Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5754556/

Topic: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tioloko100
Posted 2013-05-03 20:58:27 and read 41212 times.

Despite what the no.1 aircraft maker went through recently with the batter issues on 787 Dreamliner. Boeing has announced its plans to build world's longest range passenger aircraft;which will be the revamp of the 777 widebody. Business travellers will soon be able to enjoy lots of non-stops flights around the globe.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...03/us-boeing-idUSBRE94119Z20130503

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: CALPSAFltSkeds
Posted 2013-05-03 21:17:26 and read 41145 times.

Sounds like the 777-8X will really be the 777-9XSP.

The 772LR is touted as having reduced operational cost vs. the 772ER with long stage lengths due to a longer wing.

If the 777-8X is just a shortened 777-9X, I don't see the advantage for anyone except for a very few routes, especially when the 777-9X is to have 300 nm range extension over the 772ER, but carry about 50 more passengers.

[Edited 2013-05-03 21:22:10]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-05-03 21:24:44 and read 41021 times.

I agree that the 777-8X should offered ONLY in an ultra-long haul variant to replace the 772LR, otherwise the 787-10 will cannibalize its sales.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: point2point
Posted 2013-05-03 21:36:01 and read 40943 times.

What ultra-long haul markets are really looking for this? With a range of 9500 nm, this can do the most obvious with LHR/SYD-MEL, and then maybe PEK-ICN-NRT/GRU...... or maybe getting full flight from EWR-SIN? But other than these, I would think that at most 50 of these birds would be built to serve the above routes.

 

[Edited 2013-05-03 21:48:18]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-05-03 21:37:19 and read 40908 times.

I thought the 777-200LR could basically fly to most city pairs? I think we're approaching the end to the range game, eventually we'll reach the point where more range means you take a longer great circle route  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2013-05-03 21:41:07 and read 40835 times.

I don't see the point.

Many ULH routes are being found to be an non-viable business cases and the other markets that have not yet been able to be flown so far, like those listed by point2point are untested and may well find the same fate.

Unless the plane is a massive breakthrough that turns these routes into profitable endeavours, don't boher.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-03 21:49:57 and read 40708 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
I would think that at most 50 of these birds would be built to serve the above routes.

How many would Boeing need to build to reach the break even point?
Since it's using and existing frame, my guess is that it wouldn't be that much compared to designing an all new aircraft from ground up.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
I think we're approaching the end to the range game, eventually we'll reach the point where more range means you take a longer great circle route  

I think they want to do ULH more profitably than the existing 777-200LR and A340-500.
Personally I think it would be awesome to see a 747-8I that has a range longer than the existing 777-200LR and A340-500.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: questions
Posted 2013-05-03 21:50:07 and read 40686 times.

And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: crownvic
Posted 2013-05-03 22:02:12 and read 40548 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!

I could not agree with you more. While this is just an opinion on my part, I do several transpac and transatl flights every year in a premium cabin, and cannot stand it. My duration is about 10 hours. Beyond this, I have had enough. When these flights push 12 hours, it is just too long, let alone the 15-18 hour sectors. The ULH market has only had marginal success and what we need, is something supersonic. I would much rather sit in a basic 2 x 2 Business Class seat and get to my international destination in 3-4 hour, than be wined and dined in Business Class or in a First Class suite for 12 - 18 hours.

I was fortunate enough to have flown Concorde JFK-LHR. Unless you have done this, one cannot describe the feeling of getting off a plane so far from home, in just a few hours time. It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ATCtower
Posted 2013-05-03 22:04:00 and read 40541 times.

I agree with the rest. We all answer why, where it seems BOE answers why not?

The ONLY route I can think that a plane like this could even be reasonable is LHR-SYD which I know the 77L 'can' make, I dont believe it can do it with a load of pax and maintaining all divert mins.

Could one route really support such a platform?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: rj777
Posted 2013-05-03 22:31:16 and read 40313 times.

I'm wondering a couple of things:
1)Will the 777X have any design elements from the 737MAX (for example the new winglets)
2)How much of a size difference will there be between the -8X and the -200LR and the -9X and the -300ER?
3)And with so much interest from airlines practically ORDERING Boeing to commit to it (BA, EK, etc.), how long will it be before the first official commitment is made from a customer?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-03 22:31:27 and read 40313 times.

I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: soyuz
Posted 2013-05-03 22:53:49 and read 40110 times.

IMO, a big selling point for the new 777 will be its (paradoxically) wider body than the XWB's. The A350-1000's fuselage width pretty much precludes 10 abreast seating (given how tight it is already on the current 777) and will make 9 abreast somewhat less comfortable for the ever increasing extra wide body human population. If Boeing gets this plane right, it has the potential to eat into the A350-1000's sales big time. As for the ultra-long range, there would have to be a big fuel saving compared to its contemporaries if it is to be used for that purpose by airlines.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mariner
Posted 2013-05-03 22:56:25 and read 40068 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

I'm exactly the reverse. After about eight hours, I;m screaming to be let off. I'd rather have a stopover for a couple of days, somewhere interesting.

Why pay all that money just to get there?

mariner

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-03 23:00:23 and read 40016 times.

The 777F needs a refresh anyway so why not offer the -8LR? Its the same plane.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: TWA772LR
Posted 2013-05-03 23:15:24 and read 39885 times.

Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?

With talk of A32X and 737s of doing TATL, and 777s and A350s flying halfway across the world, I guess the next step is for Beech 1900s fly transcon!

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ASA
Posted 2013-05-03 23:31:52 and read 39733 times.

Boeing already makes the 77L and will make the 789 soon ... covering almost EVERY market other than the Kangaroos. Do they really need anything that can fly longer? Or is is a case of "mine is longer than yours?"

Is Emirates looking to run passenger drop missions over Australia and come back to DXB without refueling?  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-03 23:33:36 and read 39714 times.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):
Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?

  

19,100 km (10,300 nmi) range planed for the A950-900R

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2013-05-03 23:39:06 and read 39637 times.

I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Airlines haven't flocked to other products they have made to satisfy demand in the part, including the 77L and even more recently the 748. Initial interest is one thing, but handing over the cash is another.

Quoting ASA (Reply 16):
Is Emirates looking to run passenger drop missions over Australia and come back to DXB without refueling?

You never know, it is EK  

Maybe they are planning mid air passenger transfers... oh the reality ...

[Edited 2013-05-03 23:40:28]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2013-05-03 23:41:39 and read 39602 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 17):

19,100 km (10,300 nmi) range planed for the A950-900R

With what load though?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-03 23:42:52 and read 39583 times.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 18):
I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Boeing won't unless someone asks for it. The base model will be the -9 and the -8 will be a shrink. If nobody wants the -8, (which I suspect will not be a huge seller regardless), it won't get made.

The -8's best chance of being made is if it becomes Boeing's new 777F.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2013-05-03 23:48:51 and read 39513 times.

I think SQ dropped the LAX-SIN and EWR-SIN routes because the A340-500 was not economical enough to justify the cost of such a long flight. With the 777-8X, SQ might seriously look at reviving this route again--if Airbus doesn't offer it first with the A350XWB-900R.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: DIJKKIJK
Posted 2013-05-03 23:58:00 and read 39429 times.

There is no market for Ultra Long Range aircraft and Boeing must know this. The 77L and the A345 have not been very successful. I wonder why Boeing wants to get into this segment again.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2013-05-03 23:59:15 and read 39412 times.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 21):
I think SQ dropped the LAX-SIN and EWR-SIN routes because the A340-500 was not economical enough to justify the cost of such a long flight. With the 777-8X, SQ might seriously look at reviving this route again--if Airbus doesn't offer it first with the A350XWB-900R.

I guess we will see.

The economics and market appeal of such routes is a complex one. Whether you can get sufficient yield premiums for such flights is questionable at this stage.

Whether is a 345, 77L or any of the new generation of ULH planes, it may not matter which aircraft it is, as the market may not support such a strategy, especially if there is a reliance on those stops to increase passenger LF's and yield maximisation.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2013-05-04 00:01:55 and read 39399 times.

People.

Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

This aircraft will be a killer machine for trans-Pacific underfloor cargo in addition to the passenger cabin - and I give 5 years at the most until 777-8XF is announced. Just wait until 777F clears its backlog...

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-04 00:22:01 and read 41394 times.

Gentlemen with all due respect, Boeing is NOT building a plane that will flop or not sell. They are building this with the input of airline executives, people who are telling them what to build and not to build. In the end, granted, Boeing builds what the customer(s) wants and what Boeing see as a viable business case. ULH dying and not making economic sense is purely a personal opinion. The Willy Walsh's and TC's of the world clearly think differently.

Boeing held on to the 747 frame thinking that it would last forever and didn't think that it was necessary to go forward with the double decker versions and now the rest is history. Cue the A380. My point is that they, Boeing, are acting on customer input and history to build these air-frames. Lets just sit back, relax, grab the tub of pop corn and see what happens.     

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: IndianicWorld
Posted 2013-05-04 00:29:29 and read 40691 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 25):
Boeing is NOT building a plane that will flop or not sell.

The market will dictate that I guess.

What is needed in a CEO's mind today may be very different 10 years from now. Strategies change by the day afterall, as we are all well aware.

Interesting times ahead.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: a380heavy
Posted 2013-05-04 00:42:18 and read 41350 times.

Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

How many people step off a long haul flight after breathing in 350 other people's farts for 15 hours, look happy and refreshed?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-05-04 00:51:06 and read 41258 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

Some do. Give me a LAX-SIN non-stop over a connection any day of the year. I sleep, work, catch up on some personal reading, watch a movie or two, and I'm there, rested and ready! I don't miss the hassle of putting laptop and books back in my carry-on, change plane and settle in again...

Quoting mariner (Reply 13):
Why pay all that money just to get there?

Less time in the air for the man = more free time for me!

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-04 01:06:42 and read 40949 times.

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
With a range of 9500 nm, this can do the most obvious with LHR/SYD-MEL, and then maybe PEK-ICN-NRT/GRU

This is only 100Nm nominal further than the 772LR. This "longest range airliner" is really a tick-box exercise in that respect. Its operating economics out at longer ranges will be far more relevant IMO

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):
The A350-1000's fuselage width pretty much precludes 10 abreast seating (given how tight it is already on the current 777) and will make 9 abreast somewhat less comfortable for the ever increasing extra wide body human population

Doesn't bode well for the 787 really, does it?  
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):
Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?

It's not even being offered yet. somewhat pertinently for this thread, many say it won't be offered as the demand for a plane with that range will be so low....

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 19):
With what load though?

Nominal passengers. Just like the 777-8LX

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 25):
Gentlemen with all due respect, Boeing is NOT building a plane that will flop or not sell. They are building this with the input of airline executives, people who are telling them what to build and not to build.

Just like the A380 then.  

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: 817Dreamliiner
Posted 2013-05-04 01:12:00 and read 40594 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
People.

Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 01:24:38 and read 40205 times.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
Business travellers will soon be able to enjoy lots of non-stops flights around the globe.

Unfortunately IMO this aircraft will not be opening many new routes.

Quoting point2point (Reply 3):
this can do the most obvious with LHR/SYD-MEL, and then maybe NRT/PEK/ICN-GRU.

I would be surprised if it is used for any of these routes.

Don't get me wrong a 20% improvement in fuel burn and a 35 seat bump in seats over the 77E/L will help to make some new routes viable for the shorter 777 but these routes will hardly be new direct flights. Rather the true value of the aircraft will be in its ability to carry more freight further. SYD-LHR is a pipe dream. Who would pay twice as much to save 2 hours especially now that DXB is a great stopping point? And what airline would sacrifice their premium passengers on those kangaroo routes in the process? Those seats have to come from somewhere. Maybe a small new-comer.

SYD-NYC/ATL and as has been previously said renewing the SQ routes are possible now that you have 35 more seats to offset the gas costs and the improved efficiency. However the real value are routes like DXB-IAH/SFO/LAX, HKG-LAX, and other payload heavy where the additional seats, increased cargo capacity, and reduced fuel burn combine to make airlines more money. After all this is the bases for the new 77XF freighter. The first version carries passengers and the next version is a freight train.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
It's all about PAYLOAD.

