the case for a new metal wing other than the ability to use existing manufacturing processes. There is also the issue of convincing GE to produce a new engine for what may be a lower production run. The advantage would be much less risk and much faster time frame from launch to EIS.
Part of the reason why the 777X can use lower thrust engines is the entirely new wing with a larger wing area, which also generates more lift. If the same wing has to be kept, then I can't see Boeing going with 100,000lbs engines, thus negating the fuel savings of having reduced thrust.
I don't think keeing the same wings will work.
|Quoting morrisond (Reply 47):|
I think it is new build and one of the main drivers for that will be manufacturing cost. The 777 is very labor intensive compared to what I think will be achievable in the early 2020's
Do you have evidence to back up that claim?
There have been numerous changes to the 777 FAL with regards to increasing manufacturing efficiency, such that the 777 can now be built at a rate of 8.3 units per month. Like other manufacturers and other aircraft type, the 777 manufacturing processes will continue to be revised and adapted to improve production efficiency. I don't see why a 777 built in the 2020s is going to be any more costly to build than any other aircraft of a comparable size using comparable manufacturing technologies.