You Want A Challenge? Then Become An AOG Guy During Boeing's Retrofit Arama Days!

Retrofit fit Days are upon us as we wait for the 2nd First Flights for the 787's . Some of you may wonder about the one airplane fixed per four day cycle that's is going to return the airplane into the air. On Friday April 19, "the return to air switch" was thrown, causing a deployment of 10 Boeing teams, kits and locations matching up with its aircraft, the 787 in various locations. Some are in Seattle, but the road warrior aircraft of its customers are stopped in its tracks around the world, and it will get the lion share of the AOG's service teams. This is only a scratching the surface part of the effort. The behind the scenes effort by airlines is now switched on as well.

JAL and ANA need to update 787 pilots on aircraft skills, maintenance teams training, and the ancillary flight crews abilities to answer questions and make the customers extremely confident in traveling on the 787. None of this could have occurred in advance of the FAA announcing that it validated a battery fix for the systems involved. The following is a brief below this introduction, is inserted from Boeing's website on what the AOG has for its things-to-do plan. It is now into a third day since April 19, and the 10 teams are nearing a stage for the first 10 airplanes for a handover to its operators and customers. They will shortly be going airborne with customer tests and familiarization of systems. These customer tests will impart, do double duty of training crews with the updates and refining its pilots flying skills on the 787. Finally,  further observing reliability for the system changes.

By the end of May most of the Aircraft will be retrofitted with the new Battery system. Some will begin to carry passengers for revenue miles. By the end of June, the Works -In -Progress 787's, at Boeing's respective factories will roll into the sky. These are a total of about 34. Maybe a half dozen a week depending on customer readiness for receiving an aircraft. In total there are 50 aircraft with customers needing the retrofit and about 34 at Everett and Charleston awaiting kits; B-1 flights and other final steps, after the systems are live. Then the customers need to come for them when ready.  This total of 84 787's will be flying with customers by end of August. By the end of the year there will be over 100 787's flying.

Timeline analysis:

Number of days projected times before all backlog and customer aircraft fly in service; 4 days for each cycle times 10 teams = or about 34 working days for retrofit not counting time off or travel time relocating to next project. 84X 4 days= 336 days of work divided by 10 teams = 33.6 calendar days in a straight line of time not including the above mentioned non production days that is necessary for any task. Middle of June should have a good idea of what to expect with deliveries and return to service. I just hope the GAO doesn't get involved, but since it is not a military thing it, will remain AOG guys.

Boeings AOG 101:

Supporting our airline customers, on-site and real-time. (Boeing Link To AOG article below)

For Boeing's Aircraft-on-Ground Team, known as AOG, unplanned trips in support of customers all over the world are a routine part of the job.  Consisting of advisors, engineers and mechanics who are experts in their fields, the AOG teams frequently fly to airline customers around the world to get their airplanes back in the air and in service.

AOG teams have unique capabilities allowing them to perform on-site, comprehensive and integrated modifications to return airplanes to service.  Such capabilities include:

·       On-site technical support to recover Boeing airplanes.

·       Consultation on appropriate recovery equipment and methods for the customer's operations.

·       Airplane recovery documents that provide critical information such as lifting, tethering, transporting, and other needed data to recover Boeing-manufactured airplanes.

·       Training on aircraft recovery and establishing an airplane recovery team.

AOG team members take on the challenge with the same professionalism and determination for which they are known. Like all of Boeing, the team considers the safety of passengers and crew members who fly aboard Boeing airplanes as their highest priority.

Before the AOG teams could begin retrofitting the grounded 787s, however, some of the unique parts had to be made. That’s where the Boeing Fabrication team came in. At Auburn, Washington, U.S.A., and other sites, they fashioned numerous parts including the new stainless steel battery enclosure to contain the airplane’s improved batteries in the electronic equipment bays. The Fabrication team then shipped the parts to the Spares Distribution Center (SDC) in Seattle, U.S.A.

