Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:26 am

With the impact that the Beoing 777 has had in the commercial avaition commuity, I wonder, how would the avaition world be different today if Beoing did not build the 777? Would the 747-8 or A345/6 been a larger sucess, would MDC had survied and built the MD-XXX, would Fex Fx had waited for the A380F?
 
29erUSA187
Posts: 1277
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:34 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:30 am

I think that we would have LOTS more quad jets, and Boeing would be far behind Airbus in current market. MD was already in trouble, and I think they would have been bought out anyway. FX, thats an interesting one. Maybe. They may have gone 744/8F because the A380 is just so huge.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22230
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:00 am

The 777 market was also covered by the MD-11 and the A340. The A330 was never really envisioned at first for more than medium-haul routes, but much to Airbus's delight it has matured into a formiddable medium-to-long haul aircraft.

Probably the MD-11 would have been fixed so that it could offer adequate performance and the A340 would have sold a lot more models. Boeing would have fared much less well, relying mostly on the 767 and 737 for revenue until the advent of the 787 (which would be called the 777).
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:08 am

The A340-600 would have been a massive success, killing the 747-400 for most operations. It would be in service with most large airlines world-wide.

The 787 would have become a larger design, similar to today's A350.

Altogether, it would have delayed the triumph of the twin for a decade or so. Aviation would be less efficient and costlier, a number of routes wouldn't be served, but it'd be a little more exciting in terms of plane models and variety.  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:47 am

The A340 and MD-11 families would have been much more successful.

The A340-600 especially would have probably been a 1000-frame platform.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2504
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:49 am

In the short term, many more A340s and a few more MD-11s would have sold, but after that it's impossible to say. A duopoly is like a chess game, so any speculation past 2000 would be a fool's errand.
 
TrijetsRMissed
Posts: 1983
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 12:15 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:36 am

If Boeing had never built the 777, we would not have seen an A/B duopoly materialize under the same circumstances. Without the 777, Boeing's leverage would have been far less, and the acquisition price for McDonnell Douglas far more. A production run of 100+ more MD-11s would have kept MDC's leaders from calling it a day and cashing in, IMO. And a strategy to continue operations would have held.

Subsequently, the MD-90 & MD-95 programs would have received more funding; taking sales away from the 737NG and A32X families.
Of course, Airbus would have done better with the A340 programs, perhaps allowing for less subsidies to cover the write-off, if not a net profit.

I think it's possible Boeing would have moved forward with the 747-500/600X. The 764 and 753 may have sold better as well, had they arrived to market earlier with the additional resources allocated.

Quoting 29erUSA187 (Reply 1):
MD was already in trouble, and I think they would have been bought out anyway.

Not quite. DAC had a record EFO the year the 777 program was launched.


Quoting LH707330 (Reply 5):
In the short term, many more A340s and a few more MD-11s would have sold,

The MD-11 peaked at 344 orders as of early 1990. ONLY 20 of the cancellations went directly to the A340... Without the 777, it's safe to say MD would have sold more than a few.
 
User avatar
shengzhurou
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:07 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:16 am

A330 and A340 would sold like a hot cake. MD11 could have more orders. the DC10 and the 747 classic might operate stay over a few more years.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22230
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:37 am

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
The 764 and 753 may have sold better as well, had they arrived to market earlier with the additional resources allocated.

And that's where this starts to become ridiculous.

The 777 was almost an inevitability. Clearly, there was a market for an aircraft in that size range with those capabilities (meaning a 300-350 seat aircraft with 14+ hour endurance). There is no way that Boeing could have avoided coming up with a competitor to the A340 and MD-11. The question was what form it would take. At the time, the A330's engines were the biggest engines ever designed, and existing engine technology demanded that the 777 would have to be either a trijet or a quad.

But Boeing asked the engine manufacturers to go even bigger and pushed the idea of a giant twin. That was the fateful decision that turned the 777 into the roaring success that it was. By offering performance comparable to the A340 and MD-11 while using only two engines, the 777 completely destroyed the competition.

