Leeham News and Analysis
There's more to real news than a news release.
There's more to real news than a news release.
Boeing Commences 777-8 Freighter Production
Assembly of the first 777-8F wing is underway at the airframer’s Everett facility.
July 28, 2025, (c) AIN: Boeing has officially begun series production of the 777-8 Freighter at its widebody factory in Everett, Washington. About 100 Boeing employees gathered inside the 777X Composite Spar Shop on July 21 to observe as a robotic arm ceremoniously drilled the first hole in a 777-8F wing spar.
It is the first of 938 holes that will be drilled into every wing spar assembled at that location, explained Ben Linder, vice president and chief engineer for Boeing’s 777 and 777-8F programs. Drilling all 938 holes with the automated robot arm, which Boeing calls the Spar Assembly Robotic Cell (SPAC), will take five eight-hour shifts, he told reporters at the Everett facility.
The full story may be found on AIN here.
I wonder when the 777F’s EIS is tentatively scheduled for.
@Vincent: 2028 (for now)
Thanks.
Is Boeing working three-shift-a-day on the 777-8?
@Pedro: I think only two shifts, but I don’t truly know.
Hamilton
@ Mr. Hamilton
On another note:
Is there any reliable insight yet as to the effect on Boeing of the current 50% tariffs on imports of aluminum, steel and copper?
I’ve seen metal industry experts on CNBC who assert that there’s no realistic short-term way for the US to domestically produce (anywhere near) the required quantities of these metals…and US producers are opportunistically hiking prices already.
Of background interest:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/steel-prices-tariffs.html
Boeing said these tariffs won’t be material to finances; and planes exported after assembly allow for recapture of the tariffs paid on import.
July 29 is Boeing’s 2Q earnings call, so maybe there will be an update.
Thanks.
“Boeing said these tariffs won’t be material to finances; and planes exported after assembly allow for recapture of the tariffs paid on import.”
Does that mean tariffs on raw materials and parts would impact aircraft deliver to US airlines?
@Pedro: Yes.
Be interesting on who finishes first. Airbus looks to be ahead, but looks like a 2028 delivery as well.
https://fl360aero.com/detail/airbus-has-completed-the-manufacturing-of-the-first-horizontal-stabilizer-for-the-a350f-freighter-in-spain/2163
Boeing does not have to worry about the -8 Pax version. Good to see Boeing with momentum at least for now.
This webinar might be of interest to some folks on here;
Beyond the Checklist: Restoring Integrity in Aerospace Quality Assurance
https://interactive-bnp.com/portal/public/ViewCommInBrowser.jsp?Sv4%2BeOSSucwxctRH9VZ6F07S04D7wz%2BjGz4wv5BHgJIweMtMBaXA7Bv1UKxOfkM6RxTd0LtySEWLj76U4YB8Sw%3D%3DA
It’s interesting that construction has already started on a plane whose design still isn’t complete:
“Engineers have completed more than 80% of the drawings that define the configuration of the 777-8 Freighter and are continuing detailed design of systems and parts. Teams are also testing systems in laboratories to help demonstrate they perform as intended.”
https://www.boeing.com/features/2025/07/a-spar-is-born–team-builds-first-777-8-freighter-wing-parts
The wing design is complete.
The fuselage is modified for the the cargo version , including floor frames and the door openings. The fuselage build will be later
Abalone wrote
It’s interesting that construction has already started on a plane whose design still isn’t complete:
Concurrent development is a common industry practice. The A350f freighter hasn’t completed design yet but they have started the horizon tail, which IS complete and d has a high probability of being identical to the pass tail. Likewise, there’s a very high probability the 777-8F Freighter uses the passenger wing so the next life of the passenger plane as a freighter is a simple reconfig. Its probably a lessor requirement to protect the airplanes residual value as wing upgrades are costly and invasive.
“concurrent development” may be a common industry
practice- but it seldom works out well. See all the 777-x
nominally finished dogs sitting around, which will all have to be rebuilt.
I won’t even mention the [cough] F-35.
You need to be able to discern the difference between concurrent production and concurant design/production.
Both the A350F and the 8F are based on pax versions that have been built.
You may not think the built 777-9s are worth anything and welcome to think that of course.
Blindingly obvious though, while they started the wing, none of the fuselage has been done.
By the time an 8F rolls down the line, they will be into 50-100 built 777-9s.
There have been no show stopping issues with the hull and the engines will be well tested (well are but even more so).