The SDC team packages the parts into battery containment kits, destined for shipment to each customer. Each kit comprises two ventilated battery containment boxes and the vast majority of the parts needed to complete the modification, including insulation, tubing, wiring and supporting hardware like brackets and fasteners. The batteries themselves will be shipped from the manufacturer to the airline.

Now that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has approved the installation, the AOG teams have begun installing the new battery kits.

KC-46 Behind the GAO Scene

Warning this may turn into a long read for those who need to know what's happening to the KC-46 program from the long and short through GAO's pair of glasses.

First GAO said some good things about the program and Headlined as follows:

KC-46 TANKER 

AIRCRAFT

Program Generally 

Stable but 

Improvements in 

Managing Schedule 

Are Needed

Full GAO Report With This 2012 Link

Improvements:

Figure 2: KC-46 Development Contract Management Reserves Allocation Trend (December 2012)


Note: Reporting of contract cost performance data including the allocation of management reserves started in May 2011.

The quick rate of depletion of Boeing’s management reserves raises concerns. Two years into a 7-year development program, the contractor has already allocated about 80 percent of the total available. Less than $72 million is available for future contingencies related to the more than $3.5 billion in government funded contract work remaining. DOD anticipates this negative trend will continue, since Boeing has told them design and technical issues driving the allocation of management reserves are not fully resolved.

At the current allocation rate, our analysis shows that management reserves will be depleted in May 2013, prior to the critical design review in July 2013 and more than 4 years before the contractually required delivery date for 18 operationally ready KC-46 aircraft in August 2017.

Page 11 GAO-13-258 KC-46 Tanker Aircraft

According to GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, significant use of management reserves early in a program may indicate contract performance problems and decreases the amount of reserves available
for future risks, particularly during the test and evaluation phase when demand may be the greatest.9

At the current rate, none of the reserves will be available to complete the bulk of development work, as well as the entire period of development testing. Even though Boeing is contractually liable for all costs above the $4.9 billion ceiling price, unanticipated design changes, deficiencies discovered in testing, and other risks encountered that might require management reserves funding could place added pressures on cost and schedule as the development program moves forward. The program has not yet evaluated how the significant use of these funds early in development could impact future milestones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
LnD Note:
Boeing runs out of management contingency money before design review in July. No worries, changes were made outside management's control since 2011 that ate money up so money will be found to continue the Management Contingency Account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusions: Typically these type of statements are the summary overview of what an audit or review finds and states in a conclusive report. It is neither leaning towards good results or bad but is the result of its attribute testing and results. These are Blue conclusions from findings, before a review focuses on the root problems or achievements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO Conclusions for this segment of the Review: (Or observations in summary)

"Entering its third year, the KC-46 development program is, for the most part, progressing as planned even though some concerns exist. The program has an ambitious schedule, particularly with regard to flight testing. While program estimates are essentially unchanged, the development contract cost estimate continues to be above the contract ceiling price, making it essential the government not change KC-46 requirements.

 Boeing has also allocated management reserves at a high rate which raises concerns because doing so early in a program is often an indicator of future contract performance problems. While the fixed price development contract caps the government’s cost liability, it would still behoove the Air Force to fully understand the causal factors driving the accelerated use of management reserves in order to recognize risks, consider potential trade-offs, and better understand circumstances that could impact on-time delivery to the warfighter. 

Also, improvements to a few aspects of the program’s master schedule could make it more 
complete and robust to further help ensure program success."


Recommendations For Executive Action:

We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense take the following two actions on the KC-46 program.

(Recommendations are always a My Own Red Ticket Part of any review, where Boeing and DOD expects to render a concurrence, and must follow up with immediate action for meeting the recommendation. I was a Governmental Auditor Supervisor and was pleased to offer recommendations as in summary statements for a program where deficiencies are found from the review. Hence the Red colored font.)

