Boeing has had a rough several years, but could things finally be starting to look up for the aerospace giant?!
Continue reading: Boeing 777X Nears Certification, Could Fly Passengers By Mid-2026
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
@Ben with 500 frames on order, how quickly realistically will Boeing be able to build these aircraft? Will more than two per week be ready for delivery in, say, 2027 would you guess?
Once the a/c is certified, I can see more orders. But it'd be nice to see a new customer for a change aside from Lufthansa.
Boeing needs a win and the 777X has had its share of certification disasters not the least of which was blowing out a door frame during pressurization tests.
Boeing has built dozens of 777X airframes that are destined for airlines but will need to be reworked before delivering to airlines but Boeing's cash flow could increase fairly quickly as the 777-9 starts being delivered.
of course, Boeing still can't get out of its own shadow with the MAX 7 or MAX 10 which has far more orders than the 777X.
Other than the well define certification issues which have now been resolved made obvious by the progress the aircraft is making. Do you have any other meaningful concrete evidence to explain why you think the aircraft won’t be in service next year? Or you’re just taking a surface level approach based on the previous delays without not actually understanding why they happened? Most people do because most people are actually uninformed.
Yeah, that's the big question. And are they building them before certification with the potential to have to retrofit fixes, like they had to with the 787? I just don't see this being fast.
A lot of the 777X issues have been solved
And the fact you brought up the cargo door blow out during the 150% stress pressurisation test shows me you’re not actually researched what has been going on because that problem was solved 3 years ago.
.
All customers you've mentioned have had 777s already. I'm talking about a new 777 customer. Lufthansa and Swiss are the only recent new ones I can think of as well as Mahan Air, but that's a story for another day 😉
Same old, same old rhetoric from a desperate aviation company who has seriously lost its name.
As the Boeing Defence workers are on strike over pay issues, how long will it be before the rest of the Boeing workers follow suit?
the pressurized door blowout IS part of the 777X certification process. the fact that you want to sweep it under the rug says volumes about you and not me.
I want to see Boeing succeed as much as anyone -esp. since the 777X is entirely bringing foreign revenue into the US but no one, including the FAA, is going to forget that Boeing has bungled design and manufacturing of its product for a couple of decades and certification will involve proving all of those products are safe to fly by Boeing overcoming all of those defects.
This is basically correct. As of now, every airline and the FAA rightly views new Boeing planes from any line as "Verify before you trust anything", and rightly so.
Well articulated Tim.
Many want to believe in Boeing, some even swallow the corporate propaganda, however, the thinking person knows that they will not be so easily fooled by the company spin.
Is anyone here familiar with the certification process and can say what are the next steps after this current step, and what this step (and any further steps) involve?
Won't hold my breath, but I do hope they manage to meet the 2026 timeline. Airbus does actually need competition, I'd like to think Boeing actually learned their lesson from the MAX, and aside from all that I'd just like another big widebody to look at while I'm planespotting around the terminal before my flight.
In the short term any individual company is going to wax and wane, and while the MAX issues were a legitimate debacle and it's enraging that nobody was actually held accountable for it (hell, the CEO got a sweet golden parachute deal), that doesn't mean I want Boeing to continue to fail.
Doubt you’ll see more non 777 customers come on board. If you couldn’t handle a 300ER you’re definitely not going to be able to handle a -9
What will fly first? LH's 777X or DL's new A350-1000? Bookies open at 11am....
The folding wingtips are a design flaw that has potential to create maintenance problems down the road.
True. The only major holdout of the 777 would be Qantas who ironically was part of the design process of the 777. But we all know how that went.
it's most notable that no US airline has ordered a new generation large widebody other than DL's 35K
What happened to the days like when the 747 was designed and built in 5 years? Are we stupid? Are we lazy? Were they sloppy and approved anything in the 1960's?
The plane first flew in 2020 and it's taken another 5 years for it to fly again?? With modern technology how is this even feasible. ChatGPT didn't even exist 5 years ago. Are there any other Boeing designs that have taken this long in the modern era? Makes you wonder why this is called 777 and not 797 or something new.
Because real airlines like United and American, and not crop dusters like Delta, feel their needs are being met by the 787 and are avoiding garbage like anything from Airbus. Only Delta feels the need to get into a willy-waving contest due to their inferiority complex.
The biggest reason is that things were just less complicated back then because aircraft weren't as efficient. Modern aircraft use a lot of carbon fiber and other composites in their frame and skin in addition to aluminum alloys used in the old days for weight savings. Today's engines especially require far more precision than they did in the '60s due to lighter materials, higher reliability requirements, and higher thrust outputs. You also have software in the mix now, with onboard flight computers instead of fly-by-wire controls to allow quicker training of new pilots.
Beyond that, you also have far more regulation now, much of which is the result of issues experienced with older aircraft types that either caused or contributed to catastrophic failures. Think Aloha 243 or United 811, or to go older the issues with the De Havilland Comet. Pretty much everything we learned as a result of an air disaster became a regulation that manufacturers had to follow. This is a huge part of why flying is as safe as it is today.
Well, a couple years of progress were essentially lost due to the COVID epidemic resulting supply chain breakdown, and for Boeing specifically being under the microscope following the MAX debacle.
And I'll just point out, once you realize that ChatGPT is just a text generator running on stupidly powerful and expensive hardware, it's far less impressive. It's not "intelligent".