Which F suits what customers is one thing, which one you like the same. But twisting the reality of thi9ngs is going over the edge.
I think there are advantages to operators for either one, depends on the operator not the aircraft.
Vincent wrote
“concurrent development” may be a common industry
practice- but it seldom works out well. See all the 777-x
nominally finished dogs sitting around, which will all have to be rebuilt.
The stacking of the 777X around the factory has more to do with the Aircraft Certification, Safety, and Accountability Act (ACSAA) than most people consider. Boeing somehow initially conned people into believing that a new airplane flying the biggest engines yet mounted on a Boeing commercial aircraft that used a carbon wing that folded and was significantly stretched beyond the max 777 length, could actually pass itself off as a derivative of a shorted lighter metal winged 777. The cert path was to pass as much of the airplane as “Same as Except” and only fly the Bonafide’s. (A shit idea I never understood) The ACSSA passage forced all new design to be the subject of new analysis as if it was really a new airplane (which it really is). Combine that decision with the suspension of Boeings ODA and the bulk of the cert troops Boeing had on board had to have all their output approved by an FAA DAR, and we know how the ping pong game of revision approvals, denials, revision requests and such happened with the grossly understaffed FAA. It didn’t help the horrible situation any at all when the FAA, lacking trust because both sides were throwing each under the buss, was understaffed and didn’t have a schedule to hit.
SSSOOOOOOOOO Its not so much the hardware failings as the processes that were the moving target. Thats all on Boeing by the way.
As for all the airplanes needing to be rebuilt, perhaps a poor description of Change Incorp, but yes, all the little niggling things you need to correct as you find them as the first airplanes need to be done, but as the build matures, the airplanes have less work to do. It’s not a linear amount of effort on the built aircraft, supposedly they improve as you get the changes driven back to the line and the work goes down with each successive unit. These changes are also minor in nature, because big things that were big problems had designed and approved MRB actions. Everybody irrespective of where you build things does a process similar to Change Incorporation. I wish I knew what Airbus and Embraer calls it
Explaining is Losing.
Vincent uttered
Explaining is Losing.
Thats funny. By your measure, every time I chose not to respond to you, I’m a winner…… Every Single Time
Thanks, That makes my day
@PNWgeek:
I don’t use it as an excuse but using grandfather clause was normal for Boeing or Airbus. Boeing was used to being allowed to do it.
I fully agree they should not, but that is or was the reality.
Then it caught up with them. I remember the write-up from the FAA, they are trying to do business the old way and have not adjusted to things have changed and having to repeatedly submit the same thing over and over not having provided the now required documentation.
COMAC has the same issue, no documentation discipline and failed the approval process for both 909/919. EASA is not going to drop their standards so they have a wake up call coming (or are ignoring its going to hit)
Each program has had its herk and jerk that seems to have finally gotten through.
One of the areas that was a head thumper was the direct copy and paste of the 787 flight program (or at least a part of it)
Its not a problem doing that, but you have to change the parameters and the PID to account for its a wildly different aircraft.
Trans wrote
COMAC has the same issue, no documentation discipline and failed the approval process for both 909/919.
Respectfully, The Chinese documentation debacle is rooted in the MD80 Chinese Kit Aircraft program. 50 knocked down kits went to China, they were assembled and got their CofA issued in China by the Chinese “FAA”. This brought the Chinese into the correct decade product wise but never transferred any of the path to an approved TCDS. Consequently, they didn’t know all the moving parts needing creation for their own airplane and their cry of its just as good as your stuff fell on deaf ears. They are still attempting to understand the nuances of regulatory compliance. Unfortunately for them, their biggest lack is the absence of industry recognized certification subject matter experts. Those don’t grow on trees and without them, àn approved path to certification is very difficult. I still believe the Chinese think they are right in trying to approve what they built, the stuff is probably compliant, or real close, but they lack the systems to prove it……
@PNWgeek:
I followed the issue when the FAA was trying to get China into the world certification system. US, Europe, Japan, Canada and Brazil l who have sold aircraft world wide and approvals from all the AHJs.
That was pre-China tensions and the US was acting like a normal trade entry (shipping as much produce to China as possible)
Despite the famous trio here, it was a good faith significant effort (they like to re-write history)
They realized the 909 was beyond the point they could back track it, mu9ch like Mitsubishi MRJ having to start over again. Even with both sides full on it can run into problems.
