Can a modified 777X provide better value than a brand new VLA cleansheet?

The 777-10 can only have a 3.5m stretch before reaching the 80m box limit. I propose a slim 747 style upper hump added to the front of the 777x to use the space above the cabin. The 3.5m stretch would then be located aft of the wing to maintain centre of gravity. The upper deck would be designed for premium seating to free up the main cabin for more economy seats. The upper deck would be smaller than the 747 as a result it would narrow significantly at head height so it would be more suited to use lie flat beds that can extend into this dead space with overhead storage bins moved to the floor.

The 777X's large carbon wing would most likely be able to handle the added weight. It may have to sacrifice some range but the 777-9 already has exceptional payload/range. From the hump backwards the 777-10 could maintain 90+% commonality with the 777-9. There would also be potential for a thrust increase from the GE9X to allow a higher maximum takeoff weight in 10 years time. Empty weight would definitely remain below 200T and be 10% lighter than the 747-8 with matching cabin area.

If a new cleansheet VLA cost Boeing $20 billion, yet this 777X would cost $5 billion then it must be seriously considered. If it can provide 99% of the efficiency of a cleansheet for a quarter of the price then it is excellent value. The frames for the humped sections would obviously have to be new and it would require extensiive engineering but most of the systems, nose gear and cockpit could be retained.

But we don't need a VLA. The 747 8i has sold terribly, the A380 is on the brink of ending production if Emirates doesn't order more, and the 777-9 is already being pushed into a niche as possibly the largest available aircraft. These fuselage modifications are ridiculous and expensive. Why would they want to make a 777 with a hump? The hump exists so that the 747 can be converted into a front-loading freight aircraft. The cockpit has to be moved upwards, and at that point its cheaper to just make a new 747. This screams "I want another 747 but I don't know why the 747 exists in the first place". VLA are dying. And any fuselage modifications (see: dreamlifter, beluga) usually render an aircraft to be unable to be pressurized without significant modifications that would entail building a new aircraft.

I think you need to understand why the hump exists in the first place. The 747 was built with a hump so that the cockpit could be moved upwards and a front loading door installed for freight aircraft, under the assumption that supersonic aircraft would overtake normal passenger aircraft in the future and the 747 needed to be left with a life beyond a passenger aircraft. This is why the 747 is such an effective freight aircraft. The hump exists so that the cockpit can be upwards. This has a hump, why? To appeal to boeing sycophants? If you move the cockpit up you are essentially redesigning the most expensive part of the fuselage and it would be easier to use a 747 anyways. Which is a dying aircraft outside of freight. This is dumb, I'm sorry.

This picture and this picture alone explains why this is a dumb idea:


Can you change the title? The title sounds like an actual announcement from boeing. Your title is deceptive and misleading.

I'm almost certain that a redesign of that scale wouldn't be able to use the same type certificate. We're looking at a new airplane.

Wow, you really analyzed that! I see your thinking, but I think Boeing wouldn’t add an upper deck. The 779X holds 414 in a 2 class config, the upper deck would be an extra 50? At the most in Econ. The 748 holds 430 in a Three class. I don’t think the upper deck would be worth it, and with the fallout of a First Class, the 779 would be fine as is.

If a 777-10 comes to fruition there will not be a hump, just a stretch to 80m.

The 779 is already a "747" replacement. It will have essentially the same seating capacity as the 744 in similar configurations.

Boeing has confirmed that a simple stretch 777-10X (probably a 3,5 m stretch for 40 more Y class seats) is technically feasible, but I don't think they would be the first mover unless either 1) Airbus announces a further A350 stretch or 2) the sales race between 777X and A350-1000 starts to tilt dramatically in favor of the A350-1000. It looks today like the 777-9 is the long-range CASM king, and unless that status is threatened I don't see what incentive Boeing has to do anything.

There is a huge market for VLA's its just that the 748 and A380 dont provide a fuel burn advantage to justify.

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

A 777X with the hump would have the significant weight and CASM advantage over both the 748 and A380. We all know the 779 has better CASM than the 778 due to the extra seats with minimal extra weight. The same would apply to the 777-10 with a hump. A big increase in seats for a not so big increase in weight. It would be the nail in the coffin for the A380.

I'll save you the trouble. This is all wrong and won't happen. Passengers on said upper deck don't have overhead bin privileges??? Come on. Let's not get into the stairs to get to the upper deck.

Forgive me but haven't DC6s had their cockpits moved upwards? If in the distant future a market for a VLA freighter aircraft with nose capability emerged could that happen?

Kind of agree with Jubguy, the only reason for the hump would be to move the cockpit off the main floor, as his pic shows. That is important, because the only reason for such an aircraft you are proposing would be to phase out the 747 production completely, yet keep its present and future freighter customers happy with a more efficient "747" like aircraft.

