Wing Talk
June 17th, 2009
Boeing Commercial Airplanes President & CEO Scott Carson may not have realised the sudden interest his comments may have caused toward certain media and listeners at his opening briefing this past Monday at Le Bourget - but the stunning way(s) in which Carson’s views were then interpreted in the Tuesday morning publishing’s being distributed by GIFAS staff to attendees of the biennial Paris Air Show demonstrated two fundamental things.
First - that those who had attended the first Boeing briefing of the week had selective hearing.
Second - that they showed why they are not employed in the aerospace business because of their inability to understand the context of what Carson was saying.
So let’s cut to the chase - yes, Carson said Boeing may look at a possible new wing for the 777. Big deal.
The real deal is the context, overlooked by pretty much everyone in their quest to publish Carson’s remarks as some kind of “official” green light that this was the path Boeing would now navigate to update the 777 against the largest Airbus A350XWB variant, the A350-1000.
Boeing 777 Freighter wing in Everett, WA
Image copyright/owned by FleetBuzz Editorial.com
Since the Airbus A350 was (re-launched, re-launched, re-launched) re-launched in late 2006, only four customers have amassed just 75 orders for the A350-1000 variant to date. In contrast and in the same time period, Boeing has secured 170 orders, just for the 777-300ER.
“I’m not surprised [Carson's] talking about that,” said Airbus’ John Leahy. “He’s going to lose the market if he doesn’t do something.“
This is not the first time Boeing has said what they could do to counter any possible perceived threat to the 777 family.
In previous discussions with Boeing’s VP Marketing Randy Tinseth, he identified a range of options that the company has at its disposal, ranging from a new wing, use of new material gained from experience with the 787, new engines and perhaps even an all new design. (Of course, an all new design would have direct implications for a possible 787-10 variant too…)
Let us not forget the key reason why Mr. Leahy says what he does - it’s precisely because Airbus’ skewed focus on pouring over $22bn (and growing) into a contracting niche with the financial calamity that is the A380 that Airbus simply got a classic case of a “double whammy” - being hit firstly by the breathtaking performance of the 777-300ER followed up with the runaway success of the 787 Dreamliner family.
Equally, Leahy had proudly boasted that he would “do nothing” in response to the 787, yet has had several cases of doing something until the A350XWB got a better spectrum of appeal - as a direct response to the 777 and 787.
“You have to remember that we were a step ahead of Airbus and that forced them to do something,” said Boeing’s SVP of Communications, Tom Downey when he and I spoke just yesterday at length on the subject.
So there you have it.
Of course, this piece of little history is routinely missed by all and sundry and quite frankly is wholly disingenuous to the entire 777-787-A350 conundrum.
As Tinseth pointed out this week to me on the sidelines in Paris, the company “has time on its hands” to respond to the A350-1000XWB. Most critically, one of the largest customers for the A350 program overall, Emirates, has said time and again that it is not satisified that the A350-1000 cannot match the 777-300ER’s superior freight uplift, which accounts for a significant proportion of its revenues - even more so as the airline battles a collapse in premium passenger yields.
Equally, Emirates Tim Clark at Le Bourget admitted that the A350 “doesn’t give Emirates the payload and numbers we need,” - perhaps the first admission, at least publicly, that the A350-1000 is not all its cracked up to be, as exemplified by its rather paltry backlog against the backdrop of $16bn+ for the wider A350XWB program. And then there are the little matters of Airbus being unable to provide even a generic figure for OEW for any of the A350 variants and funding using more of taxpayer’s money to finance the response to the 777 and 787.
The critical aspect in all of the to-and-fro ideas about what could/should be done is that it all depends on whether Airbus achieves its objectives on the A350 program in an attempt to respond to the 777 and 787. It’s taken them over a decade to accept that long range twin engine airplanes is the way forward - not even they would argue against that when you contrast the sales figures of just the A350 against the A380.