So the FAA shifted to the 919. Frankly it sounded a lot like Boeing in running over the FAA. Its not that their stuff did not meet spec, they could not document it so you could trace it.
COMAC refused to do the steps needed and again ran over the FAA. The FAA then threw up their hands.
So there is more history to it and unlike the Trio, I was paying attention back then, it was of deep interest to me (and still is)
So yea, the China efforts kind of starte4d with the kncok down kits, but they developed a culture that did not adhere to or want to adhere to the standards.
They can come up with their own standards system (have) and ignore the group that has built and delivered LCA withing that system.
Some countries will ignore the lack of World Recognized certification , the significant ones travel wise will not.
What is truly stunning is to see someone talk about FAA capture (more corrupted) and totally ignore China writing their own behind closed doors no one can see. Not captured, owned lock, stock and tomahawk.
And we have seen how China reacts to a crash they don’t want to admit what happened.
What happens when the 919 has its first crash? It will, hopeully a ferry flight and no one dies.
@ Vincent
BA is excellent at “concurrent development”…didn’t you know?
Case in point:
“Boeing still ‘finalising’ 737 Max 7 and 10 engine anti-ice redesign options”
“Eighteen months after estimating a one-year timeline for the critical system redesign, Boeing has yet to finalise its technical solution for the 737 Max engine anti-ice system.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers/boeing-still-finalising-737-max-7-and-10-engine-anti-ice-redesign-options/163948.article
***
No worries: if/when a design shortcoming is identified, just get an exemption (easy under the current administration), and then keep postponing a fix.
From the AIN article:
“According to Boeing, the 777-8F will be the world’s largest and ‘most capable’ twin-engine freighter with the highest payload capacity and lowest operating cost.”
For sure the 777-8F will be the heaviest freighter with the largest wingspan. The claim about the “most capable” freighter is doubtful. 5 % less range for about 1 % more payload (and I got the feeling Airbus can close the freight gap). “Lowest operating cost” is very doubtful except financial costs are included and Boeing is gifting the freighters.
Here’s an interesting comparison article:
https://aviationsourcenews.com/airbus-a350f-vs-boeing-777-8f-which-freighter-has-the-competitive-edge/
To your point:
“The A350F’s lighter airframe and lower MTOW translate to lower fuel burn and airport charges. Airbus claims 20% better fuel efficiency than the 777F and 10% lower maintenance costs than the A350 passenger model.
“However, composite durability in freighter operations remains a question mark. The 777-8F leverages the 777F’s maintenance ecosystem, reducing costs for existing operators.
“Its higher payload lowers costs per tonne for heavy cargo, but its heavier MTOW increases fuel and landing fees, making it less competitive on long routes.”
Who says the 777-8F is only 1% more payload than the baby A350F
Are you comparing to the old 777F ?
Max TO of the -8F ( 805k lb) is much higher than even that previously announced for the passenger -9 (775k)- which may be higher when its EIS
A lot to keep in mind.
Range is not the driving factor for F ops. F operators will happily give up range for capacity.
Bulk out vs weight out is a factor for some operators like FedEx (none so far) UPS (none so far) and DHL (who knows with all the various lease stuff).
Then you also have belly cargo added in, have not seen the figures which may not be out but the 777-8F has larger for both than A350F.
Airbus lost at least 7 orders when a lease firm lost a customer and backed out.
Airbus just never seems committed to the F market. They are not prioritizing the A350F. Boeing is clearly. F make for great line fillers.
You don’t have to worry about white tails as they don’t have interiors.
If operators can’t get 777-200/300 feedstock, the 777-8F is one answer and it has a commonality of cans (top and in the belly).
You can use the short AMJ cans though you give up some bulk doing so. FedEx did for years (747 cans were not as high, 8 ft vs 10 ft as I recall)
Belly the same except more (if its bulking out).
No question the A350F is appealing for those that operate Airbus aircraft.
“… which may be higher when its EIS”
Lmao. Do you mean the MTOW of the-9 will be higher when it EIS? How certain are you?
Consider- as always- the source. Busy “Rob” must’ve been granted a few days off..
Because the 777-8F max weight is already higher as I explained.
For production reasons the basic airframe will be similar ( except for the shorter length which doesnt change the 777X max MTOW ‘capability’)
Increasing an airliners MTOW- over time- is what all manufacturers do. Ive been following with interest the A350-1000 TO weight increase over the last few years. The A321 XLR also came with a very considerable TO weight increase.
