RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:54 pm

Dreamliner is pretty much a synonym to 787. XWB was introduced to differ between "old" and "new" (actual) 350. Even if I'm wrong with how "official" each of them is, the latter is redundant as there is nothing to distinguish from, and any reference to the former is irrelevant from this point.
 
UA444
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:47 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 47):

I thought the 8 is slightly larger than the 300?
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting UA444 (Reply 51):
I thought the 8 is slightly larger than the 300?

The -8 is smaller than the -300 (it is about halfway in size between the -200 and -300). The -9 is slightly larger than the -300.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Mon Nov 16, 2015 8:30 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 52):
I thought the 8 is slightly larger than the 300? The -8 is smaller than the -300 (it is about halfway in size between the -200 and -300). The -9 is slightly larger than the -300.

I think he meant wider and it is.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 50):
Dreamliner is pretty much a synonym to 787. XWB was introduced to differ between "old" and "new" (actual) 350. Even if I'm wrong with how "official" each of them is, the latter is redundant as there is nothing to distinguish from, and any reference to the former is irrelevant from this point.

I thought the XWB actually refers to the extra space over the 787 and A330? You know they have that little bit of Xtra above the competition. This carries over to their own products as well, extra wider than the A330. Either way, both names are used by the companies on their websites to market their products. That is more than a nickname, it is a marketing tool used by both companies.

Until airlines decide to use 10-abreast seating in the A350 (not likely I hope and believe), it will always be a little wider than the competition.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:18 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 53):
I think he meant wider and it is.

Certainly a longer wingspan, but the fuselage diameter will remain the same. Thinner sidewalls will produce a slightly wider cabin.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:34 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 54):
Until airlines decide to use 10-abreast seating in the A350 (not likely I hope and believe), it will always be a little wider than the competition.

They already have, IINM. Regardless, the plane is still the same size regardless of how many seats are inside, so XWB in an all premium cabin is every bit as much XWB as one in an all-economy layout.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:10 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 45):
The same can be said of the "Dreamliner"

The original notion was to have the B787 (7E7 at the time) as 8-across. That certainly would've made the plane quite comfortable in Y. Carriers decided going 9-across in Y is probably the more profitable way to go.

If one wants decent space, one can purchase it or get upgraded.   

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 46):
The XWB is not there to compare with 747s and A380s.

No, but it does to the B77W.
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:05 am

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 56):
They already have, IINM. Regardless, the plane is still the same size regardless of how many seats are inside, so XWB in an all premium cabin is every bit as much XWB as one in an all-economy layout.

I should have added, when full service airlines start operating it at 10-abreast. We know Airbus was/is trolling Boeing with the XWB, it is working seeing the posts and comments. It will always be Xtra wider than the 787, no matter the configuration of the either design.   (this is looking at how 90% of airlines are configuring, or planning to configure either aircraft)

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 57):
The original notion was to have the B787 (7E7 at the time) as 8-across. That certainly would've made the plane quite comfortable in Y. Carriers decided going 9-across in Y is probably the more profitable way to go.

If one wants decent space, one can purchase it or get upgraded.

This is one thing I don't understand, there is no consensus on whether the 787 was ever supposed to be 8 or 9 abreast. Some believe they aimed for 8-abreast and somehow lucked their way into the 9-abreast configuration, others that it always was going to be 9-abreast.

My guess is more cynical, Boeing were touting the 8-abreast "Dreamliner" in their initial marketing for their new design (space, mood lighting, cabin comfort), but their numbers were always based on 9-abreast against the competitors and the airlines had to follow what they sold.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:33 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 57):
Carriers decided going 9-across in Y is probably the more profitable way to go.

Boeing started this as a way of topping the A330.
For both types setup in 8 across the 787 advantage was rather unimpressive.
( less than would have been expected just from the better engines.)

No idea if this was a preplanned step or reactive.
Murphy is an optimist
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:01 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 57):
No, but it does to the B77W.

that neither.

A350 --> A350XWB

VW Gofl --> VW Golf GTI

if you stick an extension on a name it relates to that name and
not what some people think fits their agenda  

though I think the A350XWB was a bit of a purloined letter.

After Airbus presented their changed offering "A350 XWB"
all the rah rah folks made comparisons to the 787 early on
never stopping to laugh their asses off "panelliner" hahah ..
and only later noticed that Airbus had encroached on
their holy cow 777 with a 20% more effcient design  

[Edited 2015-11-17 03:32:49]
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 3825
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:42 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 60):
VW Gofl --> VW Golf GTI

Well, to use your example. I think what was meant that if VW would now only produce the Golf in GTI version only (abandoning all other versions), then the GTI letters would no longer be needed, as there would obviously be no requirement anymore to set it apart from a regular Golf.

