Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Leeham News and Analysis
- Bjorn’s Corner: New engine development. Part 4. Propulsive efficiency April 19, 2024
- Boeing unlikely to meet FAA’s 90-day deadline for new safety program April 18, 2024
- Focus on quality not slowing innovation, says GKN April 18, 2024
- Boeing defends 787, 777 against whistleblower charges April 17, 2024
- Dissecting Boeing CEO’s statement next new airplane will cost $50bn April 15, 2024
Comparing the 787, 777-200/300ER and the 777-8/9X
With a tip of the hat to Airliners.net, we came across this illustration. In case the visual doesn’t work well below, the direct link is here.
Rolls on the 777-8/9 – shame on you! 😉
(Or a British Airways dream)
Shame indeed that an RR option fails to exist.
how is the 777-8x shorter than the 777-300Er?
It’s not the engine. It’s the aircraft.
(A Boeing dream)
Why no 787-9?
Whoever did this should replace the 778 with the A351. 🙂
And the 779 with the A3511. (that should get a bite!)
787-8, 787-9, A350-1000 and 777-9 could be a fleet composition.
Doubts about the 777-9 though. Its unlikely BA will ever put a 10 abreast World Traveller class (again) in their 777s. The difference with the A380 World Traveller would be too visible, noticeable. At 9 abreast the 777-9X offers just 2-3 rows on top of the A350-1000. The 777X being significantly heavier, being an extra type (crew, MRO etc) and BA having a focus on premium traffic I wonder if the business case for a 777-9 on top of their A350-1000s would look good.
My point exactly, 779 isn’t big enough to justify its extra weight. A clean sheet from Boeing would have “boxed in” the A350, like Airbus’ critics claim the 779 will do, but a 777 revamp won’t threaten it CASM-wise it will be no better than the 3510 and the extra seats are cheap and nasty ones with no profit margin. Instead of moving into VLA twin territory in a way that might suceed, Boeing sqander the expertese that has been so dearly bought with the 787 by going for a 777 revamp and firing 1700 engineers.
The 777-9x is not competing with the A351, it is in a class by itself. A clean sheet design would mean that Boeing would hand over the large wide-body market that it has had a monopoly for the last ____ years. Not happening. Furthermore, since accountants run large companies instead of the suits, why would Boeing go clean sheet and scrap a model like the 773-ER that has a backlog of 288 planes and still continues to sell fairly well for “old technology” Airbus scrapped the 340 because the 777 was just better. Eventually Boeing will have to go clean sheet but that wont be for a while as the 777-9x will enter the market around 2020 and he 777-8x 6-9 months after.
If anything is boxed in it would probably be the A350. Im curious how the A350-900 and-1000 will find a way out of a maze of 787-8, -9, the -10 that will probably be launched at the Paris Airshow and the two new 777 offerings? I didn’t mention the A350-8 because Airbus is converting those models for larger ones (359,351), suggesting that it may, MAY very well be off the table in the next couple years but who really knows.
Boeing did not fire 1700 employees. They are laying off engineers because the developmental for the 748, 789 and the new KC Tanker versions are complete. I could add more to this but you should read the article before spouting off inaccurate claims.
http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2020807818_boeingengineeringlayoffsxml.html
I agree, the 777-9X and the 787-10 will cover a broad area for many airlines, but i don’t think the 777-8X will do as well. Boeing lost a lot of ground on the delay on the 787 which lasted 5 years and in turn led to airbus gaining ground selling many A330 frames, so I hope Boeing has learned a hard lesson and be on time with the best selling widebody and the larger version of the 787 which airlines seem to waiting in the wings. Paris should be interesting.
Boeing is laying off engineers … because neither 777X or 787-10 has been launched so they can’t assign the engineers to those programs (read Delaney’s quotes in the article).
It sure won’t help those programs when they do launch, though.
I would agree with you, EXCEPT that the A350 has an order book that is full until 2020, and given the discounting of early 787s ($128 millon a piece, from Air India’s tender for sale and leaseback agreements) the a350 backlog might even be worth more $$$ than the 787 program.
I also wonder how Boeing are going to handle the 5 years in between the current 777backlog running out and the “X” starting.
No more than the 747-8i is.
Nobody suggested that Boeing stop selling the 777-300ER any more than Airbus the A330.
But medium-term they’re both under threat by newer generation airplanes and won’t be selling in the same numbers any more. Which is exactly why Boeing is planning to do a 777X, and why suggestions of putting sharklets and/or new engines on the A330 keep cropping up again and again.
