WOW! Kind of out of left field!

Boeing Could Offer 'All-New' 777 Jet Within 4 Yrs Of A350-Report

May 14, 2009 16:09:10 (ET)



By Ann Keeton Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

CHICAGO (Dow Jones)--Boeing Co. (BA) could replace its 777 aircraft within four years of Airbus delivering its first rival A350, according to a report published Thursday.

Kostya Zolotusky, managing director of capital markets development, said an all-new 777 replacement could be ready within three to four years of the A350's expected arrival in 2013, according to Flightglobal, an industry publication.

The U.S. company's pledge highlights the importance of the 777 to its profitability at a time when technical and financial resources are being stretched by delays to two other new aircraft programs.

The A350, which is also delayed, is viewed as a more of a competitor to the yet-to-fly Boeing 787 aircraft.

Zolotusky reportedly described a 777 replacement as "overwhelmingly superior" to the A350, claiming that the rival aircraft would not include "leapfrog technology."

With the 787 running two years late and a revamped 747 also delayed, Boeing has said its next move would be to replace the 777 with a new aircraft.

However, the company has said that it was waiting for significant improvements in engine technology before going to the drawing table. Boeing and Airbus have used similar arguments in pushing back a replacement for their single-aisle aircraft until the end of the next decade or beyond.

"There are a lot of things we can do with the current 777, like a new wing, engines and so on" to trump the Airbus A350, Zolotusky told Flightglobal.

Boeing expects a first flight for the 787 late in the second quarter of this year.

-By Ann Keeton, Dow Jones Newswires; 312-750-4120; ann.keeton@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

May 14, 2009 16:09 ET (20:09 GMT)

Well Boeing could conceivably hang the 93k lb thrust Trent 2000 off the 777-200ER which would improve block fuel burn per seat a good bit. Personally, I don't buy Airbus' claim the A350-900XWB will be 25% lower in this area, but having the same engine would ensure that was not the case.

For the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, Boeing needs to lighten the structure and GE needs to continue SFC improvements with the GE90-11xB.

The 777-200LR already has more then enough TOW, so I think a lighter OEW and better SFC are all that is necessary to keep it at least relevant. It's not reasonable to expect it will ever be able to fly 18,500km (especially westbound) with a full load, which is what would be needed to reach LHR from SYD and even if it could, the A380-800R's greater passenger capacity would likely appeal to airlines more then the 777-200LRs greater cargo capacity.

For the 777-300ER, Boeing should also work on increasing the MTOW as much as possible to boost the payload advantage it already seems to enjoy over the A350XWB-1000.

Stitch,

It is my understanding that the MTOW cann't be increased due to the fact that the wing is @ its maximum loading. The only way to increase payload is by OEW reduction.

Michael

Definitely has to be a reduction in OEW if for no other reason is it is pretty close to maximum allowable ground bearing weight, and a new undercarriage IMO could only be done if they also did a new wing, and by then we are getting close to a new airplane.

Boeing released updated Payload-Range charts for the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, I am guessing to reflect the recent SFC improvements to the GE90-11xB.

The 777-300ER gains around 250nm across the board. MZFW range is now 5750nm (from 5500nm) and with full tanks, she can fly 8500nm (with 90,000 pounds of payload).

The 777-200LR gains around 100nm at MZFW (7600nm), moving out to about 250nm with full tanks (10500nm with 30,000 pounds of payload).

1. IMO, the long-term prospects of the 777-200ER are only marginally better than the A343. The 772LR is already more efficient on a B-market sector over ~4,000 nm. Any OEW or SFC improvement to the 772LR is only going to make that advantage more significant. Why even bother updating the 772ER anymore?

2. Agree fully, and perhaps some aero improvements are necessary, too. The data collected during the 787 and 747-8 certification trials will certainly be applicable to a reprofiled 777 wing. Coupled with a composite wingbox and you have the potential for very significant mass and aerodynamic savings.

3. Isn't the 773ER a volume-limited aircraft more than anything? I don't believe an increase in TOW would yield much more payload or range unless additional fuel volume is added or the payload density trends upwards.



The 773ER wing loading is still quite a bit less than the A346 and MD-11, not that those two airplanes are company I would like to keep if I were a Boeing engineer. In any event, I was under the impression that increasing MTOW wouldn't do much to make the 773ER more competitive. I am ready to stand corrected, of course.

...how does it go from 9400nm to 10,500nm with only a 250nm increase?
Even if that were a per-auxiliary tank increase, it still wouldn't be enough.

Good point. Isn't this what Qantas has been telling Boeing for quite some time now ? Any change in this direction might actually result in the satisfaction (or part satisfaction) of QF's ultimate 'holy Grail' of SYD-LON and LON-SYD nonstop.

The 9400nm is with ~300 passengers and their bags. Boeing's OEW figures are not reflective of an actual airline cabin installation, so that ~30,000 pounds of payload would likely be eaten by the weight of a "real" three-class cabin ala EK's so you'd essentially be ferrying an empty plane to reach 10,500nm. Did they have more then three tanks when they flew HKG-LHR (11,664nm) eastbound, or did the winds aloft help make it possible?

Stitch,

Regarding the 777-300ER, it can fly 8500nm (with 40,000 pounds of payload) and 90,000 @ 7700nm. OEW = 370,000

The 777-200LR is correct as stated. OEW = 320,000

Boeing's D6-59329-2 (3.2.2) page 38 April 2009

Regards,

Michael