Like I said, watching crews struggling to get both winglets down during taxiing will be fun to watch from the terminal. Not so much from inside the hull.
Characterizing the 359/35K as "garbage" is a seriously hot take. While the 787 is certainly a nice plane (and one I prefer over the 777/767 handily), the 350 is a really refined experience even from the 787. I was blown away at how quiet it was and how little cabin vibration there is, to the point that I really didn't feel wearing noise cancelling headphones was necessary—not exactly true on the 787.
No, we're more crash averse.
People forget, a lot of the lessons learned from these aircraft that were designed+built+tested+flown in a short time (especially the 1960s and 1970s), came from multiple crashes after they were inaugurated. That began to change in the 1980s, and but lead to significantly increased design and testing times. More so into the 2000s, 2010s, and today.
The first 787 rolled out 18 years ago, yet only now has had its first crash, which is looking to be completely pilot-caused and nothing to do with its design.
The first A350 rolled out 12 years ago, and has never had a crash.
This is what the flying public now expects. You saw how badly people FREAKED OUT when the American Eagle and Delta Connection crashes happened in such close timing, this year, despite neither really having anything to do with the design of the aircraft.
and, most significantly, Airbus has been delivering A350s to DL according to the terms of DL's contract. AA and UA could only wish Boeing would do the same.
none of which changes that the A350-1000 is the most capable and efficient widebody in existence right now. AA and UA have nothing to compete with it and the best they can do is take another 20-30 seats off their 787s in order to hope to do what what either model of the A350 can do with more seats.
If the ~315 seats on DL's 35Ks and that DL is getting the highest capacity fuel tanks and takeoff weight, the DL 35K will easily be an 18 hour plane, something no Boeing will be able to do with anywhere 300 passengers for years - until they can get the 777-8 in the air - and after the massive backlog of larger but less capable 777-9s.
I am not a Boeing hater, but very much aware of what they did in regards to the 737 MAX. I think it is great that Boeing is using the folding wing. It is a very proven technology of aircraft carrier planes for many decades. But, let's not forget, the 777X is basically an extended 777 which was designed in 1989 (36 years ago). The fuselage is aluminum not composite. If any of you see similarities to what happened with the 737 MAX, I believe you are correct.
When I was a little kid, my grandpa would tell me about the 777x being certified….he’s been gone chit awhile but I still have hope.
Cathay Pacific has ordered 14 more 777-9s. Now they have a total of 35 units on order for the type.
Cathay Pacific has ordered 14 more 777-9s. Now they have a total of 35 units on order for the type.
To be fair though, the root problem with the MAX was needing the plane to keep the same type certification as the previous model 737s. All of the issues stemmed from that. The new larger engines couldn't fit under the wings, so had to be moved forward. This affected the aircraft balance and flight characteristics, which they tried to band-aid with software. I don't know of any requirement for the 777X to keep the same type requirement (and I'd think the folding wingtips preclude that anyways), and there's also more space underneath the wings for larger more efficient engines.
Actually, I believe it's meant to keep the same type rating as the regular 777s, specifically done to minimize pilot training requirements.
And while they didn't have to move the engines around like on the 737, the wing is basically an entirely new wing. And as you mention, the fuselage will be longer (although the same width).
I'm not an aerospace engineer, but when you have a brand new wing, longer fuselage, and brand new engines (also being certified as "derivatives" of GE's previous engines), and you're trying to make it behave enough like the old aircraft that pilots don't need to retrain for it, then, IMHO the parallels with the 737Max fiasco is indeed warranted.
While it probably won't specifically be a problem with the center of gravity, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of software hacks being done here to force the control characteristics to mimic a regular 777. And that additional "translation" layer of software is an entire, additional surface for bugs or unexpected behavior to crop up on.
The truth is, this should never have been allowed to have a common type rating with the 777. In the future, I doubt the FAA will allow it. But the 777x decisions were made prior to the 737Max disaster, when Boeing was basically allowed to certify itself and the FAA would just rubberstamp it. I think the FAA realizes they might kill off the entire product line (not to mention the company), if they decide to change their mind now. So this will likely be grandfathered in with its common type rating while hoping they caught all the bugs during the certification process...
I suspect others will come on after a few years of flying. Right now, the only airlines who have signed on are ones who *need* the 777X, like Emirates. There are others who could probably go with either the 777X or the A350 and are either placing orders for the A350 or staying silent and waiting.
Once the 777X starts flying, and real performance data comes out, if it actually hits its promised goals (Boeing used to have a reputation of overdelivering on things like fuel efficiency, range, and MTOW), you might see some new airlines willing to choose it over the A350, especially once the 777X-8 starts coming out (pax capacity closer to the A350).
Thanks for the context. Doing some additional research based on that, it looks like both the MAX and the 777X use a derivative type certification, basically meaning already-rated pilots are only trained on the differences from the previous type. The A350 also shares a type rating with the A330 and only requires derivative certification if the pilot is already rated for the A330 for example.
So going back to the 737 MAX, to my recollection MCAS was originally essentially omitted from the training, plus the system was reliant on only a single sensor (single point of failure). I do agree it's pushing it to put the 777X as a derivative of the original with the entirely new wing and entirely new folding wingtip system, but I'd like to think that after the MAX fiasco Boeing learned their lesson. I'm less optimistic about the efficacy of the FAA review under current leadership and DOGE cuts.