Had the 777 been a trijet or a quad, it would have been an also-ran that split the contest three ways among the three major manufacturers. In many ways, that would have been a good thing for us as enthusiasts because it would have left McD in business to keep competing with Airbus and Boeing.
 
Beatyair
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:48 am

Someone would have come up with the DC-10/MD-11 replacement sometime. The 747's were getting bigger and the 767 was a bit to small. Airlines saw the advantage of the two engine 767 over the four engine 747 for fuel economy and maintenance and they needed that passenger sweet spot filled .
 
NAV30
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:16 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:24 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
That was the fateful decision that turned the 777 into the roaring success that it was.

I think that the 787 also contributed to the situation, DocLightning. Essentially, Airbus had no choice but to pitch the A350 range more or less midway between the B787 and the B777 - effectively competing with up to six twin-engine types with only three of their own (now, on present indications, with the A358 apparently being discontinued, only two). That left them depending on the A380 continuing to fill the 'jumbo' spot - and that strategy now seems likely to be 'outflanked' by the 'B777X' range of '400-plus bigger twins'?

I suspect that Airbus will be planning to develop a true 'large twin' of their own as soon as ever possible - it's unlikely that a 'double-stretched' A350 will be competitive in that field?

[Edited 2014-12-09 21:27:09]
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22230
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:41 am

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 10):
I think that the 787 also contributed to the situation, DocLightning.

Back when they decided to make the 777 a twin, the 787 wasn't so much as a glimmer in anyone's eye.

Quoting NAV30 (Reply 10):
Essentially, Airbus had no choice but to pitch the A350 range more or less midway between the B787 and the B777

You mean the A350 size? Airbus had to slot it into its own product family. If they sized it too small, it would kill the A330. If they sized it too big, it would have too many operational limitations and would also start to encroach on A380 territory.

But also, the A350 was meant to be a 777 replacement.

A natural tendency in any given platform is that at the beginning of a given platform, the smallest models are most optimized. As the platform matures and gains more capability, larger and larger variants become more optimized and the smaller variants become overbuilt for current technology.

This is why the 777-200ER is now replaced by the A330, while the 777-300ER has sold well. The 777-200 frame (now called the 77L) is now overbuilt to fly the majority of routes it needs to fly. Meanwhile, had you told Airbus back in 1993 that the A330 would be able to fly TXL-SFO or SFO-NRT nonstop one day, they would have laughed you off the property. This is similarly why the 738 and 739 are now selling well to the detriment of the 73G. This is how the A350 can do what the 777 can do with less thrust on the engines. This is how the next 777 will be the size of a 744 and yet have less installed thrust than the 77L. As the platforms mature, they become capable of doing more with less structure.
 
User avatar
AirIndia
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 2:43 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:34 am

Well without the 777, Emirates would have an all Airbus operation............
 
Max Q
Posts: 9053
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:09 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):

The 787 would have become a larger design, similar to today's A350.

Without the triple there wouldn't have been a 787.
The 777 built the groundwork for the future widebody success of Boeing.
 
AirbusA6
Posts: 1658
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:44 am

I presume without the 777 Boeing would have introduced a further stretched 767 instead, something like the 767-400 but maybe with more powerful engines (A330 size?) and in improved wing? Thus we would have ended up with a largish twin, but a less capable one than the 777-200ER.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9875
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:58 am

Maybe we would have seen something like a B777 sized quad jet? Close to the competition in performance and looks.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:04 pm

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 14):
I presume without the 777 Boeing would have introduced a further stretched 767 instead, something like the 767-400 but maybe with more powerful engines (A330 size?) and in improved wing? Thus we would have ended up with a largish twin, but a less capable one than the 777-200ER.