• "To help understand and monitor the causes of the majority of contractor management reserves being allocated two years into development, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Air Force, after Boeing has fully resolved the relevant design and technical issues, to analyze the root causes for the rate of expenditure of reserves in order to help the Air Force fully recognize and mitigate risk areas."

• "To help maintain a more thorough and insightful KC-46 development schedule, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Air Force to address our concerns related to three schedule best practices (capturing all activities, sequencing all activities, and conducting a schedule risk analysis), where we concluded the program’s master schedule had only partially met best practice criteria."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now my take on this is an interesting read from end of December 2012, is the KC-46 program has had to scramble management issues with additional resources applied to the changes found during start-up of the project. Contingency money set aside, is used to resolve the changes in program imposed by both Boeing and the DOD. The Budget had about X so many millions set aside to met these DOD changes as the program unfolded, and then the DOD weighed in on what it needed. As Boeing has done for its compliance to DOD they spent the pot by December 2012 and by May it will zero out of money through allocations of its funds for DOD program change management and Boeing's project changes.  Everything else is on track with the KC-46 but its Costing Boeing by eating into the 4.89 Billion dollar total they cannot exceed. What remains to be decided is what the DOD has required outside the original contract amount should not count against the Boeing expenditures. Boeing may have some reimbursement coming as it did accomplish items outside the contract under DOD requests. No one seems alarmed at this point about the depletion of the account so I would assume Boeing understands as well as the DOD where monies will come from to support the contingency program fund as it readies for the July 2013 bench mark on the KC-46.

Other than that I look forward to the next GAO at the end of 2013. They will do this oversight effort through 2015 unless directed with a continuance order until the aircraft does not pass the next couple of benchmarks.

About best the practices fix, that is probably complete and running, as a checklist item under the category of "We Concur", and so forth, with an implementation of covering the best practices gap as found, "partial completion" recommendation, with a stamp "completed report" to the GAO. That item is one Boeing would have liked to skate by, and now they had to address it sooner rather than later. GAO will revisit these check items in the next cycle. I believe the KC-46 program is doing well over-all, until it first flies and then Boeing and DOD will be very busy tweaking the program with all the current unseen issues that appear when it flies.

FAA Expected to Clear 787, Friday, April 19th, Is An Epic Day In U.S. History..... So April 25 Is A Better Day to Announce

FAA Expected to Clear 787

Wall Street So Says It could Be Tomorrow

By ANDY PASZTOR

Wall Street Talking Points:

• The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to move as soon as Friday to end a three-month grounding of Boeing Co.'s BA -0.66% 787 Dreamliner jet, according to people familiar with the matter.
• Spokeswomen for the FAA and the Department of Transportation declined to comment. Without commenting on the timing of a decision, a Boeing spokesman reiterated that the company stands "ready to reply to additional requests and continue in dialogue with the FAA to ensure we have met all of their expectations."
• When the plane maker submitted its full data package to the FAA earlier this month, according to people familiar with the details, the company asked for a final decision by about April 16 on the grounds that was enough time for regulators to validate its conclusions.
• The only suspense, according to people familiar with the deliberations, was whether the FAA would choose to give the green light before or after the National Transportation Safety Board holds public hearings next week that are intended to dissect and criticize the agency's original 2007 approval of the 787's battery system.
• On Tuesday, Mr. Huerta told the Senate Commerce Committee that Boeing performed 20 specific tests and then "provided a very extensive set of documents to the FAA."
• The agency, according to government and industry officials, also is expected to maintain approval for 787s to fly routes over water or polar regions that take the planes up to three hours from a suitable emergency landing strip.
• Now, he (Huerta) is confronting critics inside and outside the safety board who contend FAA leaders before him made serious mistakes and failed to exercise aggressive oversight of Boeing when they approved the batteries in the first place. Those questions are likely to dominate next week's safety board hearings.
• In his Senate testimony on Tuesday, Mr. Huerta buttressed the point that when it comes to the 787, he doesn't always get to make the ultimate decision by himself. When asked about his role, Mr. Huerta told the panel that "I would be the one making the recommendation" to Mr. LaHood.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So goes the 787 saga. I place this article as a footnote to the blog, and not just as a repeat of the article, but the filtering of meaningful regulatory status provided by the WSJ. Use it for further discussion or comment. Readers may comment if you choose.  Something is about to happen with the 787 before May 1, 2013.