Definitely agree.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: TC957
Posted 2013-05-04 02:02:25 and read 39264 times.

I just can't see any European airline needing a plane of that range as they simply don't have the routes, LHR-SYD/MEL or LHR-AKL excepted. Or possibly IST-SYD. Middle East airlines - again nothing that can't be done with aircraft they already have. US Airlines - a few routes like to SIN or BKK or LAX /SFO - India maybe. Asian airlines - could open up South America and, as has already been suggested, re-instate non-stop SIN/BKK - JFK/LAX etc. South American airlines - likewise could bring direct flights to key Asian markets.
QF have invested so much with the EK tie-up that I don't see them needing a plane for non-stops to Europe either, unless they look at routes like to JFK or YYZ.
If Boeing launch the 777-8LR, I can see the -8LRF selling better than the pax version. But the -9 will be looked at as possibly the ideal 77W replacement and EK said already they may want up to 275 of them.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: faro
Posted 2013-05-04 02:18:55 and read 38793 times.

The ULH market has always been and remains grossly over-rated. There are basically two significant routes fans that may warrant a longer-range aircraft than the 772LR, LHR-SYD/MEL/PER and NRT/ICN/PVG-GRU. Besides those two, you really don't have much of a market for more range.

Factor in any jump in fuel prices over the next 6-7 years and the cost of burning fuel to carry fuel may become quasi-prohibitive for any normal (ie, non J-only) pax mix.

Technically a very nice concept of course, but commercially a very dodgy proposition...

Faro

[Edited 2013-05-04 02:42:18]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: bill142
Posted 2013-05-04 02:25:13 and read 38777 times.

Alan Joyce promised to finally sign Qantas up for the 777 if it could do SYD-LHR non stop year round with a full load.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 02:31:24 and read 38537 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
How many would Boeing need to build to reach the break even point?

Same wing, same engine, I think the certification costs will be relatively low. Perhaps even 20 to 30 frames might be enough to cover the costs.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
This is only 100Nm nominal further than the 772LR. This "longest range airliner" is really a tick-box exercise in that respect. Its operating economics out at longer ranges will be far more relevant IMO

It's a sensational title for the media.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
It's not even being offered yet. somewhat pertinently for this thread, many say it won't be offered as the demand for a plane with that range will be so low....

Airbus will first focus on the -800, -900 and -1000 models. After that, around the end of the decade maybe, they might study the use case for an 900R again.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

  

Just imagine, EK can now carry 350 pax and 30+ tonnes of cargo on DXB-LAX  

[Edited 2013-05-04 02:40:00]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: faro
Posted 2013-05-04 02:43:59 and read 38105 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):

Just imagine, EK can now carry 350 pax and 30+ tonnes of cargo on DXB-LAX

Is there demand for that much cargo between the Gulf in general and the US West Coast?


Faro

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-04 02:45:18 and read 38126 times.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
I was fortunate enough to have flown Concorde JFK-LHR.

Sweet!

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board,

40 years ago, many thought that something even more advanced than the Concorde would have been developed before 2013.

Quoting TC957 (Reply 32):
US Airlines - a few routes like to SIN or BKK or LAX /SFO

I'd like to see that.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
Same wing, same engine, I think the certification costs will be relatively low. Perhaps even 20 to 30 frames might be enough to cover the costs.

Thanks. That is a very low threshold. It might as well be worth it for Boeing to go forward with this.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 02:54:02 and read 37891 times.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
How many people step off a long haul flight after breathing in 350 other people's farts for 15 hours, look happy and refreshed?

  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-04 02:54:32 and read 37842 times.

I think people are focusing way too much on its range capability.

It's selling point will be its ability to carry full payload on 5500nm+ routes where the 9X and A350-1000 are mzfw limited. This will include the polar routes, transpacific, middle east to north and south america whilst carrying 350ish pax.

It will be a niche aircraft but it will certainly do better than the B77L, because even though that is a good aircraft...the cost per seat was rather high seeing it carries roughly 300 pax vs 353 for the 8LX.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Richcandy
Posted 2013-05-04 03:07:10 and read 37522 times.

Just a question.

Is there a market for a aircraft that can do LHR-SYD/MEL/AKL non stop with a full load all year round?

Or do NZ/BA/VS/QF need to sell seats between the intermediate points in order for the route to work as far as revenue goes.

In other words just for example do NZ make enough money from LHR-AKL or v.v. to make the route pay or do they need the revenue from LHR-LAX & v.v. & LAX-AKL & v.v ticket sales to make it pay?

Alex

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: faro
Posted 2013-05-04 03:16:18 and read 37249 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 39):
It's selling point will be its ability to carry full payload on 5500nm+ routes where the 9X and A350-1000 are mzfw limited. This will include the polar routes, transpacific, middle east to north and south america whilst carrying 350ish pax.

But most cargo isn't in a such a hurry to absolutely avoid a fuel stop midway along its route; and the bonus is that you consume less fuel with such stop than without. Cargo is not ULH-sensitive; it is cost-sensitive.


Faro

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 03:19:43 and read 37247 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 37):
Thanks. That is a very low threshold. It might as well be worth it for Boeing to go forward with this.

I'm sure that Boeing will keep the sales of the 77LR in mind. If they continue with the knowledge of selling about 60 ULH airfarmes than that's an indication of a low threshold to me. Something like 20 to 30 frames maybe.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 39):
I think people are focusing way too much on its range capability.

  

Quoting waly777 (Reply 39):
It's selling point will be its ability to carry full payload on 5500nm+ routes where the 9X and A350-1000 are mzfw limited. This will include the polar routes, transpacific, middle east to north and south america whilst carrying 350ish pax.

  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: AngMoh
Posted 2013-05-04 03:29:54 and read 37003 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 28):
Some do. Give me a LAX-SIN non-stop over a connection any day of the year. I sleep, work, catch up on some personal reading, watch a movie or two, and I'm there, rested and ready! I don't miss the hassle of putting laptop and books back in my carry-on, change plane and settle in again...

In J: yes non-stop is preferred. In Y it is a different story. I have done SIN-EWR in what was more or less Y+ and I don't want to do that again. In Y it will kill you. In J (SQ 1-2-1 config), I would choose the non-stop option.

When I flew it SIN-EWR, J was packed, Y empty. EWR-SIN was full in J and 80% full in Y and I was told by the crew it is highly unusual. That is the reason it was changed to an all-J flight.

Crewing is also a problem for such a long flight. The FAs told me that for them it is a really tough flight. The schedule was that at departure, all crew are working the first 3 hours and then there are 2 6-hour shifts (12 hours total) and the last 3 hours all are active again. This works for 100-180 passengers, but with 300 this might be problem.

And on an other note: it took 45 mins after takeoff from EWR to reach cruising altitude. I have flown many times and never had such a slow climb as that time and you could really notice the plane was close to MTOW. It is really a sign how much extra fuel you need to bring to carry relatively few passengers a few hours further. Don't forget that the first few hours you mainly burn fuel to carry the fuel.

Quoting faro (Reply 33):

The ULH market has always been and remains grossly over-rated. There are basically two significant routes fans that may warrant a longer-range aircraft than the 772LR, LHR-SYD/MEL/PER and NRT/ICN/PVG-GRU. Besides those two, you really don't have much of a market for more range.

I can't see LHR to Australia non-stop work because in Y it is not doable, and especially with the QF-EK alliance it is a no go.
For NRT/ICN/PVG-GRU, the traffic is not there.

The 777-8LR will be great for maximising payloads on current routes like SYD-DFW, JFK-JNB and DBX-LAX, but I don't see longer ones appear.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 03:32:27 and read 36907 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 36):
Is there demand for that much cargo between the Gulf in general and the US West Coast?

Tim Clark often complains about payload/range shortage.

Quoting faro (Reply 41):
But most cargo isn't in a such a hurry to absolutely avoid a fuel stop midway along its route; and the bonus is that you consume less fuel with such stop than without. Cargo is not ULH-sensitive; it is cost-sensitive.

You will burn more fuel with a full cargo belly but if the cargo revenue can covers those costs then why not. Sure this will not work for every customer but there are a few routes out there which can use such an airframe. Like DBX-LAX.

[Edited 2013-05-04 03:33:53]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Superfly
Posted 2013-05-04 03:38:10 and read 36734 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 42):
I'm sure that Boeing will keep the sales of the 77LR in mind. If they continue with the knowledge of selling about 60 ULH airfarmes than that's an indication of a low threshold to me. Something like 20 to 30 frames maybe.

Any chance of seeing a 747-8I LR version?
I really hope sales of the 747-8I picks up.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-04 04:18:00 and read 35827 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
This is only 100Nm nominal further than the 772LR. This "longest range airliner" is really a tick-box exercise in that respect. Its operating economics out at longer ranges will be far more relevant IMO

  

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
Doesn't bode well for the 787 really, does it?  


 . Sharp comment.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
Just like the A380 then.

Indeed.  .

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

  

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 35):
It's a sensational title for the media.

Nothing wrong with some good old marketing.  .

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 44):
Tim Clark often complains about payload/range shortage.

But he often is the only one. But with his order-potential aircraft manufacturers and engine manufacturers better listen carefully to what he has to say.  .

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: workhorse
Posted 2013-05-04 04:38:24 and read 35155 times.

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):

IMO, a big selling point for the new 777 will be its (paradoxically) wider body than the XWB's. The A350-1000's fuselage width pretty much precludes 10 abreast seating (given how tight it is already on the current 777) and will make 9 abreast somewhat less comfortable for the ever increasing extra wide body human population.

It is actually the other way round. No carrier, with the exception maybe of the most ruthless LCC's, is going to put 10 seats across in the A350. And you can be sure that, with the excuse of "thinner walls ", all carriers (even those who put 9 across in current generations 777's) will go 10 across on the 778/779. With this, and the generalization of the 9 abreast 787, it looks like Boeing is set to become the "less comfort" manufacturer compared to Airbus. Which is a real pity, if you ask me.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-05-04 04:41:22 and read 35189 times.

Quoting AngHoh

"I can't see LHR to Australia non-stop work because in Y it is not doable, and especially with the QF-EK alliance it is a no go.
For NRT/ICN/PVG-GRU, the traffic is not there.

The 777-8LR will be great for maximising payloads on current routes like SYD-DFW, JFK-JNB and DBX-LAX, but I don't see longer ones appear."

I agree and I don't think the situation will improve. Oil prices over the next ten years are more than likely going to increase in real terms which makes tankering even more expensive.

Non Stop SYDLHR will not save a great deal of time over the SIN or DXB route. If you are travelling from MEL, BNE or ADL or if you are going to other destinations in the UK or Europe then a DXB connection will probably be quicker.

The sales of ULH aircraft from the 747SP thru the A345 and the 77L have never but great and I don't see the 777-8X being any different.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-05-04 04:48:27 and read 34925 times.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 25):
Gentlemen with all due respect, Boeing is NOT building a plane that will flop or not sell.

Right. Because they've never done that before. 787-300, 748i *caugh*

Quoting astuteman (Reply 29):
It's not even being offered yet. somewhat pertinently for this thread, many say it won't be offered as the demand for a plane with that range will be so low....

That all depends on how much it will cost to develop/produce, much like the 77L. If it's just another variant with minimal investment required, I don't see why not.

Quoting faro (Reply 33):
The ULH market has always been and remains grossly over-rated.

Maybe, although we keep moving the goal posts on what ULH really is. A couple of decades ago spending more than 12 hours on a plane was almost unheard of. Today there are dozens, if not hundreds of 12+ hr routes. When the 744 was launched people were saying the same thing: Who wants to spend 14 hours in a metal tube?  The rest is history.

But as many said, the big advantage of such a plane is not so much opening up new routes, which there aren't that many to begin with, but making exisitng routes that are at the threshold of the range/payload curve that much more viable and profitable.