But then again, that of course won't happened, because there is a certain, let's say coolness around the GTI letters that should help a) sales, and b) set it apart from the competition - even though there may be competitors who are/claim to be more GTI than a Golf GTI . . .   

PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
RIX
Posts: 1590
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2000 4:46 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 54):
I thought the XWB actually refers to the extra space over the 787 and A330?

If this is the case, your analogy with Dreamliner is correct. I tend to remember though, XWB was vs their own initial design, already having 100+ orders. I also remember that the old design was dropped once the new - current - one was offered. Can anyone confirm / deny this?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting RIX (Reply 62):
I also remember that the old design was dropped once the new - current - one was offered. Can anyone confirm / deny this?

Yes, the A350 was superseded by the A350XWB at the 2006 Paris Air Show.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:29 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 54):

I thought the XWB actually refers to the extra space over the 787 and A330?
Quoting RIX (Reply 62):
I tend to remember though, XWB was vs their own initial design, already having 100+ orders

It refers to both- the A350 being wider than the 787 and the new XWB being wider than the old A350. Remember at the time Boeing was constantly touting how the 787 was wider than the A330/A350 Mk1-IV and at 8Y would be much more comfortable, hence Airbus's focus on width with the XWB moniker.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 61):
  

   obviously   
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:39 pm

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 58):
We know Airbus was/is trolling Boeing with the XWB, it is working seeing the posts and comments.

What do you mean? Are you referring to the marketing of the name? If so, what do posts and comments here have to do with it?

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:06 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 66):
What do you mean? Are you referring to the marketing of the name? If so, what do posts and comments here have to do with it?

I should have said, In my opinion Airbus is/was only trolling Boeing with the XWB name. There was posts on here stating that it shouldn't be named the XWB as its not the widest airliner out there...and Airbus has gotten Boeing to talk about 18" seat width as standard for long haul flights. Why else would Boeing aim for 18" seats with the 777X?  
 
a380heavy
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 3:01 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:11 pm

Do the 777-8 and -9 still have the 767 based cockpit like the 777 classics ?
Flown in:732,733,734,738,742,752,763,772,F27,DC9,MD-11,A300,A319,A320,A332,ATR72,DHC-6,Bell206,C172,Auster,PA-28,DH-89A
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 68):
Do the 777-8 and -9 still have the 767 based cockpit like the 777 classics?

In terms of sharing structure (Section 41), yes.

But the 777X will incorporate a number of the flight deck features of the 787, including the five Rockwell Collins 15.1-in. landscape format LCDs used in the 787.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:54 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 58):
This is one thing I don't understand, there is no consensus on whether the 787 was ever supposed to be 8 or 9 abreast. Some believe they aimed for 8-abreast and somehow lucked their way into the 9-abreast configuration, others that it always was going to be 9-abreast.

From my readings from the early days of the B7E7 program to the B787 program, it was supposed to be 8-across.

Fellow netter Stitch would be able to give us more of an insight.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 60):

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 57):
No, but it does to the B77W.

that neither.

If its "that neither" than why does Leahy incessantly call the A35JXWB "B77W killer"?

Quoting WIederling (Reply 59):
No idea if this was a preplanned step or reactive.

IMO it was reactive.
"Up the Irons!"
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:23 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
From my readings from the early days of the B7E7 program to the B787 program, it was supposed to be 8-across.

Actually, the 7E7 started life at 7-abreast with the ability to carry LD3s side-by-side. Airlines said "bigger" and the models grew about 20% by the time the design was firmed.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 59):
Boeing started this as a way of topping the A330.
For both types setup in 8 across the 787 advantage was rather unimpressive.
( less than would have been expected just from the better engines.)

No idea if this was a preplanned step or reactive.

The on-spec 787 with 8-abreast Y has terrific economics against the A330. The problem is that they're even better with 9-abreast Y.

It is no coincidence that the 787 can fit 9-abreast in coach. It was expected that domestic and charter carriers would go 9-abreast as early as 2004-2005. Boeing straddled the fuselage diameter just like they did with the 777. Unfortunately for us, most of the long-haul carriers followed suit and are now converting 777s to 10-abreast as well.

