Boeing Launches 7E7

Note: Alitalia not likely to be buying any planes anytime soon.


Boeing Launches 7E7 With 50-Plane ANA Order April 26, 2004 (Reuters)

Boeing gave the final go-ahead for its first new passenger jet in a decade on
Monday, with an order for 50 7E7 Dreamliners from Japan's All Nippon Airways
marking the single largest launch order in its history.

Designed to save cash-strapped airlines money on fuel and operating costs,
Boeing hopes the 7E7 can help it recover ground lost to European rival Airbus,
which overtook it as the world's biggest commercial jet maker last year.

The steep price of developing the 7E7, which Boeing has not disclosed but
industry experts have pegged at about USD$10 billion, is putting added
pressure on the US manufacturer to get market backing for the project right.

ANA's order was valued at USD$6 billion at list prices and a dozen other
airlines are now set to announce their own 7E7 orders, Boeing said in a statement.

"We expect additional orders in the coming weeks and months," said Alan
Mulally, chief executive of Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

Germany's Lufthansa and Italy's Alitalia are among past customers likely to
want the 7E7, analysts said.

They said the timing of the launch and the fact the first order came from a
carrier in
Japan -- a Boeing market stronghold -- was in line with expectations.

"The scale of the order was a bit of a surprise," said one London-based
industry analyst.

ANA will begin taking 7E7 deliveries in 2008, using short and long-range
versions to phase out ageing Boeing 767s.

Japan's second-largest carrier has not yet selected an engine supplier, with
General Electric and Britain's Rolls-Royce in the running.

The order helps maintain Boeing's dominance in commercial jet sales in Japan,
where it has a market share of around 80 percent, aided by close ties to
Japanese manufacturers.

Boeing sees 30 percent of its 7E7 sales coming from Asia, a region analysts
expect to lead passenger plane sales growth over the next two decades.

Aimed at the middle of the market with about 250 seats, the 7E7 is promising
airlines a 20 percent savings on operating costs, a popular pitch at a time
when no-frills carriers are driving down fares and squeezing margins.

"The 7E7 is a true game changer," said Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher.

ANA ordered short-haul 7E7s which will carry about 300 passengers on routes
of up to 3,500 nautical miles (6,500 km) as well as the standard model, which
will carry 200 to 250 passengers up to 7,800 nautical miles (14,500 km).

"The long-range version pushes the capability envelope quite considerably
versus the [Airbus] A330," the London-based analyst said.

Airbus officials have called the 7E7's improvements over Boeing's current
jets minor, saying price discounts on the competing A330-200 could eliminate
any advantage the 7E7 might bring for airlines.

"So far we are not worried for the A330. We could equip the A330 with the same
engine as the 7E7 if that was necessary," said Gustav Humbert, chief operating
officer at Airbus parent EADS.

The ANA deal more than doubles Boeing's year-to-date total of 36 orders,
which have dwindled in recent years amid a severe air travel slump that has
pushed some airlines into bankruptcy.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Note: Alitalia not likely to be buying any planes anytime soon.



Aimed at the middle of the market with about 250 seats, the 7E7 is
promising
airlines a 20 percent savings on operating costs, a popular pitch at a
time
when no-frills carriers are driving down fares and squeezing margins.


This is a very interesting statement because I have yet to see any clear
definition of what those 20 percent is a saving against. What to me seems
the most realistic is that the 7E7 is going to about 20 percent more
efficient than the A300 and the 767 - both second generation aircrafts. It
might have some advantage over the 330-200 as this is a shortened version
and therefore possibly not optimal. But that it should be able to do 20
percent better also against the 330 seems to me somewhat overly optimistic.
Rather the point of Boeing is to get into the market for the A300 and A310
as well as the old 767's. Which - funny enough - was the entering point for
Airbus. This however still leaves a rather wide gab up to the 777....

Nik.

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Rather the point of Boeing is to get into the market for the A300 and A310
as well as the old 767's. Which - funny enough - was the entering point for
Airbus. This however still leaves a rather wide gab up to the 777....

Which should be covered by the 7E7-9

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Rather the point of Boeing is to get into the market for the A300 and
A310
as well as the old 767's. Which - funny enough - was the entering point
for
Airbus. This however still leaves a rather wide gab up to the 777....

Which should be covered by the 7E7-9

Which again might make it less than optimized.

Nik

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Rather the point of Boeing is to get into the market for the A300 and
A310
as well as the old 767's. Which - funny enough - was the entering point
for
Airbus. This however still leaves a rather wide gab up to the 777....

Which should be covered by the 7E7-9

Which again might make it less than optimized.

Everything is less than optimized. So what will a A380 stretch be to
you? The 7E7 is better for long and short haul depending on which model
is ordered.