Bjm0517 wrote:

Wow, you really analyzed that! I see your thinking, but I think Boeing wouldn’t add an upper deck. The 779X holds 414 in a 2 class config, the upper deck would be an extra 50? At the most in Econ. The 748 holds 430 in a Three class. I don’t think the upper deck would be worth it, and with the fallout of a First Class, the 779 would be fine as is.

The bed seats in the 748's 3 class seating takes up a huge amount of space so its not a fair comparison.

The upper cabin would be 17-20m long and could fit 5 abreast with economy seats so 80-100 extra seats on the upper deck. Even if the upper deck is used as a business class cabin with 2-2 seats it would allow significantly more economy seats in the main deck.

RJMAZ: How are the stairs to the 2nd level incorporated? Explain.

RJMAZ wrote:

There is a huge market for VLA's its just that the 748 and A380 dont provide a fuel burn advantage to justify.

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

A 777X with the hump would have the significant weight and CASM advantage over both the 748 and A380. We all know the 779 has better CASM than the 778 due to the extra seats with minimal extra weight. The same would apply to the 777-10 with a hump. A big increase in seats for a not so big increase in weight. It would be the nail in the coffin for the A380.

Where is my wright flyer replacement and why hasn't Delta put it into service?

The 747 is dead as a passenger aircraft. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that there needs to be a replacement in the first place. All VLAs are performing horribly. Fuel burn or not, aircraft like the 787 and A350 are the future. There is simply no need to reduce frequency over trunk routes, except in the most severe of cases.

jubguy3 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

There is a huge market for VLA's its just that the 748 and A380 dont provide a fuel burn advantage to justify.

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

A 777X with the hump would have the significant weight and CASM advantage over both the 748 and A380. We all know the 779 has better CASM than the 778 due to the extra seats with minimal extra weight. The same would apply to the 777-10 with a hump. A big increase in seats for a not so big increase in weight. It would be the nail in the coffin for the A380.

Where is my wright flyer replacement and why hasn't Delta put it into service?

The 747 is dead as a passenger aircraft. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that there needs to be a replacement in the first place. All VLAs are performing horribly. Fuel burn or not, aircraft like the 787 and A350 are the future. There is simply no need to reduce frequency over trunk routes, except in the most severe of cases.

Boeing doesn't seem to think so, they spent significant sums of money to rewing and stretch the 777, which make no mistake, is basically a VLA (in 779) at this point. By your logic, they should have let the 777 die, or at most do a re-engine 330neo style.

JustSomeDood wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

There is a huge market for VLA's its just that the 748 and A380 dont provide a fuel burn advantage to justify.

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

A 777X with the hump would have the significant weight and CASM advantage over both the 748 and A380. We all know the 779 has better CASM than the 778 due to the extra seats with minimal extra weight. The same would apply to the 777-10 with a hump. A big increase in seats for a not so big increase in weight. It would be the nail in the coffin for the A380.

Where is my wright flyer replacement and why hasn't Delta put it into service?

The 747 is dead as a passenger aircraft. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that there needs to be a replacement in the first place. All VLAs are performing horribly. Fuel burn or not, aircraft like the 787 and A350 are the future. There is simply no need to reduce frequency over trunk routes, except in the most severe of cases.

Boeing doesn't seem to think so, they spent significant sums of money to rewing and stretch the 777, which make no mistake, is basically a VLA (in 779) at this point. By your logic, they should have let the 777 die, or at most do a re-engine 330neo style.

That's why I said that the 777-9 is getting pushed into an uncomfortable niche, it is competing (at the lower end) of a market where the two other competitors are performing poorly. It certainly has a better market than the -8 with most of the orders but it still has few orders. I think it will sell better if the A380 ends production and Boeing has no competitors in the VLA segment.

RJMAZ wrote:

Bjm0517 wrote:

Wow, you really analyzed that! I see your thinking, but I think Boeing wouldn’t add an upper deck. The 779X holds 414 in a 2 class config, the upper deck would be an extra 50? At the most in Econ. The 748 holds 430 in a Three class. I don’t think the upper deck would be worth it, and with the fallout of a First Class, the 779 would be fine as is.

The bed seats in the 748's 3 class seating takes up a huge amount of space so its not a fair comparison.

The upper cabin would be 17-20m long and could fit 5 abreast with economy seats so 80-100 extra seats on the upper deck. Even if the upper deck is used as a business class cabin with 2-2 seats it would allow significantly more economy seats in the main deck.

Ah, Good Point. The beds do take up some space. Also, Airlines would stuff an Upper Deck. Prob 6 Abreast with one awkward like 17 inch seat. But as i mentioned, First Class is going away again. Business Class is where airlines make money and that will prob come to a point on the 777x. Also, Boeing would probably not like the Idea of the Jumbo Jet title taken from the 7-4 and put onto their Widebody Single Deck 777. I feel like boeing would get some hits from that...