Quoting faro (Reply 41):
But most cargo isn't in a such a hurry to absolutely avoid a fuel stop midway along its route;

No the cargo isn't, but the people sitting above it are. You have to meet the demands of both.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Glareskin
Posted 2013-05-04 04:56:31 and read 34632 times.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

No you are not. I very much agree with you and I wish we could finaly stop the fuel-burn discussion and start working on speed again!
As I recall this was the initial idea of the Dreamliner.
Hopefully the economical effects of the shale gas will force the oil prices down and open-up the road (skies) for speed again.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-04 04:56:39 and read 34624 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

I like to stop if anything but to get out of the aircraft which I have been in for 8-10 hours and just walk to stretch and get some fresh air.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):

Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?



They only need to fly halfway around the world non stop or find out why they flew in the wrong direction.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: vio
Posted 2013-05-04 05:08:10 and read 33715 times.

Question is, who the hell wants to sit in economy for 19 hours?... Not me, thanks. I rather have 2 flights that are each 9.5 hrs long   At least I can get up and walk around for a few hours in some hub airport.  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-04 05:11:28 and read 33572 times.

Quoting faro (Reply 41):
But most cargo isn't in a such a hurry to absolutely avoid a fuel stop midway along its route; and the bonus is that you consume less fuel with such stop than without. Cargo is not ULH-sensitive; it is cost-sensitive

Indeed, however underbelly cargo is more profitable on routes pax fly to vs using dedicated freighters with multiple stops.

E.g. I know on the DXB-LAX routes, a B77W and a B77L were used, the latter being used to carry cargo the former couldn't carry even with blocked out seats on that route. With the 8LX, it will do be able to do those routes carrying almost full or even full payload.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-05-04 05:22:23 and read 33263 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
I think they want to do ULH more profitably than the existing 777-200LR and A340-500.

It will do that and so will a 350R (basically a 350-1000 shrink). While there are around 100 x 77L / 345 in service the vast majority are not deployed on ULH flights. Yes, they deliver cargo non-stop, but most cargo does not mind a stop and a stopping cargo flight uses less fuel than a non-stop. So the market is always going to be small which is why these aircraft are developed as incremental investments on the back of their sister aircraft.

Airlines with a single global hub strategy like EK (and in the future, TK) may have a need on their longest routes from their global hub.

[Edited 2013-05-04 05:24:15]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-04 06:37:40 and read 31240 times.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

It used to be that supersonic flight required engines to be in burner, now a/c can supercruise without burners, so the technology is getting there where the fuel burned is getting lower.
Do not look at the civilian OEM's to bring this technology to the fore, private or military will develop it and once proven and deemed safe for commercial application, the money makers will jump on-board. Issue is that the Concorde could have been replaced if the industry wanted an improved a/c, fact is they wanted to make money so the path of least resistance was chosen, we are where we are as a result.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-04 06:39:20 and read 31251 times.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

Boeing tried with the Sonic Cruiser, but once fuel prices started to rise sharply in the early 2000's, speed was abandoned for efficiency and the Sonic Cruiser became the 787.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-04 06:56:21 and read 30551 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
Boeing tried with the Sonic Cruiser,

In some circles, thsi is the second time around.
Boeing did attempt to compete with the Concorde and those fizzled for efficieny and payload in the form of the 747, we see a parallel?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 07:07:12 and read 30303 times.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 45):
Any chance of seeing a 747-8I LR version?

No chance at all.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 53):
E.g. I know on the DXB-LAX routes, a B77W and a B77L were used, the latter being used to carry cargo the former couldn't carry even with blocked out seats on that route. With the 8LX, it will do be able to do those routes carrying almost full or even full payload.

   However, EK will send the A380 to LAX in the near future so pax are still more important than cargo. Perhaps they can serve that route with both aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: lebb757
Posted 2013-05-04 07:20:30 and read 29878 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
Quoting par13del (Reply 55):
It used to be that supersonic flight required engines to be in burner, now a/c can supercruise without burners, so the technology is getting there where the fuel burned is getting lower.
Do not look at the civilian OEM's to bring this technology to the fore, private or military will develop it and once proven and deemed safe for commercial application, the money makers will jump on-board. Issue is that the Concorde could have been replaced if the industry wanted an improved a/c, fact is they wanted to make money so the path of least resistance was chosen, we are where we are as a result.

Concorde didnt need the burners during cruise

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-05-04 07:25:10 and read 29777 times.

Im dreaming here but man, B should make another 4 engine widebody, but with powerful enough engines that are fuel effecient enough to do the long range job   

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 07:37:05 and read 29495 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!

Here is a quote from a business guy flying on the SIN-EWR route:

Quote:
"I'm disappointed I can't fly direct to New York anymore," said Paul Ng, global head of aviation for law firm Stephenson Harwood. He flies to the U.S. about three times a year. "There's been quite good demand overall, both times I flew them they were full," said Mr. Ng, who advises airlines and is an expert on aviation finance.

He was not the only one, SQ received more disappointments from other customers:

Quote:
"Although disappointing that we will be halting these services, we remain very committed to the U.S. market," said Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Goh Choon Phong in a statement Wednesday.

Of course, that A340-500 is all business class. I understand that such a long trip will be less pleasant in Y.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BY241A_LONGH_G_20121024184208.jpg

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-04 07:42:12 and read 29197 times.

I could live with flying to Perth from central EU in a one hop route. Then sleep on Australian soil before going east again. More of a psychological thing for me. I hate getting off the aircraft in an early hour in SIN or BKK.. If I wanted to go to Asia I would go to Asia, I want to go to AUS..  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: thorntot
Posted 2013-05-04 07:44:27 and read 29150 times.

IAD or JFK to SYD, CGK, KUL, BKK, SIN, SGN...just a few suggestions of routes that should someday see non-stop service.

Although, aircraft interiors designers may need to think "outside-the-box" to accommodate passengers staying aloft for that long.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-05-04 07:51:25 and read 28916 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
The ULH market has only had marginal success and what we need, is something supersonic
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.
Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 50):
I wish we could finaly stop the fuel-burn discussion and start working on speed again!

Yep, I agree with all of you. Unfortunately, looking at the "innovation" in civilian aircraft over the past 50 years, well, there really hasn't been any. If anything, flying today usually takes longer than it did 50 years ago and I can see another 50 years going by without any attention paid to the speed part of the equation.

Remember, 50 years from now the most common airplanes in use will be: 737s and A32S.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-04 07:58:00 and read 28845 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 57):
Boeing did attempt to compete with the Concorde and those fizzled for efficieny and payload in the form of the 747, we see a parallel?

The 2707 was killed more due to concerns about the environmental impact of SSTs than fuel efficiency.




As to the 777-8XL, as BlueSky1976 noted - it's about the payload.

At the design range of 14,500km, the 777-300ER can haul about 35 tons of payload, which is half of it's maximum structural payload. The 777-200LR, on the other hand, can haul 59 tons that distance - 91% of it's maximum structural payload.

The 777-8XL will carry about as many passengers at 10-abreast as the 777-300ER does at 9-abreast. So you're looking at a plane with the capacity of the 777-300ER, but a design range closer to that of the 777-200LR.

If EK was a 9-abreast 777 operator, they'd probably have already bought the first few years of production (   ) , but even as a 10-abreast operator, the extra 6m of length the 777-8XL has over the 777-200LR will be beneficial as they will be able to fill those extra 60 seats (assuming they are all Economy) and be able to load more cargo in the belly.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-04 08:56:55 and read 26976 times.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 5):
I don't see the point.

Many ULH routes are being found to be an non-viable business cases and the other markets that have not yet been able to be flown so far, like those listed by point2point are untested and may well find the same fate.

Unless the plane is a massive breakthrough that turns these routes into profitable endeavours, don't boher.

The point is not that they will sell a truckload of these, but that the return on investment will be a net positive given the small amount that will need to be invested on the 777-8LX as opposed to it being a stand alone project. It is developed in conjunction with the 777-9X which is likely to be very successful. Any failure by the 777-8LX to sell in significant numbers is likely to be made up for by the success of the 777-9X. In such a case, the question isn't "why", but "why not".

The 777-8LX is not a stand-alone project and should not be treated as such when discussing the potential profitability. As long as the 777X program as a whole returns a net profit, I don't see why Boeing shouldn't develop the 777-8LX.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
How many would Boeing need to build to reach the break even point?
Since it's using and existing frame, my guess is that it wouldn't be that much compared to designing an all new aircraft from ground up.

  

I would agree with that guess.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
And how long do people really want to be on a flight?

I think that's beside the point. The technological advancements in engine technology has allowed Boeing to build such an aircraft. As long as there are airlines that want to fly that far non-stop, it'll sell.

Nevertheless, the 777-8LX isn't just about range, it's also about payload, as has been mentioned in numerous posts above. Currently, the 777-200LR can carry its full payload up to 7600nm ESAD. The 777-8LX will combine th capacity of the 777-300ER with the payload-range performance of the 777-200LR.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.

If speed were a real need, there would be demand for it from the airlines. Clearly, then, the real need is in efficiency and range, but not so much speed.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
1)Will the 777X have any design elements from the 737MAX (for example the new winglets)

The 777X will have a new wing, not just new winglets. It'll also have new engines. I don't know which design elements from the 737MAX you're referring to, but it's more likely that the 777X will "borrow" some elements from the 787 than it is from the 737MAX.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
2)How much of a size difference will there be between the -8X and the -200LR and the -9X and the -300ER?

Wingspan for both the 777-8X and 777-9X will be 71m, as opposed to the 64.8m on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.
Overall length for the 777-8X is planned to be 69.55m and the 777-9X 76.48m. The 777-200LR is 63.7m and the 777-300ER 73.9m.

In terms of seating capacity, the Boeing typical three class configuration lists the 777-200LR at 301 seats and the 777-300ER at 368 seats, while the 777-8X is projected to be a 353 seater and the 777-9X will have 407 seats.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 10):
3)And with so much interest from airlines practically ORDERING Boeing to commit to it (BA, EK, etc.), how long will it be before the first official commitment is made from a customer?

Hopefully by the end of the year when the program officially launches. I would expect EK to be the launch customer, given how much pressure they've been putting on Boeing to build it.

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):
As for the ultra-long range, there would have to be a big fuel saving compared to its contemporaries if it is to be used for that purpose by airlines.

Well, the GE9X engines powering the 777X family will have a lower specific fuel consumption than the current GE90-115Bs. For the 777X, the more efficient GE9X engines contributes to the extra range and payload-range performance of the aircraft.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 15):
Doesn't Airbus say the A350-900R will be able to do LHR-AKL nonstop w/o pax and LHR-SYD with pax? So wouldn't that be the longest ranged pax airliner?

If and when it is launched, it might very well become the longest ranged passenger airliner. At the moment, the title belongs to the 777-200LR. The 777-8LX will beat that, as will the A350-900R if and when it is launched. The difference, though, is that while Boeing now have an authority to offer the 777X, which includes the 777-8LX, Airbus have remained relatively silent on the issue of whether, and when we'll see the A350-900R.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 18):
I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Airlines haven't flocked to other products they have made to satisfy demand in the part, including the 77L and even more recently the 748. Initial interest is one thing, but handing over the cash is another.
Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 22):
There is no market for Ultra Long Range aircraft and Boeing must know this. The 77L and the A345 have not been very successful. I wonder why Boeing wants to get into this segment again.

Well, they are, and I can't see why the 777X family as a whole isn't going to be successful. If the 777X project is successful and profitable for Boeing, it matters not that the 777-8LX derivative doesn't sell more than, say, 60 copies. The likely success of the 777-9X and a potential 777-8F will more than cover for any failure to sell the 777-8LX in significant numbers.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

  

Indeed.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 43):
The 777-8LR will be great for maximising payloads on current routes like SYD-DFW, JFK-JNB and DBX-LAX, but I don't see longer ones appear.