I dont know what the number for 777-9 when it starts flying for airlines will be , but its certain to the much higher than the current number from many years back.
According to Airbus max payload for A350 is 111 t. Here are the official figures from Boeing:
Structural Payload (Gross): 118.2 tonnes Revenue Payload (Net): 112.3 tonnes
OK, 1,300 kg more.
Btw: MTOW for A350F is 3 t less than for A350-1000 at 319 t while 777-8F is at 365 t. There is a 45 t difference to move nearly the same amount of cargo.
Volume is different too
‘766 cubic meters of cargo volume speak for the 777-8F, while the A350F’s cargo hold spans 695 cubic meters.’
A350F revenue payload is 109 t vs 112t for 777-8F, so 3 tonnes , but still way behind in the volume which these days is “king”, where more pallets (777-8F) bring in more money
What we do not know is what the full up weight range is.
F ops are not Pax ops. F ops will give up range for carry capacity.
You should note FedEx runs most of its 777F ops through Anchorage, they can make the West Coast with some drop in carry. Only one was doing that and that was dated. Saving in time was 6 hours or some such. You also paid a premium charge for that.
It was a reason the 747-8F had shorter range, the F operators did not want longer range, happy with using the existing stops network.
While the article lays out some of the weights but it does not say what the weight range charts are. they are wrong that bulk operators will like the A350F. The more storage in CF (or CM) you have, the more you can pack in if you don’t over weight.
You are mixing bulk ops and heavy ops in one airframe and they will choose which one they prefer (Airbus or Boeing) and some like Airbus or Boeing.
Clearly the 8F has more weight and CF than the A350.
How that all factors out, well some are buying Airbus and some are buying Boeing.
From Shanghai to San Francisco it’s about 5,300 nm. Maybe A350F operators can skip Anchorage for bulk cargo.
It can be done, but how many buyers are bulk cargo types? None of the Big 3 are in on it. UPS is a possible as they are not committed to a 777F. They are a heavy 747 operator.
Going against the 777-8F is a large number of orders is Qatar.
So will see how it plays out.
Add in crew changes and rest periods. Rather than multiple pilots you stop, refuel and reset the pilots time periods to zero again.
Or you can keep a few spare pilots and move it along.
F ops are not PAX ops. Very different world.
Then there is fuel costs. Where is it expensive, where is it lower cost?
Haha, the 777-9 enters the “next phase” of certification!
> The FAA late last week cleared Boeing to begin the next phase of its 777-9 certification
https://x.com/jonostrower/status/1949986161205923840
Can they finish by 2025
Good you put “next phase” in quotes.
Can they finish in 2025? Uh, no.. this is Boing we’re talking about, and I’m willing to bet that won’t happen.
Etihad Airways will bring 2 more A380s back to service, in 2026 & 2027 respectively.
I think by the time the A350F goes into service there are 800 A350 in operation with 50 operators, which helps in maintenance, crews, maturity. While the 777X is a new aircraft (cockpit, engines, wing, fuselage, tail, systems).
The A350 empty weighs 130t, but still lifts up to 111t. Slightly less than a 747-400F and has a door for outsize cargo. A strong freighter option.
I wonder what role (marketshare) 777 retrofits will play in the next 20 years. Do they meet environmental requirements?
The emissions rule only effects ‘new deliveries’. Just like every old plane refitted for cargo, wont affect future retrofits of B777 or A330
As far the take, the 777-8F has the existing can structure advantage
The A350F will have its unique can as does a A330F (not sure on A320).
Its not that its impossible, but having worked in, around and on Can ops, there is more equipment involved that people realize.
Qatar may have well been a poke in the eye at Airbus, but they do come through with their orders and the others are making those same decisions based on their fleet bias be it A or B as well as the economics and what their F division is equipped with (mostly 747/777/767 and 737.
While the order book is now 59 and heavily weighted to Qatar, there are also the options and the buyers are the type who pick those up over time.
Duke is spot on for older aircraft.
Its a reason why ICAO is such a joke. Very few new freighters are built vs converting old pax aircraft.
Any existing plane cant necessarily comply with new regulations for emissions. Same goes for cars and trucks.
Converted older fuselages probably fly a lot less hours than their days as long haul passenger jets , so its a reduction that way.
If theres a new type certificate , then the new rules do apply, but a freighter conversion- cargo door , reinforced floor, removing seats etc- is typically a supplementary type cert, or STC.
The new engines wont be a new TC but an ‘amended TC’, eg for 737-8 max.