The market for VLAs wasn't nearly as large as expected. With smaller planes flying further, fragmentation happened.

Also, everyone does realize the 779 is an awesome 744 replacement, right? So if an airline needs growth from the A35K or 77W, it is low risk.

ikolkyo wrote:

If a 777-10 comes to fruition there will not be a hump, just a stretch to 80m.

Agreed. If it happens, it will be very analogous to the 787-10 where range is sacrificed for payload. Not short range, but certainly not SYD-LAX. Too few routes justify a new VLA. The recovery in cargo revenue allows survival, not risky aircraft purchases.

I could see a 80m or even a little longer simple stretch. With how competitive the 779 shall be, the market opportunity for a new VLA isn't there until about 2030 for launch and about 2038 EIS. This is an industry that requires thinking in long timescales.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

The market for VLAs wasn't nearly as large as expected. With smaller planes flying further, fragmentation happened.

Also, everyone does realize the 779 is an awesome 744 replacement, right? So if an airline needs growth from the A35K or 77W, it is low risk.

ikolkyo wrote:

If a 777-10 comes to fruition there will not be a hump, just a stretch to 80m.

Agreed. If it happens, it will be very analogous to the 787-10 where range is sacrificed for payload. Not short range, but certainly not SYD-LAX. Too few routes justify a new VLA. The recovery in cargo revenue allows survival, not risky aircraft purchases.

I could see a 80m or even a little longer simple stretch. With how competitive the 779 shall be, the market opportunity for a new VLA isn't there until about 2030 for launch and about 2038 EIS. This is an industry that requires thinking in long timescales.

Lightsaber

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if a 777-10 could do SYD-LAX. The 77W already flies that route today and the 777-9 is a 3m stretch with more range so another 3m stretch probably wouldn't hurt range on a hypothetical 777-10 versus the 77W.

JustSomeDood wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

There is a huge market for VLA's its just that the 748 and A380 dont provide a fuel burn advantage to justify.

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

A 777X with the hump would have the significant weight and CASM advantage over both the 748 and A380. We all know the 779 has better CASM than the 778 due to the extra seats with minimal extra weight. The same would apply to the 777-10 with a hump. A big increase in seats for a not so big increase in weight. It would be the nail in the coffin for the A380.

Where is my wright flyer replacement and why hasn't Delta put it into service?

The 747 is dead as a passenger aircraft. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that there needs to be a replacement in the first place. All VLAs are performing horribly. Fuel burn or not, aircraft like the 787 and A350 are the future. There is simply no need to reduce frequency over trunk routes, except in the most severe of cases.

Boeing doesn't seem to think so, they spent significant sums of money to rewing and stretch the 777, which make no mistake, is basically a VLA (in 779) at this point. By your logic, they should have let the 777 die, or at most do a re-engine 330neo style.

Unfortunately aerospace is an industry driven too often by egos. Boeing certainly expected the 748 to thrive. Nyet. Airbus expected the A380 to sell better. For recall the discussions of fortress Europe back then? IIRC, there was a late 1990s prediction that 27 of the top 47 European airports would be impacted by now. Instead LCCs opened up many new airports. By LCCs I include Norwegian and FR. Who predicted back then that the ME4 would be so huge or so many industries would move out of Europe and North America?

Overflight is here. Heck, I haven't hubbed in ORD, JFK, LHR, FRA since I could legally drink a beer. Remember when everyone going to Asia from the USA hubbed in Tokyo or Hong Kong and usually stayed overnight in either city due to long connections? Yeah... I feel . VLAs are needed. But only so many and only up to a certain size.

Until flying wings change the economics.

Lightsaber

I'm waiting for a 100 meter aircraft, and all composite. The structure should be made of steel strength carbon and transparent aluminum and I want it powered by thermite plasma. Regular seating on the main deck, but on the lower deck, in addition to cargo and pet holds, there should be a mini-shopping mall with a food court.

There is no market for a mix between a 777x and a 747 because it would defeat the purpose of the hump in the 747, just to have an extra 50 seats, plus it looks dumb

I'm sorry... But I cannot fathom Boeing making an aircraft with another deck ever (unless it is a military aircraft). The reality is, double-decker aircraft are a relic of the past just like tri-jets. If anything, the new 777 may have a slightly longer cabin, but airlines seem to be looking for two main things now -- efficiency & distance capability. Look at the 787 and that project's success. It's comparable to the 767 and it is so successful not because it got bigger but because it brought airlines efficiency on high and low demand routes without compromising cost.

rotating14 wrote:

RJMAZ: How are the stairs to the 2nd level incorporated? Explain.