I've heard anecdotally that the 7E7/787 team also tried to emphasize the 8-abreast arrangement early in the program to avoid internal competition with the 777 program. The 787-9 is basically a direct competitor to the 777-200ER which was still in its heyday in the early 2000s.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:58 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
From my readings from the early days of the B7E7 program to the B787 program, it was supposed to be 8-across.

Fellow netter Stitch would be able to give us more of an insight.

I think he has posted that they were looking at 9-abreast from the start, but I am open to correction. The confusion is others still post that they were looking at 8-abreast.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
If its "that neither" than why does Leahy incessantly call the A35JXWB "B77W killer"?

While the 77W has continued selling while the A350-1000 has been on sale, we are repeatedly told that the reason the A330 sold against the 787 is availability. The A350-1000 hasn't killed the 77W, its not even in full production or has flown. But if it didn't make Boeing realize they were short on performance, why would they spend billions to design the 777X?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 71):
The 787-9 is basically a direct competitor to the 777-200ER which was still in its heyday in the early 2000s.

Can you explain how this is? The 777-200 is longer than the 787-9 and unless you have 9-abreast in the 777 and 9-abreast in the 787 the capacity should favour the 777. If you use with those seats, why would an airline have a sardine layout in the 787 but not the 777? So if the 787-9 was planned as 8-abreast it is definitely not a 777-200 replacement.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:34 am

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 72):
I think he has posted that they were looking at 9-abreast from the start, but I am open to correction. The confusion is others still post that they were looking at 8-abreast.

Or...They were looking at 8-abreast from the start. The confusion is others still post that they were looking at 9-abreast.

We've heard all angles, from 8 to 9 to some 8/some 9. To quote HRC: "What difference does it make?"

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:35 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 71):

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
From my readings from the early days of the B7E7 program to the B787 program, it was supposed to be 8-across.

Actually, the 7E7 started life at 7-abreast with the ability to carry LD3s side-by-side. Airlines said "bigger" and the models grew about 20% by the time the design was firmed.

Interesting..didn't know that.   .

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 72):
The A350-1000 hasn't killed the 77W

Note: I mentioned "According to Leahy" and he often compares the XWB to the B77W

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 72):
But if it didn't make Boeing realize they were short on performance, why would they spend billions to design the 777X?

I never said that the A35JXWB was going to be a bad plane... 

The A35JXWB clearly is aimed to take on the B77W market - that is why it "irked" Sir Tim Clark. He originally ordered the A350 (non-XWB) as a B773 replacement.
"Up the Irons!"
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:36 am

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
If its "that neither" than why does Leahy incessantly call the A35JXWB "B77W killer"?

That appears to be language from secondary literature ( like A.net postings.   )

What I found was various quips in the vein of
"77W cannot compete as is with the A350-1000".

( a given. ~20% difference in efficiency.
i.e. more of a factual statement than anything.)

And supported by Boeing by way of presenting 779x and 778x
as the heavily redone 777 platform.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:06 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 73):
Or...They were looking at 8-abreast from the start. The confusion is others still post that they were looking at 9-abreast.

As others had said...its both. Boeing was expecting that most major premium airlines would be going 8 abreast in the 787 (with I believe similar comfort as 9 abreast 777s), but the fuselage was purposely designed to be able to handle 9 abreast at 737/747 comfort levels from the beginning for carriers who wish to do so (e.g. charter/leisure carriers).

The 787 at 8 abreast was perfectly competitive with the A330, if it wasn't nobody would have ordered it and Airbus wouldn't have launched the A350 (non XWB). The 9Y 787 crushed the A330 and made the A350's life difficult. I believe that AI was one of the first premium carriers to publicly announce 9Y 787s, after selecting the 787 over the A350 in a highly contested battle between Airbus and Boeing.

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 74):
The A35JXWB clearly is aimed to take on the B77W market - that is why it "irked" Sir Tim Clark. He originally ordered the A350 (non-XWB) as a B773 replacement.

I don't think EK ever ordered the the non XWB version which couldn't replace the 773 anyways as it was A332/A333 sized, being a reengined/refreshed A330 at its core. The original A350-1000 (XWB) was more of a simple stretch of the A359, but in 2011 Airbus redesigned it to up its performance, and thus weight, to better compete with the 77W. That is what annoyed EK as they wanted it as a 773 replacement, but now they were getting a heavier plane with performance they did not need.