I agree that they won’t go clean-sheet for a while, as they’re currently invested in the 777X, which will likely do much better than their other recent revamp, the 747-8i. How well the -8X in particular will do, though, I’m not sure, and neither am I sure that only 6-9 months between the -9X and the -8X EIS is realistic.
The 787-8 and -9 are smaller than the A350-900, which competes with the 787-10 – the latter coming later to the party without offering any newer technology than the A350. The A350-1000 is a clean-sheet design that by Boeing’s own presentations will have 20% better fuel burn than the 777-300ER, and that the 777-8X as far as we can tell so far will have a really hard time competing against. Which only leaves the 777-9X in a size of its own – probably no coincidence that most customer interest seems around that model. The drawback of the 777-9X for Boeing is of course that it will kill the 747-8i (which has been on life support for a while now).
As for Airbus – yes, they’ve got a gap in the 787-8/-9 size class, as the A330 as is won’t be a viable competitor in that class 10 years from now. But if a 777X can do what you believe it can (which still remains to be seen), why would a hypothetical A330X not be able to achieve the same thing in its class?
More FUD now…
Airbus are offering incentives to convert to larger models because there’s more margin there and because it relieves engineering pressure on the model. Which is likely to spell a delay for the -800 – possibly leading to a much-suggested swap in EIS between the -1000 and the -800 – but I can’t see them cancelling the -800 outright and ceding the market to the 787-9.
Nobody said they already fired 1700 engineers. However, your own link shows that they are reducing their engineering department by that number, and 700 of those are expected to be fired (or “laid off” if you prefer that term). The first 100 notices are supposed to be sent out next week.
Hiring of engineers won’t resume for 18 months or more.
“Im curious how the A350-900 and-1000 will find a way out of a maze of 787-8, -9, the -10 that will probably be launched at the Paris Airshow and the two new 777 offerings?”
Rotate that might have been a valid question 3-4 years ago. However as we speak Airbus sold 650 A350s and is ready to snap up big 777 operators JAL, ANA, SQ, UA that won’t wait until 2020-21. While Boeing hasn’t even launched the 787-10 and 777X, even after all those years. http://atwonline.com/aircraft-amp-engines/boeing-seems-ready-heed-call-787-10.
I think Boeing might have waited to long, just like with the 737MAX (underestimating the NEO) and 787 (giving the A330 its golden decade). They probably were a little bit too comfy with the 777-300ER and telling each other how they beat the A340.
Keesje, it is safe to say that the 777-8/9x will be launched in JUne and we can probably guess that the 787-10 will be launched if not in conjunction with the 777-8/9x, but later on this year. That article is 8 years old, what matters is now, not then. Just saying.
To date, the A350 family have sold 617, not 650. SQ has 8 more 773-ER on order on top of the 19 they already operate (the oldest being less than 7 years old) and they have 40 359’s on order so they probably wont be ordering more. JL and ANA are pure speculation because of the 787 battery delay. Also they manufacturing relationship Boeing has with Japan is very deep and goes back a long long way. Granted they could order the A350 but they are a pretty loyal Boeing customer and you can bet that Boeing will do all it can to keep them. United has 25 A359’s already coming.
Yes, I do agree with you, they did wait too long with the MAX. A 46 year old design will only go but so far. But they were kinda cornered by AA and Airbus to either stay the course with the NSA and give up an order to AA or split an order and show your hand and redesign the fossil you call the 737. I personally think Boeing should have called AA’s bluff. If they needed as many planes as they do, only Airbus and Boeing are they only players in town that can make what they want when they wanted them.
It wasn’t about the 777 beating the 340, why would you need to fix something that is not broken and that basically prints money. But yes, I do get your point.
Keesje’s point was exactly that his article was 8 years old, and that waiting this long to launch the 787-10 (which then won’t EIS for another two or three years at least) may have been too long, as that gave Airbus a lot of time to make the competing A350-900 a credible option (and actually sell a few as well).
History repeating, just like they waited too long in launching the 767-400ER, 757-300, 747-8i and (arguably) the MAX.
By your own logic, wouldn’t that mean they’re unlikely to order 777X as well?
While you’re technically correct that JAL and ANA are speculation at this point, your point about this being tied to the 787 battery issues is also pure speculation. It’s something I keep reading here and on a.net, while the actual rumour has never been tied to the 787 battery.