ETOPS, The Wick On Boeings Lamp.

The battery issue is tied to FAA ETOPS evaluation, in that ETOPS is an intermediate control mechanism for the 787 long route service for which it was designed. The FAA can turn that wick back from 330 minutes, 180, or 120 minutes. Once the Boeing work-around on Boeing's battery fix returns to service, an FAA directive limiting the 787 to shorter runs using the ETOPS governance. That constraint will be in place until Boeing's intermediate route running satisfies its battery fix, with sustained flight without any faults. Boeing's wick won't turn up to a 360 minutes ETOPS until it has trimmed off all the electrical faults once and for all.

Dreamliner 787s: FAA says not considering extended ETOPS

Cricky:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The latest FAA guidance on the Dreamliner 787 situation says that no matter what it does and when about the current grounding order, it is no longer considering a Boeing request to extended its ETOPS rating from 180 minutes to 330 minutes.

Nor did it clarify whether or not it intended to restore the ETOPS 180 minutes rating the 787s had when they were grounded just over three months ago after failures in heavy duty lithium ion batteries in a Japan Airlines and an All Nippon Airways jet.

The top U.S. aviation regulator said on Tuesday he expects to decide “very soon” whether to approve Boeing Co’s redesigned 787 Dreamliner battery system, potentially ending a three-month ban on flights by the high-tech jet.

Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta, testifying to a congressional committee on air safety, said the agency is reviewing tests and analysis submitted by Boeing and will approve it when “we are satisfied Boeing has shown the redesigned battery system meets FAA requirements.”

Huerta told reporters after the hearing that he expects the battery decision to be made “very soon.”

Huerta said the FAA was working closely with the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating battery problems on two separate 787s in January, but would not necessarily link its decision to an NTSB hearing next week.

“We’re on our own timetable in terms of completing the analysis,” Huerta told reporters. “Once we’re ready to move and make a determination, we will.”

He also told the committee the FAA was considering separately whether to certify Boeing’s 787 for extended-range operations, known as ETOPS. The plane was approved for flights over remote areas of up to 180 minutes when it was grounded for two battery meltdowns in January.

Before the grounding, Boeing had requested an upgrade to 330 minutes, but Huerta told reporters the agency was “not considering any expansion beyond that (180) at this time.”

Reading those comments from a Qantas perspective, the Boeing interest in ETOPS 330 is irrelevant, because neither the airline, nor Australia’s air safety regulator CASA, have ever shown any official interest in a rule that allowed a 787 to fly up to 330 minutes single engine speed from a suitable and open emergency airfield.

CASA as the national safety regulator, has to approve the ETOPS rating of an Australian registered airliner even if the jet is certified to that standard at the hangar door by US standards.

This is because ETOPS reliability isn’t just built into an engine/airframe combination, but comes with some very tough maintenance procedures and reliability obligations which have to met by the airline concerned. ETOPS is not just what it is, but how it is done.

Critically, if a reliability problem arises with an ETOPS certified engine/airframe combination, that approval is revoked until the airliner and airline concerned both demonstrate that the unforgiving standards the process set for them has been restored. The grounding of the 787 means that its ETOPS 180 rating need not be restored as a matter of course when the grounding is lifted. It may be, but it may also be reduced to 120 minutes, or less.