Which is what most airlines will use it for - its payload range capability rather than its maximum range capability. There may not be that many flights that truly qualify as "ultra long haul", but that does not necessarily mean that aircraft with the range of the 777-8LX will fail to sell. I believe it is likely to sell on th back of its payload-range performance. What airline wouldn't want to fly standard long haul routes with a full payload?

Quoting workhorse (Reply 47):
It is actually the other way round. No carrier, with the exception maybe of the most ruthless LCC's, is going to put 10 seats across in the A350. And you can be sure that, with the excuse of "thinner walls ", all carriers (even those who put 9 across in current generations 777's) will go 10 across on the 778/779. With this, and the generalization of the 9 abreast 787, it looks like Boeing is set to become the "less comfort" manufacturer compared to Airbus. Which is a real pity, if you ask me.

I don't understand how that contradicts the post you were replying to. Soyuz said in Reply 12 that the big selling point of the 777X is its width, which would allow one extra seat per row in economy class than most A350-1000s, which would, in turn, increase its seating capacity and decrease its operating costs per seat. That is what will make the aircraft more attractive to airlines.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
Right. Because they've never done that before. 787-300, 748i *caugh*

The fact that the 787-3 was a non-starter and the 747-8i isn't selling as well as Boeing would like does not mean anything for the likelihood of the success of the 777X. Every program is different.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 49):
That all depends on how much it will cost to develop/produce, much like the 77L. If it's just another variant with minimal investment required, I don't see why not.

The same argument could be made for the 777-8LX.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 51):
They only need to fly halfway around the world non stop or find out why they flew in the wrong direction.

The equatorial circumference of Earth is 40,075.017km, according to Wikipedia. The projected maximum ranges of the 777-8LX and the A350-900R is still less than half of that.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 64):
If anything, flying today usually takes longer than it did 50 years ago and I can see another 50 years going by without any attention paid to the speed part of the equation.

How so? Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago. 50 years ago, the Concorde didn't exist. Flying the same distance today should take less time than it took 50 years ago.

[Edited 2013-05-04 10:01:27]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JAAlbert
Posted 2013-05-04 09:12:00 and read 26561 times.

Quoting soyuz (Reply 12):
IMO, a big selling point for the new 777 will be its (paradoxically) wider body than the XWB's.

What will the cabin width of the 777x be? I understand Boeing hopes to get a bit more space by making the side walls thinner, but I can't see that providing more than what, 4" more space. To provide 18" Y seats, at 10 per row, Boeing needs to gain at leat 8" doesn't it?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 09:16:22 and read 26388 times.

18" Y in 10 abreast is impossible, unless you have Smurfs on board.

I believe the thinner walls will make 17.4" seats in 10 abreast possible, versus 17" today.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: cv990coronado
Posted 2013-05-04 09:28:48 and read 26013 times.

Quoting CXB77L
"How so? Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago. 50 years ago, the Concorde didn't exist. Flying the same distance today should take less time than it took 50 years ago."

You make some very informed points in your long post but, I feel I must disagree with the last statement you mentioned above. If you look at old timetables of the era of 1963 + - you will see that non stop flights operated by jets had shorter scheduled timing than they currently do. I think this was partly due to airlines needing now to allow more taxi time for obvious reasons. Aircraft generally cruised at higher mach numbers and these were reduced to save fuel after the oil crisis of the early and late 70's. I agree where now flights are non stop when previously they were one or multi-stop then yes the journey times are shorter.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-04 09:31:28 and read 25951 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 61):
Here is a quote from a business guy flying on the SIN-EWR route:

You need a whole plane load of "business guy"

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 68):

18" Y in 10 abreast is impossible, unless you have Smurfs on board.

I believe the thinner walls will make 17.4" seats in 10 abreast possible, versus 17" today.

Or a plane load of supermodels with short legs.

On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that? Realistically, there are only a few routes in the world that would support this kind of plane. We have seen the demand for both the A380 and the B748 and to be honest IMO there really is not any at this time.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-04 09:34:43 and read 25826 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 70):
On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that?

For the range? Probably not. For the payload? Yes.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-04 09:36:49 and read 25779 times.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 67):
What will the cabin width of the 777x be? I understand Boeing hopes to get a bit more space by making the side walls thinner, but I can't see that providing more than what, 4" more space. To provide 18" Y seats, at 10 per row, Boeing needs to gain at leat 8" doesn't it?

They are looking at gaining 4" more width. They are not looking at providing 18" Y seats at 10 per row, but rather they are aiming for the 10 across configuration to feature the same width seats as on the 747 (17.5").

Quoting brilondon (Reply 70):
On a more serious note, do we really need a plane that is capable of doing that? Realistically, there are only a few routes in the world that would support this kind of plane. We have seen the demand for both the A380 and the B748 and to be honest IMO there really is not any at this time.

But there is a demand for higher capacity 777s, judging by the increasing number of airlines opting for 10 across configurations on their 777-300ERs. The 777-9X will have a trip cost advantage over the A380 and the 747-8, and as it, too, will also be capable of seating 400+ passengers, I would envisage that it will outsell both the A380 and the 747-8 combined.

[Edited 2013-05-04 09:40:00]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: VC10er
Posted 2013-05-04 09:48:52 and read 25421 times.

Somewhat on topic: if a 777 uses so much fuel to land and take off and land again, why are there such short tags on 777's? One is the United 777 tag from GRU to GIG, a 39 minute flight with about 39 people abord. At the same time in the morning I believe UA has 3 767's at GRU, but use the 3 class IAD metal to collect all the on-going pax to Rio. There are many other similar tags.

Wouldn't the 767 cost less fuel for such a short tag with so few pax? Will the 8X or 9X be more fuel efficient on take-off?

More on topic: As for 15 to 18 hour flights, unless you're in a wide bed seat and nobody next to you, I can't begin to imagine being smashed into Y. I'd take a flight with at least one stop as walking around the cabin had disappeared after 9/11 and since I was a victim of a "coach class DVT" at the age of 35, today at 50, I would think it would be unhealthy. Also, if Boeing plans to keep the tube metal, I assume there won't be improved cabin pressure vs the A350.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: PanAm788
Posted 2013-05-04 09:52:09 and read 25259 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):

Great post but I'd like to clarify the notion that there is no demand from airlines for a SST. The issue isn't that there is no demand. I think everyone here would agree that a reliable, safe, cost-effective SST would be a great product that would be be superior to the long-haul airliners currently in service/production. The issue lies with the fact that technology doesn't exist where an SST can be economically operated by airlines. Energy costs are too high, SSTs are too inefficient, and no one is willing to pay $10,000 more to get somewhere a few hours earlier. If, however, an efficient SST that could operate profitably were to be developed, airlines would pounce. The demand is there, the technology and cost-effectiveness is not.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: MD-90
Posted 2013-05-04 09:52:10 and read 25263 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):

I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!
Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
I could not agree with you more. While this is just an opinion on my part, I do several transpac and transatl flights every year in a premium cabin, and cannot stand it. My duration is about 10 hours. Beyond this, I have had enough. When these flights push 12 hours, it is just too long, let alone the 15-18 hour sectors.

Feel sorry for us poor slobs sitting behind you in row 60 instead!

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: astuteman
Posted 2013-05-04 10:58:23 and read 23554 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 65):
So you're looking at a plane with the capacity of the 777-300ER, but a design range closer to that of the 777-200LR

sounds like a great summation  
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):
I don't see why Boeing shouldn't develop the 777-8LX.

It will actually cost less to develop than the 777-8X - less will change relative to the 777-9.

Which is pretty much the approach Airbus adopted with the A350-800.
It does mean it will be sub-optimised in many applications though, like the A350-800.

If it's efficient enough, though, that shouldn't matter too much

Rgds

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-04 11:04:57 and read 23314 times.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 76):
t will actually cost less to develop than the 777-8X - less will change relative to the 777-9.

Which is pretty much the approach Airbus adopted with the A350-800.
It does mean it will be sub-optimised in many applications though, like the A350-800.

If it's efficient enough, though, that shouldn't matter too much

It makes sense for B to do the -8LX and the -9X, I checked what would be the diff in making a 8X or 8XL (higher OEW), in my model the fuel burn difference on a 7500nm ESAD leg is only 0.1t between a -8X (ie a 315t bird) and a 340t -8LX. The latter can use a lot more components from the main entry, the -9X without any changes, it would take the wing, engines, MLG etc unchanged and mate to a prolonged -200LR fuselage (64m to 69m). The 9400nm range but moreover it's outstanding full cabin full cargo hold range would set it apart from the 35J. Me thinks a lot of the deliberations over the last months has been to make the -8X a viable model with it's own niche vs 35J and 7810   .

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: iMissPiedmont
Posted 2013-05-04 11:22:20 and read 22785 times.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
enjoy lots of non-stops flights around the globe

I don't think the word enjoy belongs in any discussion of air travel ion today's climate. Perhaps endure, tolerate or suffer are better.

And that is my opinion of flights of 2 hours or more. Of course for first class travel with fares of $20,000 dollars these flights would be survivable but what does that say about the market for this type of aircraft? Just that there is no market.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: wingscrubber
Posted 2013-05-04 11:27:08 and read 22746 times.

Passengers don't want more range at Mach 0.8, the experience is already miserable enough, worth sedating yourself for. Refueling stops are welcome respite for any flights over 9 hours - What's needed is more speed! But that'll never happen.
Such a depressing era to be an aerospace engineer.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-05-04 11:52:27 and read 22102 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 73):
Somewhat on topic: if a 777 uses so much fuel to land and take off and land again, why are there such short tags on 777's? One is the United 777 tag from GRU to GIG, a 39 minute flight with about 39 people abord. At the same time in the morning I believe UA has 3 767's at GRU, but use the 3 class IAD metal to collect all the on-going pax to Rio. There are many other similar tags.Wouldn't the 767 cost less fuel for such a short tag with so few pax? Will the 8X or 9X be more fuel efficient on take-off?

Yes the 767 would be cheaper.
A look at the arrival and departure times of all a/c would provide a better answer, perhaps the crews for the 767 are getting required rest for their return flight while the 777 crews are still in hours??? a UA operational issue with their crew.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-04 11:58:40 and read 21972 times.

Quoting wingscrubber (Reply 79):
Such a depressing era to be an aerospace engineer.

Worked on the Concorde eh?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: morrisond
Posted 2013-05-04 12:16:56 and read 21512 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 77):

Ferpe - how much more cargo can the 8LX lift than the A351 at max weight - same range?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-05-04 12:42:13 and read 20901 times.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 8):
I could not agree with you more. While this is just an opinion on my part, I do several transpac and transatl flights every year in a premium cabin, and cannot stand it. My duration is about 10 hours. Beyond this, I have had enough. When these flights push 12 hours, it is just too long, let alone the 15-18 hour sectors. The ULH market has only had marginal success and what we need, is something supersonic. I would much rather sit in a basic 2 x 2 Business Class seat and get to my international destination in 3-4 hour, than be wined and dined in Business Class or in a First Class suite for 12 - 18 hours.

I was fortunate enough to have flown Concorde JFK-LHR. Unless you have done this, one cannot describe the feeling of getting off a plane so far from home, in just a few hours time. It is quite frustrating that there is nothing on the drawing board, to address the real need.

If they offer such a service I am sure they could develop a 140 to 180 pax supersonic airplane and there would be demand for it, instead of spending 7500 dollars one way to be 14 hours there and have a lux bathroom and a large screen, Id pay that for a 6 hour flight in a 34 pitch with nice width and a small IFE.

Quoting mariner (Reply 13):
I'm exactly the reverse. After about eight hours, I;m screaming to be let off. I'd rather have a stopover for a couple of days, somewhere interesting.

Why pay all that money just to get there?

I am the same I always try to break my flights if I can to 6 to 8 hours tops. No ammount of space and ice can take my boredom away..

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 18):
I can't realistically see how airlines would be demanding that Boeing builds this.