I would put the stairs at the front of the upper deck cabin inline with the centre aisle. As you go down the steps you would be walking forward towards the nose. There would be a landing roughly half way between the two levels. There would be the cockpit door on this landing. The stairs would then go 180degrees down to the lower level and would line up with the aisle of a 3-4-3 lower cabin.

usmcav8tor wrote:

I'm sorry... But I cannot fathom Boeing making an aircraft with another deck ever (unless it is a military aircraft). The reality is, double-decker aircraft are a relic of the past just like tri-jets.

I disagree, the 777 and any large diameter widebody has a large amount of wasted space above the cabin. The hump provides 20% more cabin area with less than 5% increase in wetted area (drag). The majority of the upper deck cabin is actually located within the 777's existing mould line. This would provide a big efficiency improvement per passenger

RJMAZ wrote:

I disagree, the 777 and any large diameter widebody has a large amount of wasted space above the cabin. The hump provides 20% more cabin area with less than 5% increase in wetted area (drag). The majority of the upper deck cabin is actually located within the 777's existing mould line. This would provide a big efficiency improvement per passenger

I think you just found your first Kickstarter project if Boeing does not pick this up.

Move the cockpit up away from the main deck, attach a swing nose to it,and freighter companies would be interested too.

Trying to find ROI for Boeing.

RJMAZ wrote:

Can a modified 777X provide better value than a brand new VLA cleansheet?

Boeing would be better off sticking two engines with 130-140,000 pounds of thrust each underneath a new wing for it's 747-8 platform rather than trying to mod the 777 fuselage if it really feels there is a market for such a plane. That would be much simpler. The GE90-115 was spooled up to 128,000 pounds so engine manufacturers could find the extra thrust through new materials/design.

RJMAZ wrote:

The 779 is not a 748 replacement. The 779 has only 80% of the cabin area, it needs to sacrifice significant comfort to provide the same number of seats.

And where is there any market forces that are driving comfort over economics???

This has to be one of the most oddly conceived and impractical solutions to the VLA discussions I've ever seen.

RJMAZ wrote:

I disagree, the 777 and any large diameter widebody has a large amount of wasted space above the cabin.

Not all the crown space is wasted. There are things up there for a purpose - ductwork, cabling, etc. Where are you going to move that to? And can you cite your sources for this "wasted" crown space?

Awfully tiring to see this argument with nothing to back it up.

Bengal18 wrote:

There is no market for a mix between a 777x and a 747 because it would defeat the purpose of the hump in the 747, just to have an extra 50 seats, plus it looks dumb

It looks like an earthworm:)

speedbird52 wrote:

Forgive me but haven't DC6s had their cockpits moved upwards? If in the distant future a market for a VLA freighter aircraft with nose capability emerged could that happen?

No, but DC-4s did!

CplKlinger wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I disagree, the 777 and any large diameter widebody has a large amount of wasted space above the cabin.

Not all the crown space is wasted. There are things up there for a purpose - ductwork, cabling, etc. Where are you going to move that to? And can you cite your sources for this "wasted" crown space?

Awfully tiring to see this argument with nothing to back it up.

Forward crown space has the pilots crew rest area and at the aft end there is the flight attendant’s rest area — both optional. There’s not much vertical room there and it could be rather claustrophobic.

tvarad wrote:

Boeing would be better off sticking two engines with 130-140,000 pounds of thrust each underneath a new wing for it's 747-8 platform rather than trying to mod the 777 fuselage if it really feels there is a market for such a plane. That would be much simpler. The GE90-115 was spooled up to 128,000 pounds so engine manufacturers could find the extra thrust through new materials/design.

The 748 would need:
A new carbon wing with folding tips
Completely new landing gear to raise the plane to fit the two larger engines.
A new central wing box to handle the taller gear and new wing.
A brand new engine based off the GE9X but larger diameter for 20% more thrust.
Lithium alloy skins to save a bit of weight.
The aircraft probably would NOT be able to have passengers in the nose as it would be a new aircraft type.

Now a hump on the 777X would need
Frames ahead of the wing get changed.
New nose.
Very basic PIP of the standard GE9X.

How would the 748 be better? That list for the 747 above would cost multiple times more in engineering than the list for the 777X. The 748 would still weigh significantly more than a humped 777X for the same passenger load.

The hump on the 777X makes the most sense 10+ years from now. If the A380NEO gets launched in a few years time the humped 777X would be the best response.

jubguy3 wrote:

VLA are dying.

VLA is DYING!? You cannot be serious. VLA are just being born! 748 failed because nobody is foolish enough to buy a heated over relic built by 1960s reliability and safety standards. A380 isn't selling as much as we hoped because it arrived too soon and nobody knew how to use it. However, Emirates have proven time and again that it's an extremely profitable machine if you know how to fly it.