Qantas subsidiary Jetstar, which on latest guidance may not get the first of 14 Boeing 787-8s on order until as much as several months after the intended initial delivery this August, needs ETOPS 180 to have an efficient and useful Dreamliner. Like all other modern twin engined wide body western jets in service with airlines world wide, Jetstar’s fleet of 10 Airbus A330-200s are ETOPS 180 rated.

They are to be returned to Qantas for mainly domestic use as Jetstar replaces them with Dreamliners. Anything less than ETOPS 180 is likely to seriously disrupt that process.  So already has the 787 grounding, and it is very important for the Qantas group that the 787-8s experience no more delays.

Boeing has said that fixing (after a fashion) the 787 battery problem with a super fire box to cover all eventualities has delayed by an unspecified period its work on the enhanced and stretched higher capacity longer range 787-9 Dreamliner, for which Qantas holds options or purchase rights from 2016.

Next week the US safety investigator, the NTSB, will hold public hearings into the process by which the Boeing 787 was certified by the FAA, and other related matters."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All Battery/Electrical issues must be conclusively extinguished before proceeding and expanding ETOPS.

So Boeing 787 is left holding a 180 minute ETOP bag if lucky  probably, with the FAA. It may be reduced to 120 minutes if the confidence in the fix reduces. Boeing must make a valiant effort with its customers and FAA to preserve the 180 minute standard for  its 787. The 330 minute standard remains a pipe dream until 787 customers and Boeing demonstrates a confident maintenance, and operational standards that would support the 330 minutes. The maturation of the 787 and its systems need to catch up to The FAA's need for reliance in the aircraft.

Update #1: Boeing Is Leaving The Chips In the Pot Awaits NTSB/FAA Thumb Direction

The NTSB has stated the following:

“Boeing has to identify and properly mitigate the risks to the FAA’s satisfaction,” Hersman said. Lifting the grounding “really is up to the FAA.”

Has Boeing done that what is asked?

Does it know what causes thermal runaway with empirical data?

The answer appears to be a convoluted picture drawn by risk mitigations, contingency plans for safely flying during battery faults, and ground level factory assurances, before the battery is even installed. Does this plethora of  mitigations answer the two above questions offered by FAA?

Boeing has appeared to move its 787 beast forward by announcing new delivery schedules:


Etihad 2014 Boeing Announcement

In a statement on UAE news agency WAM, Boeing Senior Vice President, John Wojick said “Boeing is committed to engaging Etihad Airways as it will deliver the agreed aircrafts in the first quarter of next year.”

Etihad Airways to get 12 Boeing aircraft in 2014

The signed order includes 10 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners. This would bring the total number of aircraft purchased by Etihad to 41, to be delivered between 2014 and 2019.

Boeing to deliver Etihad Airways Aircrafts Early 2014

John Wojick has commended Etihad Airway's decision of buying 12 Boeing Aircraft at a total value of AED10.3 billion. The signed order includes 10 Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, thus bringing the total of aircrafts purchased by Etihad to 41, to be delivered between 2014 and 2019, rendering it the largest operator of this model in the world.

A telling commitment is found with these above announcements.

Below are points to ponder:

Boeing, not one for being ahead of themselves, or over confident in the fix is moving ahead without any further hesitation. The following points are as follows:

1. They know what FAA and NTSB have before them, and what they want is found in the first two questions of this blog.

2. They have with certainty placed a solution that will not fail with rigorous further testing, through hearing, or examination.

3. Marketing is now acting to regain market momentum as the FAA and NTSB ponder its way through to a conclusion of Boeings workmanship on a solution. They, Boeing, have sufficiently presented a case that peer industry, and 3rd party technology concurring the state of the art, will sustain Boeing's case. The FAA and NTSB must on its own counter the solution with empirical data, or evidence that Boeing is wrong in its findings. Boeing is confident that after "due diligence" is given by the governing bodies, no such evidence will surface, and by May 2013, this will elevate to a provisional level where Boeing can fly while further testing is ongoing for supporting its solutions by Boeing.