Airlines haven't flocked to other products they have made to satisfy demand in the part, including the 77L and even more recently the 748. Initial interest is one thing, but handing over the cash is another.

When you spend tones of fuel to carry fuel for range it make it silly, factor in the possible increases in iol prices and you are looking at disaster.

Quoting DIJKKIJK (Reply 22):
There is no market for Ultra Long Range aircraft and Boeing must know this. The 77L and the A345 have not been very successful. I wonder why Boeing wants to get into this segment again.

Pissing contest... they need the PR after the 787 fiasco, heck the 345 sold like 2 dozens and nobody wants it second hand...

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

How many people step off a long haul flight after breathing in 350 other people's farts for 15 hours, look happy and refreshed?

ZERO, Id pay twice to get there faster. transpac and transatlantic flghts are the reason for SS travel.

Quoting faro (Reply 33):
Factor in any jump in fuel prices over the next 6-7 years and the cost of burning fuel to carry fuel may become quasi-prohibitive for any normal (ie, non J-only) pax mix.

100% agree.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

YES resounding YEs, and also the technology to make it cheaper to operate and economics of consumption are already there....its just that nobody has the cojones that Juan Trippe has these days..

TRB

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-04 14:00:25 and read 19342 times.

Quoting morrisond (Reply 82):
Ferpe - how much more cargo can the 8LX lift than the A351 at max weight - same range?

It is better I show a payload-range chart for the A350-1000, 777-8LX and 777-9X. The numbers after the models are the kg/knm/m2 cabin area but it is for the leg where they fly their nominal payload, ie full pax+bags. When I make them all fly the same leg they are virtually consuming the same fuel per m2 transported. This is when we assume the 35J has 153t OEW ie about 3t overweight from original spec and the -8LX comes in at 160t and the -9X at 175t. That might seem high but includes those extra seats and their galleys (200LR goes from 301 to 353 pax and 77W from 365 to 406), extra aircond, oxygen, safety equipment etc (click on the chart to see better).

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/PR35J8LX9X_zps7e30794b.jpg

Now you can put in 35t for the 35J and -8LX pax and then look at how much cargo you will have weight for left given the range you want to fly. Space wise for LD3 they stack up like 35J 44, -8LX 36, -9X 46 . The -8LX seems small cargo wise but the -200LR has 32 LD3 positions and the -8LX is 7 frames longer dividing into 4 ahead of the wingbox and 3 behind I would assume, giving 1 more row of LD3 in each bay (frame spacing 0.645m).

Edit: just to be clear I no longer assume the -9X comes in at 344t, the stronger engines and EKs influence points to more like 348t which I have here.

[Edited 2013-05-04 14:04:37]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-05-04 14:12:33 and read 19003 times.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

The problem is physics; as you approach the sound barrier nasty things happen aerodynamically; only one of which is the sonic boom. The long and short of it is that modern airliners are flying as fast as is economically feasible with current technology. Remember that the Sonic Cruiser was going to be only a few percent faster than current jets and burn the same fuel; the 787 ended up flying the same speed and burning 20% less fuel.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 38):
You will burn more fuel by travelling faster. Are you willing to pay twice for a ticket if an airline can cut travel time in half? Most people not.

Try paying twice the price to get there 20% faster. I had dramatic proof of this in my 182: I could burn 6-7 gallons an hour and cruise at about 110 knots, or I could burn 12-13 gallons an hour and cruise at 130-135 knots. That is nearly doubling fuel consumption to gain less than 20% more speed.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: DTW2HYD
Posted 2013-05-04 14:19:57 and read 18831 times.

Must be a slow news day at Boeing PR department, after working real hard on full page apology ad. If they sold only 59 x 200LRs, what is the market for this? Hard to believe there are many ultra-long-haul city pairs in the world with 400 x daily.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2013-05-04 14:59:52 and read 18054 times.

As I understand it, Airbus has not launched the A-359R (or the proposed A-359F) yet. The ULH market is currently filled with a modern airplane, the B-772LR, launched within the past 10 years. I believe Boeing has sold about 55 B-77Ls to date, and Airbus sold about 34 A-345s and A-345IGWs The A-345 was also launched just 11 years ago.

The B-77L has about 500 nm (9500nm) more range than the A-345IGW (9000nm). That is more than 18 hours for the A-345IGW and more than 20 hours for the B-77L.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-04 15:58:58 and read 16982 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):
Aircraft today are faster than they were 50 years ago.

That's basically incorrect, with rare exceptions like the 747 and A380 which are roughly as fast as the 707s, 727s and DC-8s of 50 years ago. Most other current types are slower, and when combined with airport and ATC congestion, plus airport security checks and related hassles, virtually all nonstop block times are slower today than 50 years ago.

For example, in April 1962 AA's scheduled block time for their 5 daily 707s JFK (then IDL)-LAX was 5 hrs. 20 min. Today it varies from about 6 hrs to 6 hrs. 30 min.for all carriers operating JFK-LAX. Most of the difference isn't due to the aircraft's slower cruising speed but some of it is.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: planesmart
Posted 2013-05-04 16:22:09 and read 16537 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):

I travel business class for work, and economy with the whole family (business as a couple), and 14 hours for me is the limit too on the A380, and ideally a couple of hours less on other aircrafdt types.

For work, we increasingly meet at a logical midpoint. Means meetings are off employee & supplier radar too. If urgent, we conference call or in exceptional cases, charter. For pleasure, stopovers break the journey.

A long range direct flight would be a benefit to attend say a funeral, between a busy work schedule. Thats an example though where family should take priority over work.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2013-05-04 17:07:23 and read 15863 times.

To fly a 9000 mile or more flight requires tankering a lot of fuel which carries extra weight and is expensive to buy and tanker. There are also other costs, such as a heavier and more rugged aircraft along with increased crew members and rest areas for them along with with increased food that must be carried and and larger lav storage capacities. The aircraft would need to fly full to even consider this. Aircraft like this would be more expensive to fly on shorter routes due to the weight penalty due to it's higher empty weight than a shorter range aircraft. It would be simpler and more cost effective to make a technical stop for fuel and service the aircraft than to fly an aircraft on such long flights. The only real added charge would be for the landing fee required to make the fuel stop.   

[Edited 2013-05-04 17:12:06]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 17:23:03 and read 15552 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 84):
It is better I show a payload-range chart for the A350-1000, 777-8LX and 777-9X.

Thank you as always for putting these charts together ferpe. So the 351 should have a lower trip costs on all routes and up to 5400nm it should be able to lift approximately the same payload as the 8LX. After that, depending on weights, the 8LX will be able to carry more cargo than the 351. The question for airlines come down to at what payload and range does that trade off happen.

It looks like it would be a good aircraft for airlines with customers who are comfortable with a 17.4" seat and have hubs in Asia or Middle East and want to fly to the Americas with varying level of cargo needs. It is difficult to find a European route where the 8LX is better than the 351. Limited sales to airlines with strong US East Coast presences. Not going to be in every airline's stable but it does serve a purpose.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-05-04 17:27:12 and read 15489 times.

Quoting PanAm788 (Reply 74):
The issue lies with the fact that technology doesn't exist where an SST can be economically operated by airlines.

Right - and is likely to stay that way for at least the next 50 years.

Quoting cv990coronado (Reply 69):
If you look at old timetables of the era of 1963 + - you will see that non stop flights operated by jets had shorter scheduled timing than they currently do. I think this was partly due to airlines needing now to allow more taxi time for obvious reasons. Aircraft generally cruised at higher mach numbers and these were reduced to save fuel after the oil crisis of the early and late 70's.

Exactly my original point. I didn't think I had to spell it all out like you did, but the fact that someone challenged my statement indicates that I probably should have. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-04 17:37:23 and read 15367 times.

Quoting DTW2HYD (Reply 86):
If they sold only 59 x 200LRs, what is the market for this?

I would not be surprised if Boeing was pitching this to A340-600 and 9-abreast 777-300ER operators.

Most customers did not buy the 777-200LR to fly only passengers and bags 9000nm. They bought them to fly passengers and bags and a full belly of revenue cargo 7000nm.

I expect most customers who buy the 777-8XL will do the same (but with more people, bags and cargo).

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: desh
Posted 2013-05-04 17:57:19 and read 15038 times.

Quoting mariner (Reply 13):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
I'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y+ format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Give me non-stop every time.

I'm exactly the reverse. After about eight hours, I;m screaming to be let off. I'd rather have a stopover for a couple of days, somewhere interesting.

Why pay all that money just to get there?

Yep - I cannot expect ultra long hauls being a preference for most people I know - 8 - 10 hrs and I am ready to get out of a plane. The key here is the limitation of passengers - seat pitch will never increase commensurate with the increase in range of the plane.

Also, I have not seen much of a price difference when it comes to pricing of tickets.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 18:00:18 and read 14988 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 93):
9-abreast 777-300ER operators.

Good point. And there are a surprising number of 9 abreast 777-300ER operators. Also surprising to me was that many of these aircraft are in Asia. I have collected some data on 77W sales and started a new thread here.

777-300ER Deliveries And Orders Analysis (by tortugamon May 4 2013 in Civil Aviation)

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-04 18:12:45 and read 14794 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
So the 351 should have a lower trip costs on all routes and up to 5400nm it should be able to lift approximately the same payload as the 8LX.

You need to take into account the ( expected) higher efficiency of the -8LX engines . This will tighten the margin.
Looking at Ferpes table and plotting the -8LX at EK's 8500nm requirement , the ~45t payload looks pretty good . Say 365 passengers and ~ 10t of cargo. On a timetable day of just over 16hrs ( ~7700nm ) the 55t payload has to be very attractive although I suspect it may be volume limited to something less than that.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: YYZAMS
Posted 2013-05-04 21:10:10 and read 12450 times.

I wonder during my lifetime there will be a commercial aircraft that will make it around the world without stopping.

Maybe airline companies will just have air to air fueling like the military some time soon.

or aircraft will be able to leave earth's atmosphere cheaply and let the rotation of the earth "fly" you there for long haul flights

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-04 21:14:08 and read 12458 times.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 87):
The B-77L has about 500 nm (9500nm) more range than the A-345IGW (9000nm).

This is not the ranges in the standard configuration, both the 77L and 350 play with cargo hold tanks to get to those ranges ie then their 32 and 30 LD3 capacity is no longer there and their OEWs no longer are at their standard values. With standard configs they fly about 9000nm and 8600nm respectively.

Edit: the A340-500 has cargo hold tanks as standard, they need 15t more fuel (total 168t) than the A340-600 to get to 8600nm, the 30 LD3 is with these tanks in place. The 77L gets to 9000nm without tanks, it has 146t of fuel. Quite an amazing difference in efficiency  Yeah sure .

[Edited 2013-05-04 21:49:53]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-05-04 22:24:36 and read 12230 times.

How much difference would the 8X,8X-LR, 8X-F and the 9X really have, fuselage plugs mostly?

The freighter and the LR is the same frame as I understand, but the non LR should have a lower MTOW and less tanks? But still same engines and wings? I know engines can be de-rated with software.

So really how much expense would the 8X be if B does the freighter anyway? Maybe flying around with huge fans is a bit wasteful if the thrust needs are lower?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-04 22:37:44 and read 12192 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 99):
but the non LR should have a lower MTOW and less tanks?

I believe the non-LR is off the table at this point. After all, can you come up with a mission where it would be more valuable than a 787-10, 351 or 777-8LX? I cannot.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 96):
You need to take into account the ( expected) higher efficiency of the -8LX engines . This will tighten the margin.

I believe ferpe's fuel burn per knm/m2 located above the legend relates to a more mature higher efficiency for the GE9X engines. Historically he has made that adjustment in that fuel burn figure.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 03:13:03 and read 11641 times.

I would say the A350-900R would be the better replacement for the B777-200LR or the A340-500IGW.

The A350-900 has the same passenger count, takes more freight (36 LD3 compared to 32 LD3 in the 772LR) more range with full cargo, more range with passenger only.

The only advantage of the proposed B777-8XLR would be being a larger plane, being in my mind a disadvantage.

