After announcing yet another big order for the 787, Boeing is talking publicly about an updated model of the already successful 777. The totality of news coverage on the 777 twist indicates the new version may even supercede the anticipated upgrade of the 737. It all appears dependent on Airbus's success (or not) with its A350 program still lurching through the startup phase, long behind the 787 with which the A350 will also compete.
Says CEO Jim McNerney:
"But we really don't know until we see what the A350 is," he said. "If it presents a legitimate threat to certain parts of the 777 line, we would respond and in all likelihood that would be some sort of modification, because we are not due to fully replace that plane for many years out. But having said that, we want to be ready to do what the market needs."
Meeting the needs of customers. Crazy idea, that.
When they first started making those crap heaps, all I could think of was Peugeot. When they first entered the luxury car market in America, they looked great. But a few years later all you ever saw was a sagging Peugeot puffing down the street and exhaling billowing oil smoke.
Same with Airbus....
Posted by: John Bailo on April 26, 2007 08:31 AMIf Boeing had made the mistakes that Airbus did with the A380, they would be facing bankruptcy. Instead, Airbus gets their loans forgiven and more launch aid to make a competetive plane to the 787. The EADS countersuit to the WTO regarding the tax incentives that Boeing received to build their new plane is just a ploy. Even with the tax incentives, ALL of the risk is still on Boeing to produce a plane that sells. Airbus takes on no such risk with launch aid - it just moves on to the next plane.
Posted by: Palouse on April 26, 2007 08:38 AMWhat a bunch of BS. Boeing would get bailed out by the Govt. much like the airlines were after Sept. 11th. Boeing will survive because the US Govt. would not want Japan or China building the next generation of airplanes.
Just think how many cars do the big three have sell abroad to equal the amount of money the Govt. gets from the sale of one 787?
Not really, they'd just order a bunch of stuff the military did not need/want. NASA could help them too. Federal Govt. is already Boeing's biggest customer, would not be too much a stretch for them to bail them out via another 737 Tanker type contract. Label it for National Security, tuck it neatly into a defense spending bill and you got yourself a bailout.
I suppose that could work (in theory), but it's pure speculation as to whether they'd get away with it. It obviously didn't work with the tanker deal, although they'll probably still get it (and should).
Posted by: Palouse on April 26, 2007 02:11 PMOf course they'd get away with it, they already do. Trent Lott was a master at doing ordering extra stuff for the Navy to keep jobs in his state.
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-campaign-planes,0,4666247,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
WASHINGTON -- A flock of small jets took flight from Washington Thursday, each carrying a Democratic presidential candidate to South Carolina for the first debate of the political season.
No one jet pooled, no one took commercial flights to save money, fuel or emissions.
All Global Warming experts I am certain!
Although it is nice to see Boeing being clever these days. All the best with the 787.
Posted by: Spectator on April 27, 2007 12:53 AMBut that doesn't change the fact that the EADS launch aid is a government subsidy to their airplane maker. Their countersuit for Boeing's tax incentives is just not comparable.
Posted by: Palouse on April 27, 2007 07:54 AMBecause there really wasn't much competition back then. At some point people finally came to the realization that some American products (ie Cars) were crap and the Japanese cars were much more safe/reliable. It's all about giving the customer what they want. Boeing moved ahead on that notion thinking that airlines like individuals want to save money. By combining new technology they lowered the planes weight and increased it's fuel efficiency 27%.
Now if only big three auto makers could figure that out (hint: screw ethanol, make carbon fiber auto bodies).
Airbus was 'caught napping' by 787: Leahy
By Victoria Moores
Airbus chief operating officer for customer John Leahy has confessed that the European airframer was caught out by underestimating Boeing's ability to deliver on its 787 promises.
..... .... ... .. .
Despite delays to the type's eventual entry into service, anticipated for mid-2013, Leahy says: "This will be the year for A350 XWB orders. We are a bit late, but a lot of airlines are saying this is an aircraft worth waiting for. We'll see if they do wait."
And the A350XWB is going to do just fine, regardless of what Boeing does with the 777. There are a number of reasons, among which: (1) customers make sure there are viable competitors, to keep prices down (esp. the leasing companies); (2) A number of airlines won't buy Boeing for political reasons (Russia, Iran, Venezuela, et alia); (3) Airbus owns the middle east market (just as Boeing has owned the far east market), which will buy hundreds of 350XWBs; (4) reports are that Airbus is giving away the new A350s, with discounts of 55% off list, or perhaps even more when "sold" as compensation for delayed A380 deliveries.
So the whole idea of rejigging the B777 to respond to the A350 would be only to influence customers that could go either way, such as Lufthansa or Qantas. The 777 is probably due for an upgrade anyway, but frankly there is an aroma of disinformation about the claim that reworking the 777 in any way affects a 737 replacement.
Replacing the 737 is a very tricky issue. The orderbook is full for years, the tooling is fully amortized, so it is a cash cow. Rumors of a replacement would cause cancellations of orders for the old model and commit to an expensive program (my guess is about $6B), so it is best to keep throwing water on the idea. However, it would be shocking if teams aren't moving to a 737 replacement design as they finish their tasks on the 787. Look for lots of outsourcing and two assembly sites, one domestic (probably not Renton) and one foreign, with sufficient production to swipe a lot of existing A320 orders (which extend out as far as the eye can see).
Posted by: thoan on April 27, 2007 11:37 AM