4. Finally, after a clean track record, the electrical system will be accepted with all its layers of safety implemented, during normal operations, over the next several years it will fly with provisional monitoring, and then it will be put rest with a follow-on validation report by the FAA if no further problems occur within the provisional period.

Updated-----------------------------------------------------------------

Wall Street Journal 4-16-2013  Link to full article.

Boeing 787 Has Completed Tests, FAA Says

Lead in: 

By ANDY PASZTOR, WSJ

"The Federal Aviation Administration said Boeing Co. BA -0.30% "has completed all required tests and analysis" intended to demonstrate the safety of battery fixes on its 787 jets."

LiftnDrag Opinion:

The FAA does not have the scientific or leading edge technology of its own, other than that Boeing has acquired in making this technology fly. They have placed themselves into a position of decision-making over a multi billion dollar industry using Boeing's data as a basis for judgement, of which it lacks first hand expertise on the subject matter. I find it difficult for the FAA to stall further out of its own ignorance on the subject, where few people have the expertise on lithium-ion batteries and electrical architecture. 

The FAA knows this and so does Boeing. What I see is a pause on the decision until FAA catches up on Boeing's solutions and it can also amass some third party input before rendering a decision. A decision will be made as soon as FAA can position itself as some kind of authority over the issue, and has confidence in its decision over Boeing, while using the company's (Boeing) own solution as basis of its decision. Bottom line, the FAA wants to remove itself from any future claim if the Battery/electrical system faults and remain an authority over aviation's progress.

How can a new future technology innovated by Boeing, be governed by FAA conventional wisdom? Who, as a governmental agency, does not obtain or can evaluate that empirical evidence other than from the same company that it is examining? This conundrum is the holdup of the FAA. There is no subject matter expert to call up,  other than Boeing on this application of the Lithium-Ion battery used in an all electric airplane. Boeing has exceeded the relevant range of the FAA knowledge.  Now Boeing must wait until the governing body catches up.  When you talk in weeks its really an assent of faith by the FAA in Boeing's technological status, as a safe airplane maker. It will be a leap of faith by FAA to approve the fix.  Boeing knows this and it stakes its reputation on this conundrum of procedural approval. I have confidence in the fix without high level inside information. The FAA needs a reason to have that same level of confidence. It will take years for them to catch up to Boeing for having the same level of knowledge gained from Boeing's 100's of thousands of engineers and workers.

Two steps yet remaining on the table for immediate 787 flight.

Boeing= We need an approval document please, the work is done and complete!

FAA= We need to issue a CYA (cover your a**) document with good rational, after we learn What Boeing Knows  (WBK)!

The 787 When Will It Profit

The words, “when will it profit”, always seems to come up concerning the 787. This latest foray into the unknowns of glitch and change sets all the profit timetables back some, but not out.  The big picture is the overall new technology that will define air travel for some years to come. Whether it will be for the 777X program or for the 787 9-10’s. The profit picture no longer hangs on current sales, but on the overall impact of the change model Boeing has built in the 787. The program is still a risk which is steadily being squeezed down into simple manageable risks. This latest problem with the battery/electrical is a turning point for the program. Once settled there are just a few outstanding items possibly that could turn-up just as a matter of new aircraft refinement. Where hours, cycles and supply chain normally reveal during the maturing process, but only in limited numbers and severity. The electrical area is the big ticket item that requires this process a full understanding, and a full resolution. Airbus has a strategy or tendency for side stepping road blocks by selecting old technology over new when trying to make a mad dash of catching Boeing’s technological advances. Airbus may return to Lithium-ion once Boeing, FAA, and NTSB solve the issues. Airbus sees it as, nothing visible to passengers and nothing risked by its customers keeps aircraft selling. Boeing sees it as a quantum play for leaping ahead of Airbus once all the irons have cooled down in the fire.