Re-winging an airplane isn’t a bad option - look at the 737 Next Generation and contrast that to the A340-500 and A340-600. While some will argue that the 747-8 family hasn’t had much in the way of success either, that too is an airplane that has time on its hands to penetrate the marketplace - principally because the 747-400 replacement has yet to start en masse.
Boeing clearly is not yet ready to commit to any particular solution - the primary driver of course, as has always been, will be the customers. The A350-1000 has a long road of its own to encounter, and with many airlines holding much farther back than Airbus would have us believe, the 777-300ER is still sitting pretty without a challenger for quite a few more years.
Entry Filed under: Airbus, Airbus A350, Airbus A350XWB, Boeing, Boeing 777-300ER, Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Paris Air Show, Randy Tinseth, Scott Carson
26 Comments Add your own
1. Jacobin777 | June 17th, 2009 at 18:44
Interesting comments about Clark and the A350XWB (which will still be a great plane by the way -even if it doesn’t hit its targets). I think EK would like to see Boeing come out with a B787-10 as well as some kind of change for the B77W (as mentioned by Boeing management).
Like the A330, the B777 is going to hold its own. Any improvements of the B777 will only add to its capabilities.
Also, a potential B777 composite (as mentioned by Carson recently) would knock the tail out of almost any large plane (VLA included).
Even if the B748I really doesn’t sell in too many numbers, the B748F has guaranteed that the line will probably be successful.
2. Vero Venia | June 17th, 2009 at 20:36
Boeing is not in hurry to do anything concerning the response to the A350-1000, which will enter into service only in 2015.
Yes, Boeing needs to explore the possible options if indeed the A350-1000 becomes a threat to the 777-300ER. In any case, an aircraft manufacturer needs to study new ways to improve their family of products.
The reality is:
* Airbus must build the A350-900 first
* the actual capability of the A350-1000 will be known once the A350-900 will have entered into service in 2013
* Boeing will be quite busy during the next three years with 747-8 and 787 production ramp up and entry into service
* the 777-300ER is still selling very well
The only thing Boeing can do today concerning the 777-300ER is to wait actively. It means they need to explore the options and guarantee the readiness of the technology they want to put to a possible 777 enhancement or replacement.
The other important point is to start working with an engine manufacturer on a possible new engine for the 777 enhancement or replacement.
Why don’t they ask GE to study a 110 klb SLST class engine that will be ready in 2017 based on improved GEnx technology?
In other words, the current fuzz about the 777-300ER enhancement or replacement is absolutely useless.
3. Leelaw | June 17th, 2009 at 21:37
“the B748F has guaranteed that the line will probably be successful.”
IMO, doubtful. The substantial cost overruns associated with the ham-handed development/industrialization effort and rapid changes in market conditions since the program was launch likely ensure that breaking-even is the very best case scenario.
4. Chris Wallace | June 17th, 2009 at 21:48
The 77W still has some four years worth of production left even if it never scored another order and the ~200 already in service have some two decades of life left before they seriously need to be replaced.
I’m not surprised the A350-1000XWB is seeing slow sales because there is no market for it before the mid-2020s. I believe EK is buying it to replace their 777-300s and EY/ET will be using it as a high-density regional plane around Europe, Africa and India. I don’t expect them to send it Asia, Australia or North America - that is what their 77W fleets are for. And those 77Ws continue to improve thanks to fuel efficiency updates from GE for their engines.
OZ will likely use their 10 to replace and augment their 747 fleet for JFK, LHR, LAX, FRA and ORD as well as regional services (NRT, HKG) since they don’t have the 77W in their fleet or on order, though that might change when they supposedly chat with Boeing in September.
The real replacement battle won’t start in earnest until around 2020. By then the 77W will be about as good as it can get through PIPs, Tech Inserts and weight reduction programs so Boeing either needs to go to the next level (systems replacement) or launch a new model. And the A350-1000XWB will have been in service for up to five years and seen her own initial rounds of improvements. At that point, airlines will have a clear idea of what options are available to them - A350-1000XWB, 77WERX or Y3.