You just described the 777, which was the 767X. Boeing felt the upgrades to the 767 warranted a new model number, it was so different. The 777 is just a fat new 767.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ron Baak
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © powwwiii


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Rolf Wallner
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matt Barnette - IAH Spotters

 
jfk777
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 12:32 pm

Another problem was for the 767 to seat 300 people it would have been stretched too long. It would have been too long for many airport gates. This problem was criticized by Lord King of BA.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:26 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 16):
You just described the 777, which was the 767X. Boeing felt the upgrades to the 767 warranted a new model number, it was so different. The 777 is just a fat new 767.

The 767X was the basis for the initial studies into a larger, longer ranged 767, which resulted in numerous prototypes, including the infamous "the hunchback of Mukilteo". None of the airlines liked it, and it was later decided that they'll design a new plane instead.

The 777 is much, much more than a "fat 767". It is a new design from the ground up.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 1:42 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 18):
The 767X was the basis for the initial studies into a larger, longer ranged 767, which resulted in numerous prototypes, including the infamous "the hunchback of Mukilteo". None of the airlines liked it, and it was later decided that they'll design a new plane instead.

The 777 is much, much more than a "fat 767". It is a new design from the ground up.

Really ? The nose sections are completely different ? The tires and wheels are different ? Think not.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:48 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):
Really ? The nose sections are completely different ? The tires and wheels are different ? Think not.

There is always one rivet counter!

You cannot argue that the 777 is not a clean sheet design. Yes, it uses the 767/757 Section 41. But that is where the similarities end.

Wheel and Tyre sizes really don't matter.
 
User avatar
AirPacific747
Posts: 9875
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:52 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:51 pm

Interesting how the 767 can't compete well against the A330 when the 777 outsells the A340. The 767 could maybe have become more competitive with more upgrades. Maybe Boeing could have saved a lot of money. Maybe the 767 and 777 are far from the same design but aerodynamically they look similar.
 
User avatar
cv990Coronado
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 4:38 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:13 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 20):
You cannot argue that the 777 is not a clean sheet design. Yes, it uses the 767/757 Section 41. But that is where the similarities end.

What is "section 41 please?

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

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:15 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 19):
Really ? The nose sections are completely different ? The tires and wheels are different ? Think not.

The only major components that are interchangeable between the 767 and the 777 are radome and the cockpit window frames. There may be other minor components such as nuts and bolts that are common across all Boeing aircraft, but that doesn't make them the same design, does it?

Yes, you are quite correct in that the 777 was initially to be a 767 derivative known as the 767X, but that did not proceed into production. Boeing went down the route of designing an all new aircraft instead of engineering a 767 derivative which airlines didn't particularly want. They needed something that a stretched, humpbacked 767 can't give: width.

Quoting garpd (Reply 20):
Yes, it uses the 767/757 Section 41.

Not exactly. I have it on good authority that only the cockpit area is the same, rather than the entire section 41 being stuck onto the 777 fuselage:

The Reasoning Behind The 757's Distinctive Nose (by Burchfiel Jun 27 2014 in Tech Ops) (see reply 9)

I remember reading the same post that was referenced there, but I cannot for the life of me find it.

[Edited 2014-12-10 07:16:03]
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:40 pm

The MD-12 comes to mind, not the crazy double-decker design, but a bigger version of the MD-11.
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:27 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The 777 was almost an inevitability.

Well, almost. The first versions of the 777 weren't all that capable. When Boeing introduced the 777, it was mainly intended as a large domestic jet that would replace the old 747s on trunk routes. The "350 seat, 14 hour plus aircraft" you describe didn't arrive until 2004.

So in the 1990s, it wasn't all that clear that the future of longhaul routes would belong to the large twins. In fact, it would have needed only a splash or two in the midst of an ocean to put an end to those thoughts very quickly.

A large part of the 777's success is its incredible reliability and safety, something which was anything but evident from the get-go.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 13):
Without the triple there wouldn't have been a 787.
The 777 built the groundwork for the future widebody success of Boeing.

