A350 capacity and sales forces Boeing to look at a 777 replacement

www.bloomberg.com...

Capcity, capacity, capacity seems to be the big issue here. While the smaller 787 fits a clearly defined nitch the redisgned A350 is clearly eating into the 777 sales. Thus far Boeing has resisted a larger capacity 787 (-10) in an effort to not canablize sales from the 777 line.

Boeing now has 3 options according to the article

Redesign the 777 wing for better efficiency
Enlarge the 787
Fund a new plane

Emirates has already expressed little interest in the 777 rehash or the 787-10 and wants a whole new plane. Emirates weilds alot of power in the market sort of like a Middle East SIA. Boeing should learn from the sack of potato reception the inital A350 (a redo of the A330) and offer up something new.

reply to post by FredT

Redesign the 777 wing for better efficiency

Do you mean like the 737NG route? Whatever happened to the trip 7-300 stretch?

Enlarge the 787

With all of the production delays already encountered?

Fund a new plane

See above...

Whatever they do, one would think that it's smart to investigate a common type-rating approach. I though I'd heard Airbus trying to go that route?

reply to post by weedwhacker


The -10 was a follow on but its pretty clear that Emirates is not interested. Its s tretched version of the base 787. Once the bugs are irnoed out it should not be that hard.

This little quip is telling:

""Eventually, we will have an all-composite replacement for the 777," Boeing CEO Jim McNerney is quoted as telling Aviation Week at the Paris Air Show. www.usatoday.com...

Its what Emirates wants now.

Common type rating? I know for norrow body planes it makes sence like with the A319/20/21 and the A340 / 330 but Im not so sure about a common narrow / widebody rating. Sure avionics and cockpit design could be made close but 1) The Pilots Unions will balk and Im not sure its safer.

Originally posted by FredT
The -10 was a follow on but its pretty clear that Emirates is not interested. Its s tretched version of the base 787. Once the bugs are irnoed out it should not be that hard.

The last thing I heard on the subject, before it became obvious that Boeing has dropped the 787-10 internally for the time being (requiring all hands on deck for the 787-8, the yet-to-be-defined 787-9, the will-they-or-wont-they-scrap-it 787-3) was that the -10 stratch will require:

1. A larger main landing gear bogey for three wheel sets.
2. A larger main landing gear bay to accomodate the above.
3. A redesign of the central wing box to accomodate the above.
4. A higher thrust engine, which GE remains to commit to (this is one of the reasons they haven't committed to powering the A350XWB yet).
5. A higher gross weight wing.

All in all, not the simple stretch that people assume.

This little quip is telling:

""Eventually, we will have an all-composite replacement for the 777," Boeing CEO Jim McNerney is quoted as telling Aviation Week at the Paris Air Show. www.usatoday.com...

Its what Emirates wants now.

Airbus tried it with the A330 against the 787 and got laughed out of the office, and there is significant likelihood that Boeing is going to get the same treatment for any warmed over 777. Airlines want a new design which has potential for growth and ability to mature, they do not want an airframe refresh which will take that airframe to the limits of its ability.

Common type rating? I know for norrow body planes it makes sence like with the A319/20/21 and the A340 / 330 but Im not so sure about a common narrow / widebody rating. Sure avionics and cockpit design could be made close but 1) The Pilots Unions will balk and Im not sure its safer.

Airbus already operate a Cross Crew Qualification system, which enables a crew with a current type rating on any of its FBW capable aircraft to transfer to another FBW type with only a day or two of conversion training. Normally this would require several weeks conversion time to accomplish.

Yes, this does mean you can learn to fly an Airbus A318 and then do the operational conversion to the A380 in only a few days. And its legal and accepted by the EASA, the FAA and every pilot union I know if.

Boeing operate a similar thing between the 767 and the 777 (the 777 has the same cockpit section forward of the first set of doors as the 767, with many of the same controls and layouts).

reply to post by RichardPrice


Yeah I agree 100% on the warmed over 777. I think it will as I noted above land with a thud similar to the initial A350 concept.

Interesting about the cross training regime. I knew it was avalible for for narrow bodies and wide but not all in one. As I said Im surprised the unions allow it as it can cut into the labor force etc.

Originally posted by FredT
Interesting about the cross training regime. I knew it was avalible for for narrow bodies and wide but not all in one. As I said Im surprised the unions allow it as it can cut into the labor force etc.

To be honest, the only place I have ever heard of any major issues with the labour unions in such circumstances (easier training and conversions) has been in North America, where seniority seems to be heavily biased toward the type flown.

In the rest of the world, seniority seems to be based on time in service and capability (Im not necessarily saying US/Canadian airlines dont also follow this model, but they are heavily skewed to time on type), which means the type flown isn't as important in most cases (for example, in BA a senior pilot made *less* flying Concorde than he would flying a 747, but in neither case was his seniority dictated by the type he flew).

Also, in Europe particularly, pilot training is handled by the pilot themselves - if the pilot wants more opportunity to earn more money, they pay for training to expand their type ratings. The airline doesn't necessarily pay for this training.

reply to post by FredT

As I said Im surprised the unions allow it as it can cut into the labor force etc.

Not really, Fred.

It still comes down to seats and bodies to fill those seats.

In typical US ALPA contracts the MGTOW of the airplane (or the maximum passenger capacity) determine the rate of hourly pay, per seat position. Bigger pays better, and thusly more senior pilots gravitate there. Regardless, most airline contracts have restrictions in place to prevent frequent 'equipment hopping' and disrupting the relative seniority of pilots within a sub-group.

However, don't be confused with the difference between a common type rating and shorter transition training curriculae.

Even within each type, there are 'differences' that the FAA (in our case) require and limit. For instance, the B737 'classic' and B737NG are a common type rating, but there are systems differences and instrumentation display differences. The real defining factor in the type rating compatibility, though, is the sight picture through the windshield for low visibility landings.