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:


Rather the point of Boeing is to get into the market for the A300
and
A310
as well as the old 767's. Which - funny enough - was the entering
point
for
Airbus. This however still leaves a rather wide gab up to the
777....

Which should be covered by the 7E7-9

Which again might make it less than optimized.

Everything is less than optimized. So what will a A380 stretch be to
you? The 7E7 is better for long and short haul depending on which model
is ordered.

I suppose that you have a more ideal proportion between wings and fuselage
in a given design. When you begin stretching or shrinking you are - I
guess - compromising.

Now my point is that if the 7E7 is to be 15-20% more efficient than the
767/A300 then this size of the plane might be the optimal. When you start
stretching it to get into the A330 market it will be relatively less
efficient and hence will represent even less of a direct competitor.


Nik.

Nik muttered....



Now my point is that if the 7E7 is to be 15-20% more efficient than
the 767/A300 then this size of the plane might be the optimal. When
you start stretching it to get into the A330 market it will be
relatively less efficient and hence will represent even less of a
direct competitor.


As your logic doesn't work with ocean going vessels (where extending
waterline length actually increases hull speed), it doesn't necessarily
work with a/c either.

The MD80s, long stretches of the original DC-9 fuselage had a substantially
lower passeenger mile operating cost, more seats and about equal fuel
consumption (except on takeoff), and IIRC an actual few knots increase in
economical cruise speed.

Many "stretch" a/c actually outperform their original versions.

TMO

In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message

Now my point is that if the 7E7 is to be 15-20% more efficient than the
767/A300 then this size of the plane might be the optimal. When you start
stretching it to get into the A330 market it will be relatively less
efficient and hence will represent even less of a direct competitor.

Well, remember which version of the 767 came out first, and which one
ended up more popular (and perhaps most efficient) eventually. The
7E7's proposed efficiency do not come from engines alone.

Not the Karl Orff wrote:
Well, remember which version of the 767 came out first, and which one
ended up more popular (and perhaps most efficient) eventually. The
7E7's proposed efficiency do not come from engines alone.

What is interesting is that the 7E7 isn't really a replacement for the 767. It
is a competitor to the 330 with a fuselage width for a standard 2-4-2.

Boeing claims that for long hauls, the 7E7 might be outfittted for 2-3-2, but
I really doubt this will happen, except for specific routes such as
Singapore-New York (Singapore airlines have outfitted their 340-500 in 2-3-2
for coach, but this flight costs more for tickets).

So, compared to the 767, the 7E7 will gain substantial advantage because it
will be a bigger plane, just like the 380 gains advantage because it is bigger
than 747.

the 7E7 will also gain an edge against the 767 because there have been a lot
of improvements in designs and engines since the early 1980s. However, the
technological advantages of the 7E7 against the 330 won't be as dramatic,
although they could be significant.

Airbus countered that they could simply fit the new engines on the 330s and
almost eliminate the technolgical advantage of the 7E7.

The 7E7 will have nice gizmos like those fancy windows with "FBW" shades. And
it will have a larger cargo hold with fewer restrictions on container sizes.

However, for airlines, the disapearance of the 767 will leave a rather big
hole between the 737/A30 family and the A330/7E7. But since sales of the 767
have all but dried up, the conclusion is that airlines eithe need small
aircraft, or they need bigger aircraft, with not much need for the "in
between" that the 767 was.

Remember that the 767 was 7 across with 2 aisles. A 737/320 is 6 across with
one aisle. So the total passenger capacity isn't THAT different, even though
the 767 is considered a "heavy" with higher landing fees, just for the
privilege of having that extra aisle and not that many extra passengers.

So while to passengers, that extra aisle was really great and made the 767 a
nicer aircraft, to the bean counters, it si perhaps a luxury they can't afford anymore.

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Nik" wrote:

"Not the Karl Orff" wrote in message

Now my point is that if the 7E7 is to be 15-20% more efficient than the
767/A300 then this size of the plane might be the optimal. When you
start
stretching it to get into the A330 market it will be relatively less
efficient and hence will represent even less of a direct competitor.

Well, remember which version of the 767 came out first, and which one
ended up more popular (and perhaps most efficient) eventually. The
7E7's proposed efficiency do not come from engines alone.

No the 7E7's efficiency gain possibly comes from being able to replace a
second generation aircraft with a third generation FBW composite build one.
I strongly doubt that the improvements in design techniques and knowledge
about aerodynamic on its own would allow for a 20 percent efficiency gain
over the A330. To achieve such a gain some rather radical new concepts must
be introduced. This however seems not to be the case as far as shape is
concerned. From pictures it looks rather ordinary. Well - who knows whether
there will be some other hidden new things.

And again. If a significant saving is to come from the engines nothing would
prevent Airbus to fit their products with the same power plants.


Nik.


Nik.