So without the 777 Boeing would have regressed to a narrowbody manufacturer? I find that hard to believe.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 4:42 pm

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 15):
Maybe we would have seen something like a B777 sized quad jet?

Perhaps Boeing would have moved forward with the 11-abreast 763-246C Concept:

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 21):
Interesting how the 767 can't compete well against the A330 when the 777 outsells the A340.

The 767-300ER held it's own against the A330-200 for a fair bit of time after the latter's launch as it does offer better economics on shorter stage lengths thanks to it's lighter weight. And on a trip fuel basis, the A340-300 and 777-200ER are very close.

IMO, what allowed the A330-200 and 777-200ER to eventually come to dominate their respective markets is their performance. The A330-200 and 777-200ER could comfortably out-lift and out-fly the 767-300ER and A340-300, respectively (and yes, I am aware that from challenging airfields the A340-300 has an advantage thanks to four engines).
 
Rara
Posts: 2310
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 7:41 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:37 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Perhaps Boeing would have moved forward with the 11-abreast 763-246C Concept:

Wow... that design was supposed to have a sleeper cabin above the main cabin? Did Boeing seriously consider this? I've never seen this before. Very intriguing.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7490
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 5:53 pm

Quoting Rara (Reply 25):
Well, almost. The first versions of the 777 weren't all that capable. When Boeing introduced the 777, it was mainly intended as a large domestic jet that would replace the old 747s on trunk routes. The "350 seat, 14 hour plus aircraft" you describe didn't arrive until 2004.

You must mean the arrival of the 777-300ER in 2004 but 777-200ER can fly 14 hours. Continental and today United fly 777-200ER to India nonstop from Newark and from ORD & EWR to Hong Kong which can be as much as 16 hours.

Your " weren't that capable" quote means the difference between the 777-200 "non ER" and the 777-200ER when the 777 firtst arrived in 1995. The -200ER was the version most ordered until the 77W can along. The ME3 have made the 77W a very succesful plane but others have exploited its 16 hour range, no more then Cathay Pacific with its Hong Kong to North American routes especially to the east coast and midwest. Cathay flies to Toronto, JFK , Newark, Chicago and soon Boston with the 77W.

Many airlines like Air New Zealand, ANA, BA, JAL and TAM fly the 77W for its size. TAM's 77W ply the GRU to Miami and JFK which are only half the range of the 77W's capability. The huge cargo market to Barzil also helps TAM. The best statistic about TAM is when they do the payload planing from Miami to GRU they plan for an extra 150 pounds per passenger for all the shopping done in Miami and the Sawgrass Mall then the same flight from GRU to Miami.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2504
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 6:40 pm

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
The 764 and 753 may have sold better as well, had they arrived to market earlier with the additional resources allocated.

Not so sure about that, the 764 was payload/range limited versus the A332 and the 753 was too late.

Quoting TrijetsRMissed (Reply 6):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 5):
In the short term, many more A340s and a few more MD-11s would have sold,

The MD-11 peaked at 344 orders as of early 1990. ONLY 20 of the cancellations went directly to the A340... Without the 777, it's safe to say MD would have sold more than a few.

True, but once the 340's capabilities were known, the MD-11 stopped selling well.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:07 pm

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
Not exactly. I have it on good authority that only the cockpit area is the same, rather than the entire section 41 being stuck onto the 777 fuselage:

That was what I meant. I wrote my reply in haste (too much to do!).
You are indeed correct. Thank you for further illustrating the point I was making.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7694
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:16 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Perhaps Boeing would have moved forward with the 11-abreast 763-246C Concept:

That thing is a monster! Why didn't Boeing move on with that? It would've been an A380 killer for sure!
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5189
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 7:49 pm

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):

The MD 12 would have gone into production. This was before the 380 program. Boeing probably would have come out with an 757-400, an updated larger 767 and maybe even would have considered inflating the 737 to a stretched but plump stuffed saussage. Boeing could have evened called the new and improved 767 the 777 to be with it in the airliner production world. Interesting speculation.