The view of Boeing was, smaller more economical long range frames for point to point traffic and ULR is point to point traffic.
According to that the B777-8XLR is a step in the wrong direction.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 04:25:48 and read 11419 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 96):
You need to take into account the ( expected) higher efficiency of the -8LX engines . This will tighten the margin.

I believe ferpe's chart are taking a 2019 Trent XWB and a 2019 GE90X into account.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 91):
So the 351 should have a lower trip costs on all routes and up to 5400nm it should be able to lift approximately the same payload as the 8LX. After that, depending on weights, the 8LX will be able to carry more cargo than the 351. The question for airlines come down to at what payload and range does that trade off happen.

Correct.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-05 04:32:24 and read 11378 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101):
I would say the A350-900R would be the better replacement for the B777-200LR or the A340-500IGW.

The A350-900 has the same passenger count, takes more freight (36 LD3 compared to 32 LD3 in the 772LR) more range with full cargo, more range with passenger only.

I don't think this discussion is about the 772LR. That is already available and not really a practical aircraft when you can have the 77W.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101):
The only advantage of the proposed B777-8XLR would be being a larger plane, being in my mind a disadvantage.

How so?

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101):
The view of Boeing was, smaller more economical long range frames for point to point traffic and ULR is point to point traffic.
According to that the B777-8XLR is a step in the wrong direction.

Boeing probably has several options and the B777 is one of the better selling airliners right now and if available as well.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: jambrain
Posted 2013-05-05 04:32:45 and read 11371 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
I believe the non-LR is off the table at this point. After all, can you come up with a mission where it would be more valuable than a 787-10, 351 or 777-8LX? I cannot.

It doesn't need to be more valuable provided its cheaper!

Can't for a moment however see how it will (after certification costs for the non lx. 8) be cheaper hence in my view it's doa.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-05-05 04:51:00 and read 11295 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 73):
Wouldn't the 767 cost less fuel for such a short tag with so few pax? Will the 8X or 9X be more fuel efficient on take-off?

My guess is that the cabin product is inferior. The poor dears who just got out of F in the 777 might have to endure J in the 767, and an inferior J to the one in the 777?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: RickNRoll
Posted 2013-05-05 05:04:12 and read 11250 times.

Super Long Range planes have traditionally not been big sellers. However, as others have pointed out, this will have a larger load capacity than previous attempts at this market, and it will be more efficient. Perhaps it could open up a new market of budget long range travel.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-05 05:48:49 and read 11127 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 100):
I believe ferpe's fuel burn per knm/m2 located above the legend relates to a more mature higher efficiency for the GE9X engines. Historically he has made that adjustment in that fuel burn figure.

This time I did not as they are to close in EIS, engine manufacturers normally don't produce PIPs withing 2-3 years of EIS unless they missed spec like for the 787. For the 350 RR seem to come in on spec and we will have to see where GE will land on the GE9X, but I have modelled all the 777X with the same engine, the new variant with a BPR 10.3 . What is not fully clear is what MTOWs that B settles on, they have quite some freedom. I have settled on 348 tonnes for the -9X and 330 tonnes for the -8LX, they both can carry the 77W amount of fuel ie 146 tonnes if they are not fully loaded. B might settle for less fuel, they have max fuel ranges of over 9500nm. If they make a large wingbox they might even leave the centre wingbox free of fuel, they would need something like 170 000l instead of todays 181 000l.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-05 06:00:20 and read 11087 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101):
The A350-900 has the same passenger count, takes more freight (36 LD3 compared to 32 LD3 in the 772LR) more range with full cargo, more range with passenger only.

The only advantage of the proposed B777-8XLR would be being a larger plane, being in my mind a disadvantage.

  

The 777-8LX is roughly the same size as the A350-900 and is likely to have the same number of LD3 positions.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-05 06:12:12 and read 11015 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 101):
According to that the B777-8XLR is a step in the wrong direction.


with respect, what does Boeing know that those who subscribe to this view do not? Airline feedback?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 06:20:08 and read 10985 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 103):
I don't think this discussion is about the 772LR. That is already available and not really a practical aircraft when you can have the 77W.

We are talking about a B777-200LR / A340-500IGW replacement and how well it will do.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 108):
The 777-8LX is roughly the same size as the A350-900 and is likely to have the same number of LD3 positions.

In a heavier frame, more fuel burn, worse economics. A need to find more pax to fill the plane.
About the same capability for belly freight.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 06:31:59 and read 10922 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 109):
with respect, what does Boeing know that those who subscribe to this view do not? Airline feedback?

The whole discussion about the B787 versus A380 before we were discussing the A350 and B777-XX.

A380 hub to hub versus B787 point to point. Then smaller more economical/flexible was better.

Today bigger should be better? For Emirates perhaps, but everybody else?

So I would think airlines replacing the B777-200LR / A350-500IGW would look at same size better economics.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-05-05 06:42:28 and read 10877 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 60):
Im dreaming here but man, B should make another 4 engine widebody, but with powerful enough engines that are fuel effecient enough to do the long range job

The issue is not the number of engines. If anything 2 engines burn less than 4 so a ULH airplane will never have 4 engines. The issue is fuel capacity and weight. Given enough fuel, you can fly today's twins between any 2 points in the globe already.

Quoting thorntot (Reply 63):
IAD or JFK to SYD, CGK, KUL, BKK, SIN, SGN...just a few suggestions of routes that should someday see non-stop service.

I doubt most of these city pairs even have enough demand for a 1-stop, let alone a non-stop  
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 66):
The fact that the 787-3 was a non-starter and the 747-8i isn't selling as well as Boeing would like does not mean anything for the likelihood of the success of the 777X. Every program is different.

Absolutely but that's not what I implied at all. I was comenting on someone else's statement that Boeing would never develop a plane that doesn't sell, which they have done in the recent past.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 70):
You need a whole plane load of "business guy"

And they do exist. SQ has proved that there is demand for ULH. Their flights always had a healthy LF. SA)">DL and SA fly 16hr routes every day between the US and JNB, also with healthy LF. Th eissue is not the lack of demand. The issue is passengers willing to pay the real cost of ULH flying. If that cost comes down, more people will fly those routes.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 06:45:50 and read 10889 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 111):
Then smaller more economical/flexible was better.

You do have a point, just look at BA replacing their 747 fleet with 787 and A350 aircraft.

On the other hand:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 111):
So I would think airlines replacing the B777-200LR / A350-500IGW would look at same size better economics.

There are operators out there who replaced the 77LR routes with a 77W. That gives me the impression that they want the seat capacity of the 77W and the payload capabilities of the 77LR. The -8LR gives you the best of both worlds in 1 package, and from a 77W point of view that airframe is not bigger.

Sure, it remains a niche aircraft, but likely it will sell a bit more than the current 77LR.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: DexSwart
Posted 2013-05-05 07:13:12 and read 10752 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 112):
SA)">DL and SA fly 16hr routes every day between the US and JNB, also with healthy LF. Th eissue is not the lack of demand. The issue is passengers willing to pay the real cost of ULH flying. If that cost comes down, more people will fly those routes.

I agree. And most people don't mind as long as the product is acceptable. I know many people who frequent these ULH flights to both the US and Asia (if you can count HKG...), even Australia. QF's flights can hit up to 16 hours on SYD - JNB occasionally. People don't mind because the product is comfortable and the flight attendants don't mind them moving about the cabin while the lights are on.

We need to remember, a lot of people just want to get there, and have as much time at their destination as possible. If that means a little discomfort for a similar or lower fare, then why not?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 07:46:18 and read 10623 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
There are operators out there who replaced the 77LR routes with a 77W.

Than it is a route were the long range capabilities of the 772LR were not needed anyway.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
That gives me the impression that they want the seat capacity of the 77W and the payload capabilities of the 77LR.

Why?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
The -8LR gives you the best of both worlds in 1 package, and from a 77W point of view that airframe is not bigger.

But the 77W is not used on ULH. Going for a -8LR when you do not need it, means buying to much plane for the job.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):

Sure, it remains a niche aircraft, but likely it will sell a bit more than the current 77LR.

Not if there is a better, more economical alternative.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-05-05 08:07:01 and read 10531 times.

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 97):
I wonder during my lifetime there will be a commercial aircraft that will make it around the world without stopping.

..and land back where it started......?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 08:33:27 and read 10458 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
Than it is a route were the long range capabilities of the 772LR were not needed anyway.
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
Why?

Not necessarily, it's because pax are paying the fuel bills. Let's take an example:

- 77W with 365 seats and 10t of cargo

Or

- 77LR with 300 seats and 30t of cargo

Likely you will choose the 77W because those extra 60 seats are generating more revenue. However, with an -8LX, you can fly about the same amount of pax of the 77W and the same weight of cargo of the 77LR.

That's what I mean with "best of both worlds" and from this point of view, the -8LX is not that much bigger.

Of course, this is just my   

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
But the 77W is not used on ULH. Going for a -8LR when you do not need it, means buying to much plane for the job.

Yeah but I'm talking about payload, not range.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
Not if there is a better, more economical alternative.

Correct, but there won't be another ULH airframe with the capabilities of the -8LX.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-05 08:51:22 and read 10413 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110):
We are talking about a B777-200LR / A340-500IGW replacement and how well it will do.

Some people are talking about a 777-200LR / A340-500 replacement, but I do not believe that is the market Boeing is targeting with the 777-8XL (nor Airbus with the A350-900R, for that matter).



Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
But the 77W is not used on ULH. Going for a -8LR when you do not need it, means buying to much plane for the job.

Airlines don't use the 777-300ER on ULH because it's payload at that range is too low. The 777-8XL should raise the payload at that range a fair bit.

Instead of thinking of the 777-8XL as a replacement for the 777-200LR, I believe we should be thinking of it as a 777-300LR (and the 777-9X as the 777-400ER).

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 08:53:17 and read 10383 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Instead of thinking of the 777-8XL as a replacement for the 777-200LR, I believe we should be thinking of it as a 777-300LR (and the 777-9X as the 777-400ER).

  

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 09:03:44 and read 10320 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 117):
Not necessarily, it's because pax are paying the fuel bills. Let's take an example:

- 77W with 365 seats and 10t of cargo

Or

- 77LR with 300 seats and 30t of cargo

Likely you will choose the 77W because those extra 60 seats are generating more revenue. However, with an -8LX, you can fly about the same amount of pax of the 77W and the same weight of cargo of the 77LR.

That's what I mean with "best of both worlds" and from this point of view, the -8LX is not that much bigger.

Of course, this is just my

On such a route a B777-9X would make more sense, go for passengers.

If the cargo is the main money, go for a A350-900R and lower the trip cost, I still think the B777-8XLR is between two better solutions.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 116):
Yeah but I'm talking about payload, not range.

The A350-900R is a match for payload/range at lower trip cost.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 117):
Correct, but there won't be another ULH airframe with the capabilities of the -8LX.

When you own a B777-200LR, the question is, do you go for more capability, or lower trip cost with the next plane.

ULH is normally not very high on available pax numbers.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-05 09:09:19 and read 10299 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 108):
The 777-8LX is roughly the same size as the A350-900 and is likely to have the same number of LD3 positions.

Hmm the 8LX is actually just shy of 70m and longer by roughly 3m.

@ a 32" Seat pitch, that would translate to 3 rows of economy seats (3.3 to be exact)

i.e. 27 more pax @ 9 abreast

30 more pax @ 10 abreast

With regards to the cargo they should indeed have similar capacities but the 350-900 will most likely get to mzfw much quicker.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-05 09:19:07 and read 10257 times.

Quoting RickNRoll (Reply 106):
Perhaps it could open up a new market of budget long range travel.