As I said, it’s speculation at this point, but I wouldn’t dismiss the rumours as easily as you do. BA also had a very long exclusive relationship with Boeing (despite Airbus’ manufacturing base in the UK, too), which was emphasised by the pundits during the 747-8i/A380 RFP, and again during the latest RFP that ended up with an MoU for the A350-1000.
Nobody suggested that Boeing would give them up without a fight – see what they did to not be kicked out by Airbus at AA (although that still only gave them slightly less than 50% of the business for the RFP in question).
The way that would have ended would have been with a bunch of near-term orders for the 737NG and the quantities you now see shared between 737MAX and A320NEO at AA going A320NEO exclusively.
But I think too much emphasis lies on the – spectacular – AA deal; neither OEM will let the future of their best-selling model hinge on a single customer, high-profile as they may be.
I think what happened is that Boeing realised that their own propaganda about the A320NEO wasn’t sticking. Their choice was to effectively leave one whole replacement cycle to the NEO before the NSA would EIS – or to do a NEO on the 737. Eventually, it was a pretty clear choice – remember even Southwest was suddenly saying that Boeing really had to do something with the 737 in order to keep SW’s business. I’m sure they weren’t the only ones, so there was a lot of pressure on Boeing.
It just happened to be that AA became the customer where they finally showed their hand on this – they already hinted at pursuing a re-engine instead of NSA during the Paris Air Show that year.
As Scott wrote at the time, just days before the AA announcement:
“Boeing did not fire 1700 employees. They are laying off engineers.” Sorry but I am not an English professor, do you prefer “getting rid of engineers from the payrole” or “encouraging them to move to Toulouse?”
The only connection that JAL and ANA might have with the battery issue might be gaining compensation via heavy discounts from Boeing on the 777X and I think Boeing will accommodate them. Too many years and ties between Boeing and ANA,and JAL, but today, anything is possible with airlines switching OEM’s suddenly and leaving long time suppliers. Loyalty is a diminishing quality in the business world.
I was amazed and impressed by the patience, cooperation and friendliness ANA and JAL demonstrated during the last 5 years, while their network and fleetplanning went into the shredder repeatedly and their reputation was under attack.
Remember when the tsunami hit Japan and seeing the locals patiently waiting in line for humanitarian aid, not pushing, shoving, yelling or acting anything like the New Orleans crowd when Katrina hit.
The Japanese have much more self control and still show honor even in hard times. Got to admire that.
I hope Boeing can mend fences and keep them as customers.
whcih engine manufacturer supplies these planes?
GE exclusively
Corretion: GE exclusively for 777-300er, and 777-8 / 777-9
And the battery company is from Japan. The wings are made in Japan. The aerospace program has a STRONG tie to Boeing and the US. Am I correct and you were one of the folks who said the A380 was a done deal with ANA? Did that order ever take place? Japan is a very polite culture and they will complement a product, but pulling the trigger? Maybe a few to be polite. There is too much aerospace national revenue at stake not to be the primary customer for Boeing products. I keep telling you point to point is in the best interest of Europe and the US, and aircraft like the A350-900 and -1000 are too big for the connection US and European airlines need to survive. Middle East airlines need the large aircraft because slots are being reduced to them and access to US cities, where the majors will make their money will never be profitable for the ME carriers. Japan is also jumping in, look at San Jose, San Diego, and other city pairs being created. Will a 350-900 or -1000 be a good business case for those markets? Here’s another one for you to think about- how many US majors bought a 777-300ER? One!! And then how many US majors bought the 350-900? One. Compare that to how many US majors bought the A330-200/300? I rest my case.
And because PTP needs 787-8 sized planes from Europe to the US, BA, LH, AF all are or will fly the A380 to their US destinations (LAX, JFK, IAD) it is clear that nothing but a 788 will do. Furthermore, the 772 is standard on many runs too (e.g. United, BA fly this almost exclusively to the US from Europe, I believe, bar some 767s), as is the A346 for those airlines who are stuck with it, indicating the viability of an A359-size plane (e.g. 3x BA and 3x UA daily LHR – IAD, 4×772, 2×767 at present, and was 1×747 with BA for a while – so that would be 4×359 and 2×787-8 in the future, I guess).
Given the financial situation of US and EU or Asian airlines, I doubt that the non-US airlines have a lot to learn from their counterparts in any case.
Sorry, first sentence garbled.
And because PTP needs 787-8 sized planes from Europe to the US, BA, LH, AF all are or will fly the A380 to their US destinations (LAX, JFK, IAD) have it wrong, and it is clear that nothing but a 788 will do.
Shame that the picture shows RR engines.. Most reliable engines are still those made by GE.