The complete collapse of the A340NG versus the 77W is one of the primary reasons that Airbus made the A350XWB a much larger/capable plane than the original A350. If they had gone through with the original A350 they would have had a huge gap between the A333/789 and A388 markets. Obviously the A350XWB was intended to compete with the 777, along with the upper end of the 787 (had to give up the lower end of the 787 market, as the A332-77W is just too large of a spread for one aircraft to optimally cover).

[Edited 2015-11-18 06:16:09]
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:17 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 76):
The 9Y 787 crushed the A330

In terms of what it does once you have it, it may well crush the A330, but the A330 has sold very well even since the 787 entered service, and in fact the A330ceo has sold very many units this year, and this is all vs a 9Y 787. Even starting from the 787's launch in 2004, the A330 has competed very well.

Quoting Polot (Reply 76):
and made the A350's life difficult.

Of course it has, it's a modern competitor, and modern competitors are meant to make competing designs' lives difficult. It hasn't stopped the A350 from becoming successful and edging out the 787 in competitions, just as the reverse holds true.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 77):
Even starting from the 787's launch in 2004, the A330 has competed very well.

Yes, because it's a good family and it was available for delivery when the 787 was not due to the delays in EIS and production ramp for the 787.

But even Airbus accepted that once the 787 was readily available, the A330's desirability as new-builds would wane and they therefore went with the new engine option to improve it's competitiveness in RFPs against the 787.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:33 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 77):
In terms of what it does once you have it, it may well crush the A330, but the A330 has sold very well even since the 787 entered service, and in fact the A330ceo has sold very many units this year, and this is all vs a 9Y 787. Even starting from the 787's launch in 2004, the A330 has competed very well.

True, but availability plays a large role in that which is fine for the short and maybe medium term, but not really a good plan in the long term. Hence why Airbus decided to make the A330neo.

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 77):
Of course it has, it's a modern competitor, and modern competitors are meant to make competing designs' lives difficult. It hasn't stopped the A350 from becoming successful and edging out the 787 in competitions, just as the reverse holds true.

Just to be clear I was talking about the non-XWB A350 there. I am dubious that the original A350 would have had great long term term success against the 787, especially as the latter plane's backlog whittled down. The A330neo benefits from newer engines, and even then is banking a lot on commonality and lower costs to win against the 787, while the original A350 essentially had bleedair versions of the 787's engines (like the 748). Plus then they would still have the issue of having to do something about the 777 as airlines basically rejected the concept of A350ifying the A340.

[Edited 2015-11-18 06:35:33]
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
Yes, because it's a good family and it was available for delivery when the 787 was not due to the delays in EIS and production ramp for the 787.

I was contesting the point that the 9Y 787 crushed the A330 when it clearly hasn't. I know it's down to availability, but it's still not crushing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 78):
But even Airbus accepted that once the 787 was readily available, the A330's desirability as new-builds would wane and they therefore went with the new engine option to improve it's competitiveness in RFPs against the 787.

Again, I know, but that's not rocket science, the 787 is newer in every way and better in most technical aspects. It's still not crushing.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:46 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 80):
I was contesting the point that the 9Y 787 crushed the A330 when it clearly hasn't. I know it's down to availability, but it's still not crushing.

Saying "it clearly hasn't" is looking at things with the benefit of historical hindsight though. We all know that the 787 was significantly delayed, and had a very bumpy EIS, but nobody knew that when these decisions had to be made. If the 787 was on time and on spec then the A330 situation would probably be looking very different right now. Airbus was losing very high profile A330 customers such as AC, NW, and QF- and these weren't customers with old A330s dating from the early to mid 90s that needed replacing...these were customers with essentially brand new A330s. NW hadn't even fully taken delivery of their original A330 order when they selected the 787!
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 81):

Saying "it clearly hasn't" is looking at things with the benefit of historical hindsight though.

You used the past tense when you said 'crushed'. If you say that, you're talking about what did happen. Except it didn't. The A330(ceo) is alive and well even with the 789 in service. Obviously a lot of that is availability, but availability is important and since it exists it can't just be written off, especially after a decade of success because of it.

Quoting Polot (Reply 81):
We all know that the 787 was significantly delayed, and had a very bumpy EIS, but nobody knew that when these decisions had to be made. If the 787 was on time and on spec then the A330 situation would probably be looking very different right now. Airbus was losing very high profile A330 customers such as AC, NW, and QF- and these weren't customers with old A330s dating from the early to mid 90s that needed replacing...these were customers with essentially brand new A330s. NW hadn't even fully taken delivery of their original A330 order when they selected the 787!