 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22230
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:20 pm

Quoting garpd (Reply 20):
You cannot argue that the 777 is not a clean sheet design. Yes, it uses the 767/757 Section 41. But that is where the similarities end.

Not quite. It uses the 767 cockpit windows and the mold lines immediately forward of the cockpit windows (but not the whole nose) are the same. Boeing tried to fit the Section 41 of the 767 onto the 777 but could not do it without introducing small-radius curves into the design.

Quoting Rara (Reply 25):
Well, almost. The first versions of the 777 weren't all that capable. When Boeing introduced the 777, it was mainly intended as a large domestic jet that would replace the old 747s on trunk routes. The "350 seat, 14 hour plus aircraft" you describe didn't arrive until 2004.

The initial 777-200 was almost a direct replacement for the DC-10-30/40. However, only two years after the 77A model, the 772 was introduced, which was a 300-seat 14+hour aircraft. At that point, the 777-300 was introduced, but more as a replacement for 747 classics. It could do 8-10 hour flights and carry almost as many passengers. It wasn't until 2003-2004 that the 77W was introduced, and that changed the face of long-haul aviation, especially in Asia.

Quoting Rara (Reply 27):
Wow... that design was supposed to have a sleeper cabin above the main cabin? Did Boeing seriously consider this? I've never seen this before. Very intriguing.

The big problem with such a large tube is that crown space. It's a large, enclosed space that must be pressurized but isn't useful for very much. You can't put seats up there because that requires emergency egress and there isn't sufficient head space. You can't put cargo up there for structural and logistic reasons. You can put crew rest up there, but you don't need that much crew rest. All that extra structure for one extra seat abreast over the 3-4-3 of the 747/777 just didn't make sense.

In fact, IIRC, Boeing did offer overhead bunk space for the 748i but airlines were uninterested.

With the advent of CFRP and CNRP, it may be possible to explore new fuselage shapes (ovoid) that can handle the pressurization better with less overhead crown space for a wider fuselage.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:33 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 28):
Cathay flies to Toronto, JFK , Newark, Chicago and soon Boston with the 77W.

EVA also flies TPE-JFK with the 77W.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 31):
That thing is a monster! Why didn't Boeing move on with that? It would've been an A380 killer for sure!

Because they determined that there was not enough market for a new VLA, which Airbus is finding out to their sorrow. In fact, it appears that there is even less than Boeing predicted (see the thread about Airbus thinking about ending A380 production in 2018.) Of course, when Boeing made that assessment the 777X was not even a glimmer in anyone's eye.
 
User avatar
cageyjames
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 2:08 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:19 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
The initial 777-200 was almost a direct replacement for the DC-10-30/40. However, only two years after the 77A model, the 772 was introduced, which was a 300-seat 14+hour aircraft. At that point, the 777-300 was introduced, but more as a replacement for 747 classics. It could do 8-10 hour flights and carry almost as many passengers. It wasn't until 2003-2004 that the 77W was introduced, and that changed the face of long-haul aviation, especially in Asia.

That and ETOPS needed to be updated to let the twin jets fly routes that 3 and 4 engine airframes were only allowed on. I'd wager that battle included the 767/330 in addition to the 777. Boeing of course wanted it more because they didn't have a quad 777.
 
Utah744
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:41 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 10:25 pm

If Boeing had never made the B777 we would not have the B787. It would have been called the B777.
 
MD80Nut
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:43 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:19 pm

The most likely result of the 777 not being built is that many more A330s would have been built instead. The A330 was a superior choice to the 767, even the 764 couldn't change that.

I agree we would see more A340s and 747s, which being a big fan of both would be a good thing to me. But not as many as some have suggested. Twins are still more efficient for the most part. And the success of the A330 would have been so great that Boeing would have had to build the 777 anyway to compete.