That sounds like a contradiction. I would suspect that 'budget' based consumers would chose the much cheaper layover option. Although this aircraft can bring down the ULH economics it will never be cheaper than connecting. EK sure believes so.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 107):
This time I did not as they are to close in EIS

Makes sense. I did notice the fuel burn rates were different than prior posts and now that makes sense. Good catch Karel and thanks for confirming ferpe.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 107):
If they make a large wingbox they might even leave the centre wingbox free of fuel

When it comes to carrying fuel, is there an ideal location for storage? I would think that added weight as close to the COG would be most efficient. It is interesting that Boeing appears to allow their aircraft to be fuel weight limited instead of volume. Obviously that eliminates changes to the fuel system if they want to adjust MTOW which makes sense. I would think there would be a small trade off for that flexibility.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 107):
I have settled on 348 tonnes for the -9X and 330 tonnes for the -8LX

If we use the 77L OEW/MTOW ratio you have calculated in the past (.418) and if the 9X nears .490 (similar to A350) that means a difference in OEW of 32t? I suspect the .418 figure might be too low as the 8LX will be more efficient than the 77L and they were only able to reduce OEW by 23t between the 77W and 77L.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 10:12:15 and read 10112 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 122):
When it comes to carrying fuel, is there an ideal location for storage? I would think that added weight as close to the COG would be most efficient. It is interesting that Boeing appears to allow their aircraft to be fuel weight limited instead of volume. Obviously that eliminates changes to the fuel system if they want to adjust MTOW which makes sense. I would think there would be a small trade off for that flexibility.

Not only Boeing is doing this. The A330 is typical fuel weight limited not volume.

For the A330-300 they just opened up on using the center tank for the increased MTOW version and the A330-200 can hardly ever take on the fuel weight to fill the available volume.

The fuel volume in A 330-200 is so big that even the A330 MRTT does not use additional tanks.
The A380 has yet to use the possibility of a center tank.
I expect also the A350 to be fuel weight limited rather than volume limited.

It is the same philosophy, you do not encroach on the cargo volume.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-05 10:48:08 and read 9978 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 118):
Instead of thinking of the 777-8XL as a replacement for the 777-200LR, I believe we should be thinking of it as a 777-300LR (and the 777-9X as the 777-400ER).

I say we change the names from here on out. Much more intuitive.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
The A350-900R is a match for payload/range at lower trip cost.

Are you confident that if the 777-8LX is launched and takes in decent orders that the -900R even gets built? I realize it is a low cost derivative and A will need the basis for the 900F down the road. The 77L did not sell in large quantities at its size so it is hard to see that the 900R's size as a selling point. If smaller is indeed better maybe it would make sense to use the A350-800 as the base for the R and F models? As designed the A350-800 is already a long range frame without the commensurate MTOW. That would probably put a hurt on B's plans to eventually convert the 787-8 into a freighter and if you are right about lower risk than an A350-800F could take sales away some sales from the 777-8F and the 787-8F in one model. The industry probably will not need all of these LR and F aircraft so first one to market may be very important. There is nothing like talking about what may happen in 10 years.  
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 123):
Not only Boeing is doing this.

You are right, I should have said the OEMs instead of saying Boeing.

tortugamon

[Edited 2013-05-05 11:33:00]

[Edited 2013-05-05 11:33:36]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 10:53:39 and read 9970 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 124):
Are you confident that if the 777-8LX is launched and takes in decent orders that the -900R even gets built?

Be careful here. Based on the current information, the -8LX will EIS in 2021. Theoretically, Airbus could start developing the -900R after the -1000 EIS in 2017. That gives Airbus 5 years to build and certify the -900R which is plenty of time.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-05 11:27:18 and read 9856 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
But the 77W is not used on ULH. Going for a -8LR when you do not need it, means buying to much plane for the job.

But many airlines have run pretty effective operations despite misusing their fleet . I don't believe there is a hard and fast rule on this one.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-05 11:35:28 and read 9898 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 122):
If we use the 77L OEW/MTOW ratio you have calculated in the past (.418) and if the 9X nears .490 (similar to A350) that means a difference in OEW of 32t? I suspect the .418 figure might be too low as the 8LX will be more efficient than the 77L and they were only able to reduce OEW by 23t between the 77W and 77L.

Those values are to low for modern frames, actually the new CFRP frames with modern engines land at around 52%, e.g. 787 is at 118/228 = 51.8% and A350-900 seem to come in at 140/268 = 52.2%. The reason for these high ratios is the economical engines and good aerodynamics, you end up with the whole frame being lower on MTOW and still hauling many tonnes beyond 8000nm. At my assumed 157/330 we are at 48% which is a very good value for a modern frame. Flying tankers like the -200LR has the lowest ratio at around 47%.

In general fuel in the wings is better then in the center, you want the fuel as close to where the lift is generated as possible, then they counteract each other and you can make the frame lighter. That is why you only use the center wingbox as a tank if you have to = 77W and 77L which consumes more fuel while flying very long legs.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 11:47:21 and read 9834 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 127):
In general fuel in the wings is better then in the center, you want the fuel as close to where the lift is generated as possible, then they counteract each other and you can make the frame lighter. That is why you only use the center wingbox as a tank if you have to = 77W and 77L which consumes more fuel while flying very long legs.

In most modern aeroplanes the center tank is there, but not used. So I think the influence on the weight of the frame is less than you assume.
The newer bigger wings, in combination with more fuel efficient engines will make auxiliary tanks in the cargo areas unnecessary, hardly any frame will need more than wing-tanks and for the long range they will open up the center tank, a space being anyway there and not usable for cargo.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-05 12:12:00 and read 9731 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 125):
Airbus could start developing the -900R after the -1000 EIS in 2017.

Sure they could, but will they? I would think that executing the following will keep A very busy: 350-900 & 1000, A320NEO, A330 HGW, A350-800, and maybe even an A380-900 launch would be higher priority than an A350-900R. With 600 orders for existing A350 variants I am not sure A wants to add more risk to a program that has not flown yet by adding a fourth variant before 2021.

Regardless, my assumption that I indicated was that if B launched the -8LX and launched with 'decent orders'. If both of these circumstances happen the need for a second LR variant above 300 seats certainly declines reducing the ROI. As most agree this is not a large market.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 127):
In general fuel in the wings is better then in the center,

Got it. Thanks.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
hardly any frame will need more than wing-tanks

Even though wings are getting longer they are definitely becoming thinner as well which makes me wonder if wing fuel volume is really increasing all that much.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 12:22:31 and read 9678 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
Sure they could, but will they?

I don't know, it's only theoretical. It depends if they can get enough orders for it.

But the point is, if the -900R really has lower operating costs than the -8LX (see mjoelnir's post) and the demand is there, they could EIS it before the -8LX in 2021.

This is all theoretical of course.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
will keep A very busy: 350-900 & 1000, A320NEO, A330 HGW, A350-800

All those will EIS before 2017. After the -1000 they should have plenty resources available. They could start developing a -900R, or (more likely) a -900F.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
With 600 orders for existing A350 variants I am not sure A wants to add more risk to a program that has not flown yet by adding a fourth variant before 2021.

I'm not seeing much risk once the -1000 enters the market in 2017. The production rate will be at almost 10 frames per month by then.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: motorhussy
Posted 2013-05-05 12:23:33 and read 9686 times.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter):
Despite what the no.1 aircraft maker went through recently with the batter issues on 787 Dreamliner.

Thought that slot belonged to Airbus now.

Back to topic, ULH routes are only tolerable if you're in one of the premium cabins. A cramped coach seat for 11+ hours is Hell above Earth and costly for the airline in terms of crewing and carrying more fuel in order to carry the fuel.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-05 12:26:30 and read 9656 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 129):
Even though wings are getting longer they are definitely becoming thinner as well which makes me wonder if wing fuel volume is really increasing all that much.

They are getting thicker, but more narrow and longer. Bigger compared to the fuselage.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2013-05-05 12:56:52 and read 9548 times.

Quoting questions (Reply 7):
I fly LAX-SYD-LAX in F several times a year for the past few years. I'm so ready to get off that plane after 14 hours!

Exactly. Even in F/J, a gilded cage is still a cage.

That said, I think that increasing availability of internet/phone connectivity might actually ease this a bit, since one of the most maddening parts about flying in 2013 is this part:

"I'm inside one of the most advanced technological artifacts ever created by my species and I can't even check my E-mail."

It doesn't help that standard etiquette on airliners is to interact minimally with your fellow passengers unless you know them from before the flight.

It will be a bit better for long-distance business passengers if they can do business with those on the ground, too.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 25):
ULH dying and not making economic sense is purely a personal opinion. The Willy Walsh's and TC's of the world clearly think differently.

Then why aren't they doing it? The A345 and 77L are both available. You can't get an A345 new, but there are some airlines who would love to get rid of theirs. Why? Because ULH didn't pan out well for them.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-05 13:06:48 and read 9511 times.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 133):
Then why aren't they doing it? The A345 and 77L are both available. You can't get an A345 new, but there are some airlines who would love to get rid of theirs. Why? Because ULH didn't pan out well for them.

  

The market speaks for itself. Your post is a clear example of that. I totally agree with you. ULR-flights are not attractive. For airlines the new airplanes bring more payload over longer ranges. Very few (to non) will go on planning new ULR-flights in my opinion.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-05 14:06:53 and read 9305 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 130):
All those will EIS before 2017. After the -1000 they should have plenty resources available. They could start developing a -900R, or (more likely) a -900F.

I don't think Airbus even believe that the -800 and the -1000 will both enter service before 2017. Three new models and a NEO introduced in a three year span will be very impressive.

The last three wide body freighters (A330, B777, B767) entered service 18, 15, and 14 years after the first passenger version entered the market, respectively.

Anything is possible! Looking forward to seeing the A350 fly.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-05 14:27:59 and read 9212 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 135):
I don't think Airbus even believe that the -800 and the -1000 will both enter service before 2017. Three new models and a NEO introduced in a three year span will be very impressive.

Airbus has a separate department for the NEO, no worries here. The -800 and -1000 EIS in 2016 and 2017 is possible but depend if any issues will show up during the test flights.

[Edited 2013-05-05 14:29:23]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-05-05 15:57:40 and read 8932 times.

How popular is Singapore Airlines flight from JFK to SIN ? I mean it only has C class if I remember well and its ULH, I guess nobody wants to endure 16+ hours in a thin tube, risking DVT.

ULH is dead for now if economy changes to make it more attractive or using a faster Aircraft then it will be more popular, as it is now, I doubt it.

TRB

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-05 17:34:47 and read 8709 times.

I believe this is a side effect

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 11):
'm one of those that would rather just stay on the plane instead of making a stop. It would have to be in at least a Y format but I find a stop just makes my total flight time longer and gives me less chance for a good, long sleep.

Me too. But I'm too cheap to be one to spur the ULH market.  
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 17):
19,100 km (10,300 nmi) range planed for the A950-900R

Which will have a great payload at range.

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 19):
With what load though?

THey'll fly within range.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 24):
Forget about range. It's all about PAYLOAD.

If I may refine, it is payload at range. I do not see many flights at full range, but for quite a few EK flights, they'll want to fill the cargo hold.

Quoting a380heavy (Reply 27):
Am I the only person who wishes that the aircraft manufacturers would develop airliners that get from A to B quicker rather than fly further for longer.

Now find enough people who will pay for that over flying a business jet at the times they choose from the exact airport they choose. The sonic cruise *was not* going to meet Boeing's promised fuel burn. There is no engine to deliver that efficiency at speed and it will always do better to put those engines on a frome below Mach 0.9.

But there will be supersonic business jets. When? That is the question. Pratt is storing a huge number of old JT8Ds as they'll work for a Mach 1.3 business jet. They should just do TATL range with a well optimized wing. Why not a new engine? Who has the billion (or three) that is required to develop a new design for supersonic. But the old workhorse is ready. It just won't be a very big jet. (6 or 8 seats for comfort).