Airlines keep yapping about frequency vs. capacity, but if the past decade has taught us anything, it's that major corporations don't look or think beyond the current quarter's results. How long can you maintain frequency, for example, at Heathrow with its $75 mil per slot? And many airports are not too far behind. One day, and very soon, they will run out of "frequency", and the airlines which are now looking down at A380 will regret they didn't buy it. THEN they'll scramble and demand from Airbus and Boeing to develop a VLA. And they'll be just as confidently yapping about the economics of capacity over frequency.

The driver of the demand for VLA will come from Asia. Unless you noticed, Chinese tourists are becoming more and more numerous on European and American streets. And there are A BILLION of them. According to the Chinese tourism... something... a ministry?.. Chinese tourism grew from 102 to 209 million a year in just a decade. Domestic travel grew from 250 to 390 million passengers in only four years. And China keeps growing, making more and more people rich enough to afford flying. And other populous countries are soon to follow. Indonesian airline market is exploding. If India decides to stop choking their airline market with the 20-5 laws, it'll explode in a year.

We are lucky people to witness the transition from frequency to capacity. And, unless they invent teleporting, VLA are the answer and the future.

The 777-9 is the 747 replacement.

BREECH wrote:

VLA is DYING!? You cannot be serious. VLA are just being born!

Thanks for a good belly laugh.

How long can you maintain frequency, for example, at Heathrow with its $75 mil per slot?

You can maintain frequency, you just can't add it. And there are several other airports in the London area that are just waiting for Emirates and Norwegian to fly multiple daily 787-10s to provide added capacity.

And many airports are not too far behind. One day, and very soon, they will run out of "frequency", and the airlines which are now looking down at A380 will regret they didn't buy it.

If that were to occur (a big "if") it would mostly result in up gauging 787s, A330neos, and A350s to A350-1000s and 777Xs. Another whole generation of aircraft would have to come and go before something as big as an A380 would be needed in bulk.

The driver of the demand for VLA will come from Asia. Unless you noticed, Chinese tourists are becoming more and more numerous on European and American streets. And there are A BILLION of them. According to the Chinese tourism... something... a ministry?.. Chinese tourism grew from 102 to 209 million a year in just a decade. Domestic travel grew from 250 to 390 million passengers in only four years. And China keeps growing, making more and more people rich enough to afford flying. And other populous countries are soon to follow. Indonesian airline market is exploding. If India decides to stop choking their airline market with the 20-5 laws, it'll explode in a year.

And, just like the U.S., all three of those countries are profoundly multipolar places, just about ideal for an explosion of hub-to-point A350 and 787 service. If you wanted to convince me that A380s are the future, you'd have to show me that all of that demand would be concentrated only in the very biggest cities.

BREECH wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

VLA are dying.

VLA is DYING!? You cannot be serious. VLA are just being born! 748 failed because nobody is foolish enough to buy a heated over relic built by 1960s reliability and safety standards. A380 isn't selling as much as we hoped because it arrived too soon and nobody knew how to use it. However, Emirates have proven time and again that it's an extremely profitable machine if you know how to fly it.

Airlines keep yapping about frequency vs. capacity, but if the past decade has taught us anything, it's that major corporations don't look or think beyond the current quarter's results. How long can you maintain frequency, for example, at Heathrow with its $75 mil per slot? And many airports are not too far behind. One day, and very soon, they will run out of "frequency", and the airlines which are now looking down at A380 will regret they didn't buy it. THEN they'll scramble and demand from Airbus and Boeing to develop a VLA. And they'll be just as confidently yapping about the economics of capacity over frequency.

The driver of the demand for VLA will come from Asia. Unless you noticed, Chinese tourists are becoming more and more numerous on European and American streets. And there are A BILLION of them. According to the Chinese tourism... something... a ministry?.. Chinese tourism grew from 102 to 209 million a year in just a decade. Domestic travel grew from 250 to 390 million passengers in only four years. And China keeps growing, making more and more people rich enough to afford flying. And other populous countries are soon to follow. Indonesian airline market is exploding. If India decides to stop choking their airline market with the 20-5 laws, it'll explode in a year.

We are lucky people to witness the transition from frequency to capacity. And, unless they invent teleporting, VLA are the answer and the future.

Ok, I'll be more clear: there is no market for VLAs right now. Maybe in the future, but all of these aircraft are coming at the wrong time.

BREECH wrote:

We are lucky people to witness the transition from frequency to capacity. And, unless they invent teleporting, VLA are the answer and the future.

Well said! I couldn't agree more.

Thats what made me think of the idea of the humped 777X. A relatively quick development compared to a cleansheet to cover all the points you just mentioned.

The 777X is currently optimised for ultra long haul so it wouldn't be the ideal solution for short/medium thick routes in Asia. The humped 777X would be like the 787-10 exchanged range for payload to create a large medium haul aircraft. Some people would think its niche, but it is probably the fastest growing market in Asia.

jubguy3 wrote:

Ok, I'll be more clear: there is no market for VLAs right now. Maybe in the future, but all of these aircraft are coming at the wrong time.