Cheers, Ralph
 
User avatar
gbrazil
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:00 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:20 pm

Alternative aviation history. And I thought I was enough of a nerd  
 
MD80Nut
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:43 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:38 pm

Quoting gbrazil (Reply 38):

Nerd? We're way pass that stage. We're in full geek mode here.  

Cheers, Ralph

[Edited 2014-12-10 15:39:51]
 
User avatar
2707200X
Posts: 6684
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:31 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:40 pm

If the Boeing 777 never entered production in any way as a twinjet or anything else Airbus would have sold a lot more A340s. The A340-300 which sold rather decently would have sold more but certainly be out of production by now as of 2014 do to the nature of a lighter and longer range A330 and a much earlier Boeing 787 or like aircraft. The A340-500 would I think would have a little more, no more than 60 tops, they are heavy and if you combine both the 777LR and A340-500 in sales, the numbers are small. The A340-600 would have probably benefited the most, from 97 made to somewhere between 350 to 550 units as they would have served as a replacement for the 747-400 and would have been big with Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, Cathay Pacific, Singapore, British Airways, Air France and other growing flag carriers with huge 777-300ER fleets. The A330 has sold well with over 1,000 units sold but without the 777-200, over 1,300 units could have been sold by now. The MD-11 which sold 200 probably would have sold about 220/230 units as the MD-11 was short ranged, heavy, and under capacity adding to the A340-300. The 767-400ER would have been the only Boeing plane to have benefited from not having a 777 enter service as we know it but not by any means a long shot, probably 50 or 60 units over the 37 delivered in lieu of shorter range 777-200 models, range and capacity would have likely inhibited many more sales.

If no 777 was ever produced, Boeing would be a much smaller company probably with a much more limited widebody production of any, Douglass would still be dead and Airbus would dominate the industry bar none.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7694
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:52 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 34):
Because they determined that there was not enough market for a new VLA, which Airbus is finding out to their sorrow. In fact, it appears that there is even less than Boeing predicted (see the thread about Airbus thinking about ending A380 production in 2018.) Of course, when Boeing made that assessment the 777X was not even a glimmer in anyone's eye.

When did Boeing come out with this proposal?
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 12:50 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
The A340-600 would have been a massive success, killing the 747-400 for most operations. It would be in service with most large airlines world-wide.

I don't see that. The A340-600 was available and anybody could have ordered it at the same time the 744 was introduced. The thing about the 744 is that it was already a proven aircraft with the 742 and people just seemed more accepting of a proven product. Nobody wanted it or the 744 at the time because they would have sufficed with the 767 and A330 of the time, but I doubt that Boeing would have rested on its laurels for very long and would have produced the 777 or a variation of it sooner or later with the success of the A330. The A340 was already falling out of favour and the price of fuel was driving airlines to look at more fuel efficient aircraft. I think if we look at the RJ market of today and compare it to the RJ market of say 15 years ago you would get the same type of answer to your opening question.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27645
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:39 am

Quoting Rara (Reply 3):
The A340-600 would have been a massive success, killing the 747-400 for most operations. It would be in service with most large airlines world-wide.
Quoting brilondon (Reply 42):
I don't see that. The A340-600 was available and anybody could have ordered it at the same time the 744 was introduced.

And they did.

LH and VS both ordered the A340-600 instead of more 747-400s. CX took three on lease to evaluate it for long-haul missions. Carriers like SAA and IB who would have ordered the 747-400 instead went with the A340-600.



Quoting brilondon (Reply 42):
The thing about the 744 is that it was already a proven aircraft with the 742 and people just seemed more accepting of a proven product.

The A340-600 lifted more cargo (by volume), flew farther and burned significantly less fuel per hour (~13% for VS on TATL and ~20% for CX on JFK-HKG). Unless you could consistently fill every seat every flight, an A340-600 was a much better prospect, economically, than the 747-400.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3528
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 5:34 am

Quoting garpd (Reply 20):
You cannot argue that the 777 is not a clean sheet design. Yes, it uses the 767/757 Section 41. But that is where the similarities end.