5. Chris Wallace | June 17th, 2009 at 21:56
Leelaw opinioned: The substantial cost overruns associated with the ham-handed development/industrialization effort and rapid changes in market conditions since the (747-8F) program was launch(ed) likely ensure that breaking-even is the very best case scenario.
It took Boeing 19.5 years to sell 166 747-400 family freighters. It’s taken them 4.5 years to sell half that many (78) 747-8 family freighters. And even with world air freight in collapse, no carrier has yet to cancel or defer delivery of dedicated freighters, instead continuing to take delivery of their final new-build 747-400 family freighter models they had on order and instead park relatively new converted 747-400 freighters if that is what needed to happen in order to do so.
If I was a betting man, I would bet on the 747-8 freighter program proving to be a profitable one for Boeing over the next couple of decades because I do not expect world trade to stop nor do I expect the converted 747 freighter market to offer the flexibility and capability necessary to meet future world trade demands.
6. Leelaw | June 17th, 2009 at 22:41
“If I was a betting man, I would bet on the 747-8 freighter program proving to be a profitable one for Boeing over the next couple of decades”
Recouping $4-5B in development money in a reasonable time-frame almost entirely on the strength of freighter production which will be produced at low rate, at least initially, doesn’t seem like a prescription for profitability to me.
7. boeing investor | June 17th, 2009 at 23:00
The 777 wing is pretty maxxed out.
If they redesign, its a waste of money.
The future is in a new airplane and thats what I believe they’ll do - and with it an all new GE engine.
8. mike alfonso | June 18th, 2009 at 00:46
i agree with the new GE engines
9. chaser | June 18th, 2009 at 01:21
I believe the industry has learned a bit about wing technology since the 777 was designed, and a new composite wing plus perhaps something like glare for parts of the fuselage could give Boeing a pretty formidable 777NG
10. Jacobin777 | June 18th, 2009 at 01:42
“Recouping $4-5B in development money in a reasonable time-frame almost entirely on the strength of freighter production which will be produced at low rate, at least initially, doesn’t seem like a prescription for profitability to me.”
Don’t forget, part of the expenses will be amortized (aka financial wizardry) with the B787 program.
Add to the fact it does deny Airbus a lot of leverage in the +400 seat category, it might have wound up being a good investment.
Will it be a “money-maker”? I really don’t know but I don’t think it probably will.
11. Rengab | June 18th, 2009 at 03:25
the 777 has still a long way to go
7107 replacement plane will stradle
777 to 742 size with long range
most possibly also 2 engined
12. DWS | June 18th, 2009 at 05:48
Well, since the 747 was brought into the discussion here, there’s an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald regarding “premium business class travelers” demanding to fly on old 747s. Who would thought…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/too-late-to-reboot-when-in-the-air-20090617-chtq.html
13. Leelaw | June 18th, 2009 at 09:07
DWS:
You know stuff like this makes the Airbusiers’ eyes spin like pinwheels.
The only credible storyline is that passengers are urinating on themselves with excitement just thinking about the incomparable luxury that awaits them aboard the WhaleBus[t]! 
14. HAWK21M | June 18th, 2009 at 11:14
No point in Boeing redesigning the wing,unless its for a new model,considering the costs involved.
regds
MEL.
15. Ed | June 18th, 2009 at 14:16
Leelaw said in reply #3:
“the B748F has guaranteed that the line will probably be successful.”
“IMO, doubtful. The substantial cost overruns associated with the ham-handed development/industrialization effort and rapid changes in market conditions since the program was launch likely ensure that breaking-even is the very best case scenario.”
First, if the B-747-8 reaches the break even point, even with just the “F” version, that will be a lot further than the A-380 program will ever go. Costs overruns seem to plague every new airline program, the B-747-8F/I is not unique here.
Now, about a possible new B-777 wing, that would be a known quanity the airline customers can count on, if Boeing decides to build it.