I don't disagree with most of this, but what could have happened looking forward back then and what did happen looking back from now are not the same. The 787 did not crush the A330. It has not. It will usher it out in the future, but until then, no crushing. And it's not worth talking about ifs and buts, it was not on time, it was not on spec. That's the reality.

[Edited 2015-11-18 06:59:12]
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 2:54 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 81):
If the 787 was on time and on spec then the A330 situation would probably be looking very different right now.

I'm not convinced. It seems Airbus manages to keep selling the A330: this year alone it has twice as many orders as the 787 (A330neo not included).

[Edited 2015-11-18 07:15:06]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:12 pm

Availability didn't keep the 767 alive as a pax plane.
( Boeing probably would have loved to keep the 767 line busy.
How many did Boeing sell ( at whatever price ) to tide over Dreamliner delays?)

So there must exist a basic competitiveness between types for availability
to make an impact.
Murphy is an optimist
 
fcogafa
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:37 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:19 pm

Quote:
I'm not convinced. It seems Airbus manages to keep selling the A330: this year alone it has twice as many orders as the 787.

If the A330NEO has been designed as the B787 competitor, how many of those have sold this year in comparison to the B787? This years A330 sales are really a unique situation where a gap to the NEO needed to be bridged and the majority of sales were to a couple of customers.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:45 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 82):
You used the past tense when you said 'crushed'. If you say that, you're talking about what did happen. Except it didn't. The A330(ceo) is alive and well even with the 789 in service. Obviously a lot of that is availability, but availability is important and since it exists it can't just be written off, especially after a decade of success because of it.

Fine, 'crushed' may be hyperbole but the 787 was doing very well against the A330 and had Airbus worried (whether they wanted to initially publicly admit it or not).

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 82):
And it's not worth talking about ifs and buts, it was not on time, it was not on spec. That's the reality.

You can't ignore the potential reality when talking about decisions being made in 2004/2005/2006 etc, as they obviously had a huge impact on what airlines ordered what planes and how the manufacturers were responding to each other.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 84):
Availability didn't keep the 767 alive as a pax plane.
( Boeing probably would have loved to keep the 767 line busy.
How many did Boeing sell ( at whatever price ) to tide over Dreamliner delays?)

Contrary to popular belief availability with the 767 is/was not that great as Boeing had its production rate down to a crawl (~1 a month since late 2003 or 2004), compared to the soon to be 6 a month of the A330, and something like 10/9 a month that the A330s had in the past couple of years. Boeing has actually recently increased the 767's production rate (to something like ~2 a month) to help fulfill the US tanker and FX/Freighter demand.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:54 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
Fine, 'crushed' may be hyperbole

Hurrah!

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
but the 787 was doing very well against the A330 and had Airbus worried (whether they wanted to initially publicly admit it or not).

It was, but then there wasn't any reason for it not to: on paper it was better in every way.

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
You can't ignore the potential reality when talking about decisions being made in 2004/2005/2006 etc, as they obviously had a huge impact on what airlines ordered what planes and how the manufacturers were responding to each other.

What the airlines ordered is what did happen, what potentially could have happened did not.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 80):
I was contesting the point that the 9Y 787 crushed the A330 when it clearly hasn't.

The interesting thing and my allegation was that the 787 was initially offered as 8 across but was later upgraded to 9 across to show an "adequate" efficiency delta to the A330.
( 767 delta to 787 was advertised as 20%. guesses on 767 delta to A330 at the time spoke of >10%
The resultant A330 delta to 787 then (under)reflected the engine improvements.)

You can go through the 787 article history on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...eing_787_Dreamliner&action=history
adjust the year and month entries to show changes before that date.

Initially the talk is about various 8 across configs.
Later by ~2006/7 the tone changes and it is assumed that most customers will go for 9 across.

My guess is that Airbus had an incling on how the Dreamliner would (not) progress around the same time.
The XWB was offered and the A330 was deemed sufficient to slog on.
They weren't wrong in their assessment.
Murphy is an optimist
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:05 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 75):
What I found was various quips in the vein of
"77W cannot compete as is with the A350-1000".

On a per-seat cost basis it certainly can't.  
Quoting Polot (Reply 76):
I don't think EK ever ordered the the non XWB version which couldn't replace the 773 anyways as it was A332/A333 sized, being a reengined/refreshed A330 at its core. The original A350-1000 (XWB) was more of a simple stretch of the A359, but in 2011 Airbus redesigned it to up its performance, and thus weight, to better compete with the 77W. That is what annoyed EK as they wanted it as a 773 replacement, but now they were getting a heavier plane with performance they did not need.