Having stated this proposition of how the effects of new technology on the profit line for Boeing, it would be difficult to pinpoint a time when this will show up on the bottom line. Right now it is suspended in a gamblers nightmare of; do you let the money ride while throwing more money in to kept the game alive? If you do, Boeing would make all its money back in bucket loads, when the other hands fold. Boeing is at that crossroad on the 787 gamble. It will stay all in and ride it out, because that is the only way it can win. The investors know it and have responded as Boeing’s stock has elevated during the last three months. Airbus has backed off of Lithium-ion where it will add some weight, lose some battery performance and avoid a timetable crunch to get the A350 airborne.

Does Boeing gain enough by sticking with a heavier encasement for the battery? The 150 pound weight gain found in the 787 battery solution brings it closer to Airbus’s A350 battery weight. However, the performance of the lithium keeps the 787 a better performing Aircraft. I am sure Airbus is keenly watching this development as it has already switched back to the older, heavier and underperforming battery system as compared to Boeing’s Lithium-ion setup  The 150 weight gain may have to come out of reducing some parts items at one ounce at a time. Airbus could switch back to Lithium-Ion once the Aircraft is moved onto the flight line, letting Boeing do all the heavy lifting on this issue.

Quoting The Press:

“In this context, and with a view to ensuring the highest level of programme certainty, Airbus has decided to activate its plan B and therefore to revert back to the proven and mastered nickel cadmium main batteries for its A350 . . . programme.”

Aspire's Aviation, Boeing 777X Analysis

Aspires Aviation Featured Points of Interest: 

(Everything below the ("cut") and above the ("paste") is Aspire Aviation's clips from its Article) please read the article for additional information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------cut----------------------------------------------------------------------------

• GE9X to feature 16 blades, versus 18 on GEnx engines
• Folding wingtip to be operated hydraulically
• Folding wingtip to improve lift-to-drag by 12%
• Folding wingtip 800lbs weight penalty, against 777-200′s 3,200lbs
• 777X to remain ICAO Code E aircraft on aprons
• 787-styled tail fin, elimination of overwing exit confirmed
• Elimination of overwing exit saves 1,000lbs of weight
• 787-styled larger dimmable windows, lower cabin altitude being studied
• 777-8X & -9X range boosted to around 8,100nm
• 777-8X to compete with A350-1000, banks on commonality advantages

Read full article on Link:

Kudos to Aspire Aviation as it lays out the 777X progress and arguments as a competitor.

“I think they are ready to go on that. I am hoping that within the next two or three weeks, we will engage with Boeing almost on a formal basis,” Emirates president Tim Clark was quoted as saying.

------------------------------------------paste-----------------------------------

Boeing is getting ready reach an important moment on the 777X. What is happening on the 787 affects the 777X program. Case in point, The 787 ETOPS will be resolved shortly with the assurance of the FAA after its testing and validation. A required step for full 787 functionality, stating the 787 is fit for service. 

Why the hesitation? Simplistic answer is that the FAA, NTSB and others must show its done its due diligence in certifying a troubled system. Before releasing the 787 back to its pre battery fire status. They must take Boeing to the brink and back again in the sweat box of examinations and posturing to appease all critics of Boeing's 787. Boeing is sweating and is scrambling and they will pass. 

The 777X is on because Boeing has the assurance that the 787 solution will pass an ETOP's review, IF they complete another ETOP's battery of tests. The caveat is found in the word, "If".

So with that in mind what has Boeing and Aspire wrought for the 777X? 

LiftnDrag summy of  Aspire Article in Bullet Points:

• Acceleration of 777X program during March 2013
• Movement of VP's, Best fit for specific project maturations such as for 737 Max, 787 and 777X
• 777X incorporates more 787 features for commonalities, linkage to Battery solution and ETOPs
• Carbon Fiber Wings not necessarily folding!