Wheel and Tyre sizes really don't matter.

May not matter to one, but the similar wheel assemblies means the 777 is not a 'clean sheet design.' Oh, and along with the cockpit section along with many other things they share..

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23):
The only major components that are interchangeable between the 767 and the 777 are radome and the cockpit window frames. There may be other minor components such as nuts and bolts that are common across all Boeing aircraft, but that doesn't make them the same design, does it?

Yes, you are quite correct in that the 777 was initially to be a 767 derivative known as the 767X, but that did not proceed into production. Boeing went down the route of designing an all new aircraft instead of engineering a 767 derivative which airlines didn't particularly want. They needed something that a stretched, humpbacked 767 can't give: width.

That is what was in that post. I'd look it up, but the 777 forward section continues to widen to reach the diameter for it's fuselage. But forward of that, it is 767 influence on the 777. Never was a 'clean sheet design' that's all. It is a fattened, re-winged, re-engined, amongst other re-dos, of a 767. IIRC, the 767-400 shares much more with the 777 then it does with the 767-300.

[Edited 2014-12-10 21:36:57]
 
Eagleboy
Posts: 1876
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:29 am

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:10 am

Quoting shengzhurou (Reply 7):
A330 and A340 would sold like a hot cake.

Well, 50% of this statement has already happened, even with the B777 in play.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5738
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 8:14 am

Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 46):
Quoting shengzhurou (Reply 7):
A330 and A340 would sold like a hot cake.

Well, 50% of this statement has already happened, even with the B777 in play.

But don't forget that this did not really happen until the late 90's. Prior to that Airbus was still fighting to be recognized as an equal player with Boeing and MD.
 
Flyingsottsman
Posts: 846
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:32 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:51 am

My thoughts on this is the 767 would have been made more advanced and the 748i would have become Boeings front runner and I think would have sold in big numbers as a replacement for the current 744s.
 
PEK777
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 12:56 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:17 pm

if boeing never built the 777...

I wouldn't be able to fly to the US for two days over Christmas at $650 R/T, wouldnt have 3 nonstop options per day to Chicago, option to Houston, ect, ect. Only problem is all the capacity increases stupid tourists and i hate tourists.
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: If Boeing Never Built The 777?

Thu Dec 11, 2014 3:16 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 44):
May not matter to one, but the similar wheel assemblies means the 777 is not a 'clean sheet design.' Oh, and along with the cockpit section along with many other things they share..

How exactly are the wheel assemblies similar? The 777 has an entirely new landing gear! The ONLY major components that are shared are the radome and the cockpit window frames. That is less than the "nose sections", as you put it - not all of the "nose section" is shared.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 44):
Never was a 'clean sheet design' that's all. It is a fattened, re-winged, re-engined, amongst other re-dos, of a 767.

  

It is NOT a derivative. Boeing investigated the possibility of a 767 derivative prior to embarking on the 777 project and decided against doing so, and instead chose to build a NEW aircraft, which became the 777. The 767X derivative only existed on paper, it was never built.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 44):
IIRC, the 767-400 shares much more with the 777 then it does with the 767-300.

That statement needs to be corrected to read that the 767-400ER has more in common with the 777 than the 767-300 has in common with the 777. But don't forget that the 767-400ER came after the introduction of the 777 into service, so it is to be expected that Boeing filters some of the 777's advancements down to the 767. Improvements such as glass cockpit, Boeing Signature Interior and raked wingtips came with the 767-400ER. It also had a redesigned main gear to minimise tailstrikes.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 45):
And the 777 has a new fuselage, new landing gear, new wings, new empennage, new engines, a new control system (even with using most, but not all, of the 767 cockpit; the instrument layout is not the same and they do not have a common type rating). I suspect most of the systems are new as well. Calling it a 767 derivative is just as sensible as calling the 727 and 737 707 derivatives. They had much more in common with the 707 than the 777 has with the 767.

        

[Edited 2014-12-11 08:01:48]

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