There is no compitition from the A-350-1000 to the B-777-300ER as the A-350 is a long way from a frozen design. Airbus dosen’t even know what its A-350-800 will weigh, yet, so how can they define the 4th version (A-350-800/-900/-900F/-1000) of the A-350? As I said before on this site, there is nothing about the A-350 that is XWB except marketing. All versions of the B-777 are wider than the A-350 will ever be.
I am not convinced Airbus can build the A-350-800 by 2012, the A-350-900 by 2013, the A-350-900F by 2014, or the A-350-1000 by 2015, let alone EIS for each version in those years. I look at the A-380 and A-400M programs as examples to the failure of EADS to meet their contractual obligations, “biting off more than they can chew” from a technoligy position. I look for the A-350-800 and -900 versions to be up to 4 years late, and the -900F and -1000 versions “put on the back burner” sitting with the A-380-800F and -900s.
Some would say Boeing is in the same boat with a 20 month delay on the B-787 programs. But, the B-787 is a radical new design compared to the A-380, A-400M or A-350 programs. The technoligcal hurddles Boeing has had to overcome are enormous compared to a simple military 4 engine turbo-prop cargo airplane (a bigger C-130J) or a full double deck B-747 wanna-be.
BTW, have you noticed the B-787 program has reduced the delay from 22 months to 20 months, lately? They appear to be catching up
Airbus cannot even get the wiring right on the Whale-Jet, a system that should have been easily designed.
As far as EK is concerned with both Airbus and Boeing, both would be well off listening to all their other customers than just playing the “sqeeky wheel gets the grease” game. EK is just one airline, in just one region. Yes, their desires for airplanes must be listened to, but not at the expense of all other customers. EK is also “biting off more than it can chew”.
To me it looks like Boeing is timing the airplane improvements and new models to fit in as replacement airplanes for airplanes like the A-300/-310, B-767, and Classic B-747 (as in the B-787-3/-8/-9, B-777-300ER/-200LR/-F, and B-747-8I/F). That makes a better business case than simply designing new models to respond to the other guy’s models, before they reach the retirement age (as in the A-350 responding to 10 year old B-777s, and not the B-787), or looking at airline expansion, only.
The airlines have made their choice. Compare B-777 sales to the A-340-500/-600, or B-787, the A-350″XWB” sales, or the B-747-8 sales to the A-380.
It seems the only lines Airbus is doing well with are the A-32X and A-330. Boeing is doing well with the B-737NG, B-747-8F, B-777-200LR/-200LRF/-300ER, and B-787-8/-9. Even the B-767 line is out selling the A-340 line.
16. Leelaw | June 18th, 2009 at 14:53
“if the B-747-8 reaches the break even point, even with just the “F” version, that will be a lot further than the A-380 program will ever go.”
True, but I don’t find this kind of “moral relativism” all that interesting.
“Costs overruns seem to plague every new airline program, the B-747-8F/I is not unique here.”
Maybe, but I’m troubled by the tacit acceptance of the “Forgeard Theorem,” i.e. that ALL commercial development programs have serious delays and cost overruns, as the “gold standard” for the industry. I fear that the rationalization of failure instead of the pursuit of excellence is rapidly becoming the credo of our industry.
17. Mike M | June 18th, 2009 at 16:47
What to do - a new 787-10 wing or a 777-300ER wing?
On the former, no GE engine.
On the latter, Boeing will want one engine supplier due to costs etc.
Both options are crap in reality. All new is the way to go. Boeing’s learned enough on the ‘87 to know what it can do with composites to scale them up for a 747/777 replacement.
18. Vero Venia | June 18th, 2009 at 17:42
Today, there is no use speculating about what Boeing would do or would not do on the 777. The most important point now is to know what the A350-1000 will be or will not be.
Once this unknown become known, then speculation about the enhancement or replacement of the 777 can commence.
19. Erik Bloodaxe | June 18th, 2009 at 18:58
I know a lot of 777 Engineers who get really offended when they are told “all new airplane programs are late”. The 777 wasn’t.