Exactly. The market will be huge in 10 years time and the humped 777X would be a decent, fairly quick to develop cheap solution.

RJMAZ wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

Ok, I'll be more clear: there is no market for VLAs right now. Maybe in the future, but all of these aircraft are coming at the wrong time.

Exactly. The market will be huge in 10 years time and the humped 777X would be a decent, fairly quick to develop cheap solution.

???? I'm telling you that a 777... hump would be a bad idea. Any new VLA needs to be a clean sheet design when it happens in 20+ years.

RJMAZ wrote:

fairly quick to develop

Absolutely not. The modifications required to add a hump would essentially require the aircraft to receive a new type certification. Why do you want to put a hump on it? The dead space is useful and adding a hump would require redoing the entire wiring of the aircraft which would push development costs through the roof. You can't put a hump on it, notice that the last aircraft to see a structural modification like this didn't carry passengers? This defines a fundamental structural modification at its most essential level.

I need you to tell me why you are so fixated on the hump. The 747 has a hump because it was designed into the aircraft to make it useful as a freighter, to move the cockpit up. The hump is otherwise a dumb feature on the 747, structurally, aesthetically, and economically. Your 777hump would be incredibly expensive to design considering that the entire front of the aircraft would need a clean sheet design. And if you aren't moving the cockpit up, why have a hump? Notice how the A380 cockpit sits so low? Because it wasn't designed to be a freighter, and it was a clean sheet design.

What you are asking for invokes all of the cons of a clean sheet design (cost, risk) without any of the benefits of a clean sheet design (efficiency, functionality, progress). Dumb dumb dumb dumb. Awful.

RJMAZ wrote:

cheap solution

AAHA

BREECH wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

VLA are dying.

VLA is DYING!? You cannot be serious. VLA are just being born! 748 failed because nobody is foolish enough to buy a heated over relic built by 1960s reliability and safety standards. A380 isn't selling as much as we hoped because it arrived too soon and nobody knew how to use it. However, Emirates have proven time and again that it's an extremely profitable machine if you know how to fly it.

Airlines keep yapping about frequency vs. capacity, but if the past decade has taught us anything, it's that major corporations don't look or think beyond the current quarter's results. How long can you maintain frequency, for example, at Heathrow with its $75 mil per slot? And many airports are not too far behind. One day, and very soon, they will run out of "frequency", and the airlines which are now looking down at A380 will regret they didn't buy it. THEN they'll scramble and demand from Airbus and Boeing to develop a VLA. And they'll be just as confidently yapping about the economics of capacity over frequency.

The driver of the demand for VLA will come from Asia. Unless you noticed, Chinese tourists are becoming more and more numerous on European and American streets. And there are A BILLION of them. According to the Chinese tourism... something... a ministry?.. Chinese tourism grew from 102 to 209 million a year in just a decade. Domestic travel grew from 250 to 390 million passengers in only four years. And China keeps growing, making more and more people rich enough to afford flying. And other populous countries are soon to follow. Indonesian airline market is exploding. If India decides to stop choking their airline market with the 20-5 laws, it'll explode in a year.

We are lucky people to witness the transition from frequency to capacity. And, unless they invent teleporting, VLA are the answer and the future.

Thank you!

In suggesting that Boeing even needs a "747 replacement" in its range, isn't the starting poster falling into two classic a-net traps?
First, in assuming that airlines actually want to replace planes like for like in size. Given the lifespan of aircraft, what was a good idea when planes were ordered, may be unsuitable by the time they are due to be replaced. Lots of airlines ordered 747s because of their range, and at the time nothing else available could compete. Many didn't need the size, and sometimes it was an actual embarrassment. Now there's a whole plethora of planes that can equal or well exceed the range of a 747.

Second, in underestimating the lead time between having an idea for a major development of a plane, and getting it into quantity production. Unless an aircraft manufacturer has already had the idea and already decided exactly how to implement it and just not announced the fact, you're talking 5 years minimum - not to having the first flight, but to annual production of at least 25 planes a year. The early designs of 747 have already been replaced worldwide - even Iran should see their last this year. 744s are well along in the replacement cycle, and there won't be very many at all with first-tier airlines by 2023. Second and third tier airlines that have second-hand 744s can't afford to buy brand new 777-10s, if they existed.
Even British Airways, the world's largest operator of passenger 747s, have already ordered and paid the deposits on all but 12 of their replacements, and they need those last 12 to be delivered during 2023. After that, they won't be buying anything in this size category anytime soon.
Can you really see any aircraft manufacturer spending one cent on tooling a replacement for the 748i - even if every single 748i made was replaced with a 777-10 it would still make a loss!