Your are totally correct. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote my comment. It was indeed the XWB version ordered and thus wanting the "original XWB" as their B773A replacement.

Great catch.   

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 80):
I was contesting the point that the 9Y 787 crushed the A330 when it clearly hasn't.

The economics between the two are not even close.   

The A330NEO comes close but certainly not the A330CEO.

Quoting WIederling (Reply 75):

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 70):
If its "that neither" than why does Leahy incessantly call the A35JXWB "B77W killer"?

That appears to be language from secondary literature ( like A.net postings.   )

Could be but I do recall him stating it as such.
"Up the Irons!"
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting jacobin777 (Reply 89):
The economics between the two are not even close.

Not really. But then crushing is what the 77W did to the A346 or what the A321neo does to the MAX9, not what the 787 did to the A330. It sold hundreds of units, and continues to do so to this day. That's not crushing.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Thu Nov 19, 2015 4:52 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 83):
I'm not convinced. It seems Airbus manages to keep selling the A330: this year alone it has twice as many orders as the 787 (A330neo not included).

For delivery when? It'll make the 787 look even worse if it's when 787 availability opens up.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Thu Nov 19, 2015 12:00 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 86):
Contrary to popular belief availability with the 767 is/was not that great as Boeing had its production rate down to a crawl (~1 a month since late 2003 or 2004)

That wasn't set in stone, was it?

Looking at manufacturing numbers Boeing always was much more willing to expand or contract
production. So why didn't they bring the 767 line up to provide sweets for the waiting?

Only collision I see is with resultant public perception as it ( more 767 ) would have clashed
with managements "all next steps are just around the corner".
The same barrier that disabled a prudent reduction in Dreamliner "lawn darts" production.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9483
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Thu Nov 19, 2015 1:39 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 92):
So why didn't they bring the 767 line up to provide sweets for the waiting?

$$$

Bringing up the rate is expensive, and any major production increase would have been short lived. Remember the 787 is the 767 *replacement*. Before the 787's troubles became apparent Boeing was certainly not going to raise production for their soon to be replaced jet, and when things went awry with the 787 it is much more prudent to spend your time and money fixing the 787 versus spending a lot of money just to get to 767 production up then have to spend a lot of money a few years down the road knocking it down again. Especially since you are advocating that they spend all this money for cheap compensation jets. It is much smarter to give discounts on 777s, which I'm sure Boeing did as many 787 customers are also 777 customers, than invest anymore in the 767.

Airbus already had a high production rate for the A330, and their newest jet (the A350) has less overlap with the A330 than the 787 had with the 767 (which is why Airbus is keeping the A330 around in the form of the Neo).
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:11 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 90):
But then crushing is what the 77W did to the A346

Hmmm, I recall threads where such a comment would be regarded as flame bait.... 
Quoting WIederling (Reply 92):
ooking at manufacturing numbers Boeing always was much more willing to expand or contract
production. So why didn't they bring the 767 line up to provide sweets for the waiting?
Quoting WIederling (Reply 92):
Looking at manufacturing numbers Boeing always was much more willing to expand or contract
production. So why didn't they bring the 767 line up to provide sweets for the waiting?

Only collision I see is with resultant public perception as it ( more 767 ) would have clashed
with managements "all next steps are just around the corner".

Other than one or two carriers who elected the 767, Boeing was pushing 777's as compensation, including the 777W.
Once the tanker contract was settled, it would not have been in their best interest to attempt to ramp up 767 production while modifying the line for the tanker while the 777 line was available and capable of putting out frames in reasonable time.
Besides, 767's are still plying the skies making money for airlines so even though they were no longer being bought, they are not losing airlines any money.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26404
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Official: Boeing Drops "X" From 777-8 And -9

Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:15 pm

Quoting WIederling (Reply 92):
Looking at manufacturing numbers Boeing always was much more willing to expand or contract production. So why didn't they bring the 767 line up to provide sweets for the waiting?

They did once they needed the 767's FAL as a surge line for the 787 and to improve the production process to offer (what became) the more competitive bid for KC-X and to win a major freighter tender from FedEx.

The original 767 FAL in Building 40-24 became the 787 surge line in 2011 and a new 767 FAL went active in 40-32. This new FAL was designed to support up to 3 frames per month production to support both the KC-46A (which was announced after the FAL went live) and the 100 (to date) FedEx 767-300F orders.

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