---------------------------------------cut-----------------------------------------

This folding wingtip, along with a 787-styled wing, is going to enable Boeing to achieve a 12% improvement in lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio with a minimal weight penalty at 800lbs (362.8kg), compared to the 3,200lbs (1.45 tonnes) weight penalty associated with the original folding wingtip design studied on the 777-200, while adding 30m² (322.9ft²) wing area added to the 777-300ER’s one of 436.8m² (“Boeing 777X & 787-10X unfazed by 787 battery woes“, 14th Feb, 13).

---------------------------------------paste---------------------------------------

• Skin Technology is changing, 12% weight savings:

---------------------------------------cut----------------------------------------------

"On the other hand, while the fuselage material choice remains wide open in selecting either the traditional aluminium or 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium for the 777X, Aspire Aviation believes choosing Alcoa’s 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium that will reduce weight by 12% and 6% reduction in skin friction is pivotal to providing a larger window size and lowering the cabin altitude despite the higher cost involved.

Crucially, 3rd-generation aluminium-lithium technology is a proven and mature one that is readily available today, such as Alcoa’s Al-Li 2060-T8E30 product has an around 16.7% higher specific strength than the Al 2524-T3 used on today’s 777 to around 175 MPa/(gm/cm³) from its predecessor’s 150 MPa/(gm/cm³), with a higher stretch form-ability  Moreover, choosing the aluminium-lithium for the 777X will require no change in production tooling but only a change in coating, a misconception disproved by Spirit AeroSystems’ 737 rear fuselage panel using the Al-Li 2060 material with existing production tooling."

-----------------------------------------------------------------paste-------------------------------------------------------------

• 787 like flight surfaces note: Vertical stabilizer like 787

So  lets call the 777X another Max aircraft. They are stripping technology off the 787 like its a pick-apart jalopy salvage yard. Nothing is wrong with that approach, and Boeing is doing something sensible by building on technology paid for with money lost on the 787 project. Its the lessons learned jalopy going from the yard to formula one racing. A very crude analogy but the description shows a transition from the 787, back to an upgraded 777X,  without starting with a clean chalkboard for its all new 777X designs. Jeep came out with a badge on its 4x4 Jeeps as "Trail Rated".  The Max and the 777X should wear a Badge on its hull as "787 Optimized".

However, that should wait about two years until the battery problem is discharged. ETOPs restriction is not a bluff, or will it not really become an implementation of the FAA. The Boeing company will fiercely do its job and get the 787 to ETOPs certification once again, through a demonstration over the next six months on no Battery issues. Even if it has to buy the battery company and do it right. Shared technology risks are a bugger too, it can bit back if your supplier fails to execute when depending on that execution. Risks are called risks because of the uncertainty of absolutes.  Nothing is absolute and everything is risky. The closer Boeing diminishes risks and defines absolutes by intersecting at the FAA, the better Boeing becomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------cut-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	A350-900	A350-1000	777-300ER	777-8X	777-9X
3-class pax no.	314	350	365	353	407
Range (nm)	8,100	8,400	7,825	8,100	8,100
MTOW (kg)	268,000	308,000	351,530	315,000	344,000
MLW (kg)	205,000	233,000	251,290	n/a	n/a
MZFW (kg)	192,000	220,000	237,683	n/a	n/a
MEW/MWE (kg)	115,700	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a
OEW (kg)	n/a	n/a	167,829	n/a	n/a
Overall length (m)	66.89	73.88	73.9	69.55	76.48
Wingspan (m)	64.75	64.75	64.8	71.1	71.1
Diameter (m)	5.96	5.96	6.19	6.19	6.19
Cabin Width (m)	5.61	5.61	5.86	n/a	n/a
Engines	Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-84	Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97	General Electric GE90-115B	General Electric GE9X	General Electric GE9X
Thrust (lbs)	84,000	97,000	115,300	~90,000	~100,000

Sources: Airbus, Boeing, Aspire Aviation estimates

------------------------------------------------------paste--------------------------------------------------------------------