Boeing's very ambitious plans

A lot of media articles are out there today covering what Boeing CEO McNerney told the audience at the Cowen and Co. conference: "We're gonna do a new airplane that will go beyond the capability of what the [A320]NEO can do." (Flightblogger has all the quotes)
Well, once Boeing really does a new airplane (in the A320/B737 category), it has to be better than the NEO for sure - otherwise there would be no reason to do it anyway.
But he went further on and said that the B787-10 would be a good replacement for the A330. No argument against that...then he also said, that Boeing is studying upgrades for the B777 (which is not new), but that these are targeted for after an EIS for the B737 replacement, which would be around 2020. In the meantime Boeing could do the 787-10.

??? Please what ???

After the more than three year late 787-8 Boeing should concentrate on delivering the B787-8, developing and the delivering the 787-9 before talking about three(!) new or at least heavily upgraded aircraft. Boeing lost too much credibility since the roll-out of the 787.

Interestingly Teal Group VP Aboulafia forecasted this week that Boeing would have to react against the NEO with a re-engined 737. And also Scott Hamilton reports that studies for the re-engining did not stop.
So by now nothing is certain - despite doing the B787-10, then B737RS and then 777up, it could also be 737RE, then 777up and then, if at all, the 787-10. I don't see an urgent need for the B787-10 anyway, as the 787-9 would pretty much do the job of the A330-300. The 787-10 would probably need a new undercarriage, more thrust than the Trent1000 and the GEnx are capable today and customer needs are diverging in terms of payload and range - a problem that reportedly also faces Airbus with the A350-1000.
I would be very interested to hear what major customers like Southwest are thinking about these ambitious plans...


  1. Another wannabe armchair blog expert linking to everyone with a half brain. Who writes this garbage?

  2. So, if this is garbage (and I have to admit, there is the possibility it could): where are your mindful thoughts?

  3. "Anonymous" sounds like Doug McVitie, who routinely insults rather than contributes insight. This is exactly what McVitie was writing when he put his name to things before going "anonymous" and "unregistered user."

  4. I have read criticism of the A350-1000XWB describing it as a future "regional hauler". Wouldn't that be the risk of a 787-10 as well? What thrust range would the GENx or Trent 1000 need? RR has an engine (or will have) in the Trent XWB that could likely fill the bill. GE...not sure.

  5. The Trent XWB would have to modified as the A350 is not an "all-electric aircraft" like the 787.
    To call a (as specified so far) 8000nm aircraft "regional" is a bit off anyway.
    The problem with the 787-10 is that it - obviously -was not on Boeing's table from the beginning of the 787 development, so that the basic structure was not designed for a -10 with similar range like the -9. To get the range of the -9 the MTOW of the -10 would have to be raised to a point where larger changes in the deisgn would have to be made - at least unless Boeing finds ways to lighten the structure.