Capacity can grow by more passengers on existing routes or through new routes. It seems like the market favours connections with as few connecting stops as possible.

RJMAZ wrote:

I would put the stairs at the front of the upper deck cabin inline with the centre aisle. As you go down the steps you would be walking forward towards the nose. There would be a landing roughly half way between the two levels. There would be the cockpit door on this landing. The stairs would then go 180degrees down to the lower level and would line up with the aisle of a 3-4-3 lower cabin.

You would need two sets of stairs to give two exits on the upper deck. You would not get away with what the 747 has. Even the seats at the front of a 747 on the main deck would not be certifiable these days.

Boeing does not need a replacement for the 747-8, they sold just 36 to passenger airlines.

Geoff

zeke wrote:

You would need two sets of stairs to give two exits on the upper deck. You would not get away with what the 747 has. Even the seats at the front of a 747 on the main deck would not be certifiable these days.

Getting passengers down from the upper deck in an emergency would be an issue. The obvious solution would be to restrict the upper deck to say a maximum of 30 passengers. An emergency second set of stairs could then be used for this small amount of passengers. Retractable stairs at the back of the hump can fold down into the area near the exit door infront of the wing.

Limiting the upper deck to business/first class seats would not be a problem as nearly every long haul aircraft has a portion of business class seats.

Geoff1947 wrote:

Boeing does not need a replacement for the 747-8, they sold just 36 to passenger airlines.

Geoff

Proof that the 747-8 is overweight, inefficient and needs a modern replacement.

Look at the 757 towards the end. It couldn't get a handful of orders but 10 years later hundreds of similar capacity A321's were being ordered each year. Being 10-20% lighter with newer engines was all it took. By your logic there was no market for the A321.

jubguy3 wrote:

???? I'm telling you that a 777... hump would be a bad idea. Any new VLA needs to be a clean sheet design when it happens in 20+ years.

[/quote]
If the A380NEO appears in a few years and starts selling extremely well Boeing will need to respond.

Boeing has a few options.

1) Lets say a clean sheet design cost $20 billion and sold 500 aircraft.
2) Then we say the 777Xhump cost $5 billion and sold 250 aircraft.
3) Third we have a 748NEO lets assume a cost of $2 billion and 50 aircraft sold.

It is clear to me which one is best. In this case the 777Xhump would make the most profit given the development cost. It not always about the most sales or the cheapest option, it is about profit.

The 777Xhump would also help lower production costs of the 778 and 779 versions due to the increased production rate and the large portion of shared parts.

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

You would need two sets of stairs to give two exits on the upper deck. You would not get away with what the 747 has. Even the seats at the front of a 747 on the main deck would not be certifiable these days.

Getting passengers down from the upper deck in an emergency would be an issue. The obvious solution would be to restrict the upper deck to say a maximum of 30 passengers. An emergency second set of stairs could then be used for this small amount of passengers. Retractable stairs at the back of the hump can fold down into the area near the exit door infront of the wing.

Limiting the upper deck to business/first class seats would not be a problem as nearly every long haul aircraft has a portion of business class seats.

Geoff1947 wrote:

Boeing does not need a replacement for the 747-8, they sold just 36 to passenger airlines.

Geoff

Proof that the 747-8 is overweight, inefficient and needs a modern replacement.

Look at the 757 towards the end. It couldn't get a handful of orders but 10 years later hundreds of similar capacity A321's were being ordered each year. Being 10-20% lighter with newer engines was all it took. By your logic there was no market for the A321.

jubguy3 wrote:

???? I'm telling you that a 777... hump would be a bad idea. Any new VLA needs to be a clean sheet design when it happens in 20+ years.

RJMAZ wrote:

If the A380NEO appears in a few years and starts selling extremely well Boeing will need to respond.

Boeing has a few options.

1) Lets say a clean sheet design cost $20 billion and sold 500 aircraft.
2) Then we say the 777Xhump cost $5 billion and sold 250 aircraft.
3) Third we have a 748NEO lets assume a cost of $2 billion and 50 aircraft sold.

It is clear to me which one is best. In this case the 777Xhump would make the most profit given the development cost. It not always about the most sales or the cheapest option, it is about profit.

The 777Xhump would also help lower production costs of the 778 and 779 versions due to the increased production rate and the large portion of shared parts.

GAHAHAH.

4) Boeing makes a 797-12X. It costs $3.50 and sells 1000 aircraft.

Seems like the best option to me. This is hilarious. You are literally throwing numbers in the air and deciding what's best based off of numbers that you MADE UP. Your idea sucks, I'm sorry. You can't just go around humping random planes... hehe... the only planes that have ever had fuselage modifications have had them SPECIFICALLY for cargo purposes and they were either designed with it or became non-pressurized. This is horrible, I'm sorry, your thread title is misleading still (add concept). Reconfiguring the front of a 777 would require an incredible expense and lengthy certification process without the ROI for a clean sheet design that is more efficient and future proof (see: It's not carbon fiber and it can't be).