My supposition about the cost overrun part is that it’s not a problem of cost over runs, but rather a failure to adequately predict the ACTUAL costs. Beancounters always want things on the cheap, when that “plan” doesn’t work, the real designers have to “fix” the original shoddy budget. If the beancounters were less concerned with fake Low ball program figures, and more concerned with REALITY, then we’d see more projects “on budget”… of course then there would be LESS projects. Heck if Airbus knew that the A380 was actually going to cost 22-25 Billion would they still have done it??? Or Boeing the 777 if the “true” figure were known at project launch? No, they wouldn’t. It’s all a big game of liars poker. The Engineers pretend to give the beancounters a figure, and the beancounters pretend to be pissy when the figure is wrong.
20. Vero Venia | June 19th, 2009 at 09:54
I think “My Dream Fleet” here: http://verovenia.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/dreamfleet/ can give you a hint of what the “new” 777 could be.
21. Jacobin777 | June 19th, 2009 at 22:28
Looks like QF is eating some mud on not ordering the B777’s.
“Ex-QF CEO Dixon: “777-300ER “would be handy right now.” “”
“That bureaucracy also resulted in questionable decision-making, with previous CEOs telling ATW at varying times over the past 13 years that management could not make the business case for either the 777-200ER or seatback videos for economy passengers in 1995, premium economy in 1996 or the 777-300ER/200LR in 2005. In interviews before his departure last year, former CEO Dixon conceded that QF had “missed opportunities,” such as the developing premium economy market, and that the 777-300ER “would be handy right now.” Perhaps not surprisingly, all of the former Dixon management team have resigned or been laid off.”"
http://www.atwonline.com/magazine/article.html?articleID=2837
Its quite obvious those of us who stated that QF made a mistake with not taking the B777’s earlier made a huge mistake and are paying for it.
The B77W’s would have been perfect. Lets just say for example they decided to go with the A350-1000. By the time they receive them, they would have had 10-12 years with the B77W’s in the fleet. Nice and paid off planes.
22. keesje | June 20th, 2009 at 00:00
The 787 was a direct responds to the runaway succes of the A330.
In the 2000 -2010 period Airbus will have delivered hundreds while Boeing a few dozen in the 250 seat segment.
The backlog for the 777-200ER and LR has already collapsed, Boeing has to react.
23. Mike M | June 20th, 2009 at 02:52
>>>The backlog for the 777-200ER and LR has already collapsed, Boeing has to react.
>>>The 787 was a direct responds to the runaway succes of the A330.
Keejs, STFU, seriously.
How many 777-200ER/LR are in service?
MORE than the A330, MORE than the A340.
Of course the backlog is down because the 777-300ER supplanted it - why dont you mention that you fool?
The A330 spent a decade on life support until Airbus chopped prices. Besides, with over 1000 orders for the 767, the 787 is THAT airplanes replacement, not the unsafe, tail detaching junk A330 you bark about.
F*** off back to Anet where your 16 year old boyfriends appreciate your rectal waste.
24. Steve | June 27th, 2009 at 00:23
“How many 777-200ER/LR are in service?”
According to Boeing, 442 delivered by end May.
“MORE than the A330, MORE than the A340″
A330s and A340s (-200, -300 & -500 for a fair comparison) delivered to end May, 891. More than double - OOPS!
Maybe you should engage brain before opening your sewer of a mouth?
25. Mike M | June 27th, 2009 at 06:05
Ok, was wrong on the A330 which has 614 del.
A340 (all) have 360 del.
Why the need to add them up Euro? Boy??
777A, 200, 200ER, 200LR & -300 del- 590.
Not much compared to the A330 but MORE than POS340 which is probably why you all have to add it up together to soften the blow…
26. Steve | June 27th, 2009 at 10:26
Why the need to add them up Euro? Boy??”
Because, yanqui? boy??, those are the models that compete with the 777 models you selected. As I said, a fair comparison.
Sorry if the facts don’t fit your view of the World.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed