I wonder how B777 compete against A350 and how Boeing will revamp B777. Airlines rejected the ealier versions of A350 which was an upgraded A330, will they reject the upgraded B777 in favor a whole new designed A350?
Thanks!
CP
Airbus A350XWB Version 29
Moderator: Latest news team
Depends on how they'll revamp the 777... a composite replacement or new engines or what.. and how much better is the XWB over the 777.boeing797 wrote:I wonder how B777 compete against A350 and how Boeing will revamp B777. Airlines rejected the ealier versions of A350 which was an upgraded A330, will they reject the upgraded B777 in favor a whole new designed A350?
Thanks!
CP
A composite replacement requires a new design doesn't it? If this is the case then it is a new design. But if they redesign the wings, new engines, new this, new that and the airframe is the old design will it be competitive against A350?CX wrote:Depends on how they'll revamp the 777... a composite replacement or new engines or what.. and how much better is the XWB over the 777.boeing797 wrote:I wonder how B777 compete against A350 and how Boeing will revamp B777. Airlines rejected the ealier versions of A350 which was an upgraded A330, will they reject the upgraded B777 in favor a whole new designed A350?
Thanks!
CP
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
None of us knows how Boeing willl update the 777, but I doubt that they'll be caught flat-footed again (as they were with the 767 vs. A330). If they can stay competitive with improvements, they that's what they'll probably do (new engines, lighter weight components, or....). If they start to slip, they'll probably do a new design. In any case, they can not afford to let Airbus do to them what they did to Airbus (A350 5-6 years after 787 - 2008 vs. 2013 or so).boeing797 wrote:I wonder how B777 compete against A350 and how Boeing will revamp B777. Airlines rejected the ealier versions of A350 which was an upgraded A330, will they reject the upgraded B777 in favor a whole new designed A350?
Thanks!
CP
My guess is that Boeing first concentrate on a composite 737, before they go to a full new designed composite 777. In this case the old 777 can be seen like the A330 now is compared with the 787, Airbus still sells them. Boeing will attack Airbus on the single aisle planes. Boeing will be leading then in the 2 popular markets (B737\A320) and (787\A330), with still some selling in the 777\A340\A350XWB market. With money earning from these hotsellers they can redesign a composite 777 to beat the A350XWB. Airbus will be lagged behind Boeing, because they are still not finished with the A350 and can't make a competitor on time for the new composite 737 (Will Boeing call this a 797??).
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Most probably right in your assessment. The 737 is the older aircraft (although kept current with improvements) so it is probably the first in line for replacement.OO-TUC wrote:My guess is that Boeing first concentrate on a composite 737, before they go to a full new designed composite 777. In this case the old 777 can be seen like the A330 now is compared with the 787, Airbus still sells them. Boeing will attack Airbus on the single aisle planes. Boeing will be leading then in the 2 popular markets (B737\A320) and (787\A330), with still some selling in the 777\A340\A350XWB market. With money earning from these hotsellers they can redesign a composite 777 to beat the A350XWB. Airbus will be lagged behind Boeing, because they are still not finished with the A350 and can't make a competitor on time for the new composite 737 (Will Boeing call this a 797??).
I think that Boeing has a decision matrix and it depends on assessment.
First part is that even if Airbus decides to do an all composite A320/737, Boeing can beat them to market. While it seemed hot for a bit, they seemed to have backed off (which could mean they are ready to launch).
More likely they realize how much trouble Airbus is having, and want to ensure they have the 787 solidly in production before the next big project (and they have a lot of major stuff going anyway with the 747-767-777F).
The 777 issue is the intriguing one. as was stated, if they feel they can improve it and stay competitive, then that’s what they will do. That all depends on the A350, and it is still too murky on that (and no need to react for awhile). As the 787-10 is part of that response, its somewhat covered on the low end of the 777 program.
The big possible improvement would be wings and engines. If fuselage changes are needed, and then probably a new bird (not desired, but Boeing is never going to get caught behind again if they can help it).
Leahy commented that they may do the -1000 after the -900. That would dramticly affect timelines and decisions.
And equally intriguing, what if Boeing pulls another coup, and does something like a mini wide aisle, in the 150/180 to 250 seat class? And cover the under 150 seats with existing 737 for now? I know Boeing is working intensely with airlines, and per the 787, they want a technological breakthrough, not just an incremental improvement. I am sure they have a date they will for sure act by, but also I am sure they have plans to move sooner if need be. In the meantime, they continue to sell well and no sooner than 787 flight tested and the lessons can be incorporated (structure will be composite, systems will be all electric, but fuselage shape and engine layout is going to possibly change).
And, one of those fer instances, could be that Airbus has to make another major change to the A350. That would mean Boeing would not have to worry about 777 until 2018-20 at the soonest.
And if you don't think its possible, I was re-reading the details on he A350 previous version, and the comments from Airbus were identical, other than the materials it was like a cut and paste job. And then you saw some of the CEOs comments start to surface.
Phew, stay tuned, it’s a wild ride
First part is that even if Airbus decides to do an all composite A320/737, Boeing can beat them to market. While it seemed hot for a bit, they seemed to have backed off (which could mean they are ready to launch).
More likely they realize how much trouble Airbus is having, and want to ensure they have the 787 solidly in production before the next big project (and they have a lot of major stuff going anyway with the 747-767-777F).
The 777 issue is the intriguing one. as was stated, if they feel they can improve it and stay competitive, then that’s what they will do. That all depends on the A350, and it is still too murky on that (and no need to react for awhile). As the 787-10 is part of that response, its somewhat covered on the low end of the 777 program.
The big possible improvement would be wings and engines. If fuselage changes are needed, and then probably a new bird (not desired, but Boeing is never going to get caught behind again if they can help it).
Leahy commented that they may do the -1000 after the -900. That would dramticly affect timelines and decisions.
And equally intriguing, what if Boeing pulls another coup, and does something like a mini wide aisle, in the 150/180 to 250 seat class? And cover the under 150 seats with existing 737 for now? I know Boeing is working intensely with airlines, and per the 787, they want a technological breakthrough, not just an incremental improvement. I am sure they have a date they will for sure act by, but also I am sure they have plans to move sooner if need be. In the meantime, they continue to sell well and no sooner than 787 flight tested and the lessons can be incorporated (structure will be composite, systems will be all electric, but fuselage shape and engine layout is going to possibly change).
And, one of those fer instances, could be that Airbus has to make another major change to the A350. That would mean Boeing would not have to worry about 777 until 2018-20 at the soonest.
And if you don't think its possible, I was re-reading the details on he A350 previous version, and the comments from Airbus were identical, other than the materials it was like a cut and paste job. And then you saw some of the CEOs comments start to surface.
Phew, stay tuned, it’s a wild ride
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
As outside-the-fence observers, we do not know what Airbus is telling prospective customers about the A350XWB, nor what they are willing to contractually guarantee. Their new airplane seems to be a lot of rubber right now that can be stretched or molded into whatever they want. Until the A350 is finalized and design specifications are released, we will not know what it can do (Frankly, John Leahy, Airbus' chief marketing guy is making the plane into all things to all people).
I agree with RC20, Boeing will wait until they find out what the competition is offering before deciding on a next plane strategy. They have multiple teams defing concepts and airline requirements and will pick one to develop when the time is right.
Until then, Boeing will focus on the 787 (a big bite to chew in itself) and save their money.
I agree with RC20, Boeing will wait until they find out what the competition is offering before deciding on a next plane strategy. They have multiple teams defing concepts and airline requirements and will pick one to develop when the time is right.
Until then, Boeing will focus on the 787 (a big bite to chew in itself) and save their money.
-
smokejumper
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:00
- Location: Northern Virginia USA
Several observers have observed that Boeing will not be caught off-guard in the future and I generally agree with this assessment. But .. this depends on Boeing's management. You will recall that Harry stoneceipher was the CEO of McDonald Douglas in the early '90's until its merger with Boeing in 1997. During his tenure (and in the years preceeding him) McD did not invest in new aircraft, but rather relied on updates.
The DC-9 evolved into the MD-80 series and in turn the MD-90 series (later Boeing 717). The DC-10 evolved into the MD-11. Each was a updating of the earlier aircraft (true, Douglas planes are rugged and the structures hold up well). New system technologies were introduced, but the old technology airframe technologies were retained.
When he became the CEO of Boeing, Stoneceipher prevented the Boeing sales team from cutting competitive deals that would have won orders - this gave Aribus the great leap forward. Airbus had very competitive and technologically advanced products and, a very competitive pricing structure.
Boeing's mid-size product offering (767) was growing long in the tooth, but it could have competed on price. Stoneceipher demanded that the prices be held to a level that gave the company an immediate profit on sales.
The 767 was, and is, a great plane (just talk to UPS). With a smaller wing and narrower fuselage (optimized for a specific market and range ) than the A330, it just could not carry the fuel necessary for the longer ranges, thus it was at a disadvantage to the A-330.
In most cases, the real profits are made during the 20+ year life of an aircraft. Parts and technical assistance sales are the real long-term generator of profits and Stoneceipher took this away - no plane sales, no parts sales!).
The current managment of Boeing recognizes this and has mounted aggressive sales and pricing strategies. They've also given the sales staff the authority to cut deals quickly and not get corporate management approval.
This could change and Boeing's future could be influenced. If another Stonecipher management philosophy surfaces, they will be in trouble again. Arrogance (regardless of which side of the Atlantic) hurts a company.
The DC-9 evolved into the MD-80 series and in turn the MD-90 series (later Boeing 717). The DC-10 evolved into the MD-11. Each was a updating of the earlier aircraft (true, Douglas planes are rugged and the structures hold up well). New system technologies were introduced, but the old technology airframe technologies were retained.
When he became the CEO of Boeing, Stoneceipher prevented the Boeing sales team from cutting competitive deals that would have won orders - this gave Aribus the great leap forward. Airbus had very competitive and technologically advanced products and, a very competitive pricing structure.
Boeing's mid-size product offering (767) was growing long in the tooth, but it could have competed on price. Stoneceipher demanded that the prices be held to a level that gave the company an immediate profit on sales.
The 767 was, and is, a great plane (just talk to UPS). With a smaller wing and narrower fuselage (optimized for a specific market and range ) than the A330, it just could not carry the fuel necessary for the longer ranges, thus it was at a disadvantage to the A-330.
In most cases, the real profits are made during the 20+ year life of an aircraft. Parts and technical assistance sales are the real long-term generator of profits and Stoneceipher took this away - no plane sales, no parts sales!).
The current managment of Boeing recognizes this and has mounted aggressive sales and pricing strategies. They've also given the sales staff the authority to cut deals quickly and not get corporate management approval.
This could change and Boeing's future could be influenced. If another Stonecipher management philosophy surfaces, they will be in trouble again. Arrogance (regardless of which side of the Atlantic) hurts a company.