I kind of always assumed Boeing engineered in significant MTOW growth on critical assemblies. It might explain part of the high OEW. Same for the GE9, I see it growing towards 120k lbs in the next 10 years.

If Boeing stretches the 777X to it's maximum, adds 3-4 rows/40 seats, moves galley underfloor (enough space), crew rests above



Crew rest are already mostly overhead on the 777s.


Underfloor galleys and lavatories are very doable if passenger capacity is important and e.g. cargo payload-range restricted anyway. Another

seabosdca wrote:

You can maintain frequency, you just can't add it. And there are several other airports in the London area that are just waiting for Emirates and Norwegian to fly multiple daily 787-10s to provide added capacity.

Right. Emirates at Gatwick. NOW you made me laugh.

RJMAZ wrote:

zeke wrote:

You would need two sets of stairs to give two exits on the upper deck. You would not get away with what the 747 has. Even the seats at the front of a 747 on the main deck would not be certifiable these days.

Getting passengers down from the upper deck in an emergency would be an issue. The obvious solution would be to restrict the upper deck to say a maximum of 30 passengers. An emergency second set of stairs could then be used for this small amount of passengers. Retractable stairs at the back of the hump can fold down into the area near the exit door infront of the wing.

Limiting the upper deck to business/first class seats would not be a problem as nearly every long haul aircraft has a portion of business class seats.

Geoff1947 wrote:

Boeing does not need a replacement for the 747-8, they sold just 36 to passenger airlines.

Geoff

Proof that the 747-8 is overweight, inefficient and needs a modern replacement.

Look at the 757 towards the end. It couldn't get a handful of orders but 10 years later hundreds of similar capacity A321's were being ordered each year. Being 10-20% lighter with newer engines was all it took. By your logic there was no market for the A321.

jubguy3 wrote:

???? I'm telling you that a 777... hump would be a bad idea. Any new VLA needs to be a clean sheet design when it happens in 20+ years.

When you opened the topic, I thought that it was a good hypothetical discussion.

But since you keep insisting on this, I must say that it is a waste of time you should just let go.
You already got very good points on why Boeing would not do this in the foreseeable future so why not let rest?

I do believe that VLA do have a future but it is a niche one not enough to warranty the significant sales the program might have to support it just like Airbus found with the A380.

The proposal you develop of a humped B777 is ludicrous to say the least. It is much more likely (regardless of how much you can argue about feasibility) for Boeing to stretch the B777 as it is up to the max and/or re-engine the B747-8 in a way that it no longer needs 4 engines. I do not know if it is possible for a number of reasons but, between hump the B777 and revamp the wings of the B747 so that, let's say, it can house the present B777 engines, I prefer the latter one anytime. The raised cockpit would automatically enter the market as a cargo version.

When Airbus launched what was at that time the A3XX, Boeing stated that it saw the market going the other way with people flying more point to point rather than connecting at big hubs. It had a point at that time which reflects now on the fact that Airbus sold a good deal of A380s but ended up pushing for a A350 to counter Boeing when the B787 came to market successfully despite the initial glitches. These two (A350 and B787) are the future of aviation with the B777 fulfilling a niche market where VLAs are needed for high yielding routes which have scarcity of slots, for example. Nowadays, you can fly a B787 to and from Australia to the UK non-stop. In the past a connection in one of the world Hubs would be needed.

With the advent of LHLCC's, we now have a wider range of airports to fly too even if those tickets become pricy because we, for example, cram it so many add-ons into them. Added to the fact that some airports are still expanding (even LHR for that matter) and the need for a truly VLA (B748/A380/B779) gets to small to warrant such investment. You may as well say that the B748 is basically the last of 747s and that, Emirates permitting, the A380 will not see a NEO version.

You should just can this one since we exploited loads of avenues but it was good as it lasted - just like the B747

RJMAZ wrote:

Thats what made me think of the idea of the humped 777X. A relatively quick development compared to a cleansheet to cover all the points you just mentioned.

The amount of designing, engineering and testing will be so vast that it WILL be a cleansheet design. Also, as it is a good tradition with Boeing, some design flaws will surface. Just like with 748 where they "suddenly remembered" that Sutter's 747 had a huge problem with the wing design that caused oscillation (or was it flutter?) and which was fixed by reprogramming the autopilot. And "suddenly" the 500-million-dollar upgrade project turned into a 5-bilion-dollar wing-redesign program. I'm sure the 777 has similar skeletons in its wardrobe. I remember when 787 was having its teething problems, one of Boeing engineers said that those problems are nothing new and 777 had even bigger ones at launch. I SO wonder what he meant because I don't remember any of them being publicized at the time.