For any commercial jet, it will be too easy for business jets to cut the time. That is the reality of today's economics. Too many premium passengers have defected to business jets. Break down ULH into a series of TATL length hauls (as long as they're over ocean, due to noise concerns), and that ruins the business case of a faster commercial jet.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 127):
Those values are to low for modern frames, actually the new CFRP frames with modern engines land at around 52%, e.g. 787 is at 118/228 = 51.8%

And the trend will be further improvements.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 128):
hardly any frame will need more than wing-tanks

For entry into service. But there will always be stretches and MTOW increases. While that would not be the optimal design from zero, the reality is the billions it costs to develop new airframes. This is why we're seeing the 787-10 and A350-1000.

The reality is that those two airframes are stretched beyond optimal. But the extreme costs of developing a new airframe and the airlines searching for vendor competition ensures there will be added stretches.

Which begs the question, when will we see the A389.. but that is for other threads.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 132):
hey are getting thicker, but more narrow and longer. Bigger compared to the fuselage.

   Wings tend to alternate between thick and thin. But the next generation will be even thicker. CFRP will free us from some of the design limits of aluminum. This has spurred research into further extremes in laminar flow wings. Those wings will burn 7% fuel than the 787 (for the same aspect ratio).

Just imagine what the 2nd generation CFRP widebody wings will be like... (we're still on 1st generation). We'll see further improvement.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-05-05 18:21:20 and read 8528 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 138):
Just imagine what the 2nd generation CFRP widebody wings will be like... (we're still on 1st generation). We'll see further improvement.

I think the real beauty of CFRP is the relative ease of making compound curves compared to aluminum...which is ideal for wings.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: N62NA
Posted 2013-05-05 18:26:18 and read 8508 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 137):
How popular is Singapore Airlines flight from JFK to SIN ?

Oddly... that flight runs EWR-SIN, not JFK.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-05-05 20:10:25 and read 8249 times.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 137):
How popular is Singapore Airlines flight from JFK to SIN ?

Mustn't be very popular, they're dropping it:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singa...p-flights-between-sin-ewr-lax.html

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-05-05 20:33:20 and read 8153 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 140):
Oddly... that flight runs EWR-SIN, not JFK.

Ops sorry, You are correct !!!

What if someone uses existing military technology to make a Supersonic aircraft, one that goes mach 1.5 without afterburners and flies at 55 000 feet, they only need to have a range to cross the atlantic, since they could use Hawaii for refueling in trans pac flights.

I am thinking of a 60 to 100 pax maximum and seeing the Concorde used around 80 tones for fuel on a long range and lets say the new 787 uses like 50 (my guess) its not farfetched to think there could be a market for a SS.

They would need it to be as fast as newer metals alloys allow, using the latest tech to make it as simple as possible and have feasible economics, long haul with current technology sucks.

TRB

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-05 21:10:13 and read 8063 times.

So will the next generation of ULH be economic enough to start growth on the paths again? IMHO, a 788R would have better change than a longer range 777. Its going to be a small number of seats that aren't sniped by business jets.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 139):
think the real beauty of CFRP is the relative ease of making compound curves compared to aluminum...which is ideal for wings.

As well as some changes toward 'organic structures.' What I was alluding to is the fact that CFRP stiffness allows for greater spans between structures. This opens up not only further weight loss opportunities, but lighter longer span aircraft.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-05 21:10:56 and read 8069 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 141):
(EWR/LAX-SIN must not) be very popular, they're dropping it:

I believe it's still a route with adequate demand, it's just that the only option available to SQ would be new 777-200LRs and while I am sure Boeing would offer them a favorable price, they would still be looking at over half a billion USD for five frames.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KD5MDK
Posted 2013-05-05 21:41:36 and read 7953 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 138):
Pratt is storing a huge number of old JT8Ds as they'll work for a Mach 1.3 business jet.

That's unexpected. Now you made me go and look it up.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-05-05 22:50:32 and read 7795 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 144):

I don't get why they can't just keep flying the A345s on the route if it's profitable?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: neutrino
Posted 2013-05-06 05:34:41 and read 7263 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 146):

I don't get why they can't just keep flying the A345s on the route if it's profitable?

How about if the nett profit of operating the route is less than what they get from selling the birds back to Airbus?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-06 05:49:05 and read 7203 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 146):
I don't get why they can't just keep flying the A345s on the route if it's profitable?

I suspect that whilst profitable, the profit margins will be pretty slim on that route when you take fuel and all block/flight hour costs into consideration. Plus, maintaining a sub fleet of 5 A340's isn't particularly efficient and take into account that the operating cost per seat for the 340-500 is much higher than a 340-600 (which is in turn higher than 777-300er), it's an expensive aircraft overall to run whilst getting slim profit margins.

In addition, with the A340-500 not really a market favourite and Airbus has offered to buy them as part of a deal, it is prob a good chance to offload these birds and a result that route has to be axed.

If the A350-900R or 777-8LX is part of their future fleet strategy, there is a good chance that route might be re-opened.

[Edited 2013-05-06 05:50:29]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-06 05:59:13 and read 7163 times.

Quoting KD5MDK (Reply 145):
That's unexpected. Now you made me go and look it up.

A.net is fun for finding out things one missed... There is no definitive project as of now. But warehousing the old engines is fairly cheap for Pratt. Many are used for ground power on leases, so it isn't as if they the engines sit idle anyway.

Quoting neutrino (Reply 147):
Quoting thegeek (Reply 146):

I don't get why they can't just keep flying the A345s on the route if it's profitable?

How about if the nett profit of operating the route is less than what they get from selling the birds back to Airbus?

Or perhaps cutting the route cuts risk? There is an expense to risk that non-businesses ignore that well run businesses cannot.

And is the route profitable after the aircraft's heavy maintenance?

Quoting waly777 (Reply 148):
If the A350-900R or 777-8LX is part of their future fleet strategy, there is a good chance that route might be re-opened.

Perhaps. But will SQ risk having another subfleet?

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-06 06:42:01 and read 6956 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 149):
Perhaps. But will SQ risk having another subfleet?

I doubt it will be a sub fleet particularly with the 350-900R as they already have 40 A350's on order. With regards to the 777-8LX, if they do go for that option in the future it will @ least have commonality with the 9X.

Currently, the only A340's they have in their fleet are those 5.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2013-05-06 06:46:59 and read 6927 times.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 150):
Currently, the only A340's they have in their fleet are those 5.

But they have 35 x A330 active or on order

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-06 07:05:21 and read 6902 times.

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 151):
But they have 35 x A330 active or on order

Indeed, the only thing common between those aircraft will be crew. Then again, the crew schedules for those long flights on the A340 will certainly complicate things a bit if the flight and cabin crews were mixed with the A330 fleet. Not being privy to such information, I don't know if a separate set of crew is used for the non-stop american flights or if the crews are mixed.

Maintenance and operations wise, those aircraft are completely different. The 330 had a lot in common with the 340-200/300, the 500/600 are very different aircraft.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-06 07:06:05 and read 6904 times.

Very interesting thread

My point of view

So 777-9X @40t PL is circa 8500 Nm a little more than A350-1000 ?
Indeed Airbus's move from 298T A350-1000 to 308 t seems to have defined a new standard of range. A350-900 looks like a bit short legged right now !

Studuying LOPA's shows quite a few interesting things :
- A350-1000 is 73.88 m long and 52.70 m between axis of doors
- 777-300ER is 73.86 m long and 52.93 m between axis of doors
- 777-200LR is a 4 door bird "only"


The 777-300ER at least for the windows row the cabin length of the 777-300ER is less than A350-1000 cabin (circa 70 cm less) and centre row must have a cross aisle for the fifth door. You loose, say, 1 eco row vs A350-1000
For all 777 the last 4 (if toilet in front of door 5) or 5 row can't be 10 abreast, A350 can go 9 Abreast all the to the back if Door4 toilets fitted...
Being a clean sheet design the A350 and the 787 use space more efficiently than 777 current version, and I guess than 777X.

Big question for me : will the 777-8 be a 4 or 5 door bird ? will boeing propose the 5 door on 777-9X as an option ?

Looks like 777X is already creeping, now > 100 000 lbs engines, now more than 344 t...

Have a nice day

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: CXB77L
Posted 2013-05-06 07:43:52 and read 6781 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110):
In a heavier frame, more fuel burn

If you mean more fuel burn per trip, that point is conceded.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 110):
worse economics

That remains to be seen. "Economics" isn't just about fuel burn; a lot of other factors come into play.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
Than it is a route were the long range capabilities of the 772LR were not needed anyway.

Not necessarily. They could be upgauging to a 777-300ER because its larger passenger capacity was needed, rather than the 777-200LR's outright range or payload-range performance. With the 777-8LX, airlines can have the best of both worlds, with the increased payload-range performance of the 777-200LR and (almost) the seating capacity of the 777-300ER.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
But the 77W is not used on ULH. Going for a -8LR when you do not need it, means buying to much plane for the job.

I suspect neither will the 777-8LX be used for ultra long haul missions, but rather be used for its supreme payload range capabilities.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 117):
Likely you will choose the 77W because those extra 60 seats are generating more revenue. However, with an -8LX, you can fly about the same amount of pax of the 77W and the same weight of cargo of the 77LR.

That's what I mean with "best of both worlds" and from this point of view, the -8LX is not that much bigger.

  

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
If the cargo is the main money, go for a A350-900R and lower the trip cost

What A350-900R?

While Boeing has granted an authority to offer the 777X, which includes the 777-8LX, which airlines could buy today if it wanted to, Airbus has remained relatively silent on the prospect of an A350-900R. It's all well and good to say "go for the A350-900R", but airlines can't place an order for one yet.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 120):
When you own a B777-200LR, the question is, do you go for more capability, or lower trip cost with the next plane.

The 777-8LX will offer more payload-range capability than the 777-200LR as well as lower fuel burn per seat. Whether it also offers lower trip costs remains to be seen.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 121):
With regards to the cargo they should indeed have similar capacities but the 350-900 will most likely get to mzfw much quicker.

Wouldn't that depend on what each aircraft's MZFW is in relation to its OEW? As far as I'm aware, neither of those figures have been released for the 777-8LX as yet.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 143):
IMHO, a 788R would have better change than a longer range 777.

I'm not sure that the 787-8 "LR" would have the same payload-range capabilities as a 777-8LX would. So I guess it depends on what the airline wants the plane for - if it's to fly halfway around the world, the 787-8 "LR" might be a better bet, while if they want to carry a lot of cargo a third of the way around the world, the 777-8LX would be the better choice.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 148):
If the A350-900R or 777-8LX is part of their future fleet strategy, there is a good chance that route might be re-opened.

I sure hope so. But obviously, that will depend on the profitability of such a route.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-06 08:14:18 and read 6652 times.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 154):
What A350-900R?

While Boeing has granted an authority to offer the 777X, which includes the 777-8LX, which airlines could buy today if it wanted to, Airbus has remained relatively silent on the prospect of an A350-900R. It's all well and good to say "go for the A350-900R", but airlines can't place an order for one yet.

As I remember the A350-900R has the authority to offer, but as it is not launched, a tentative EIS was 2017.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-05-06 08:17:45 and read 6668 times.

Quoting thegeek (Reply 141):
Mustn't be very popular, they're dropping it:

Both EWR and LAX flights were very popular. They're dropping it because they can't make money on it, not because people don't want to fly the routes. Like I said above, the main issue with ULH flying is cost, not demand.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: thegeek
Posted 2013-05-06 17:20:47 and read 6044 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 156):
Both EWR and LAX flights were very popular. They're dropping it because they can't make money on it, not because people don't want to fly the routes. Like I said above, the main issue with ULH flying is cost, not demand.

Popular means to me: popular at a price that SQ can make a reasonable profit out of it. Clearly they're keen to get out of flying the route. I can't imagine that Airbus particularly wants those planes back, so SQ probably negotiated that into the agreement rather than the other way around.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-06 20:43:47 and read 5759 times.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 115):
Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
There are operators out there who replaced the 77LR routes with a 77W.
Than it is a route were the long range capabilities of the 772LR were not needed anyway.

The longest current 77L route is only 88nm further that the longest 77W route and less than 400nm longer than the longest 77E route. Obviously airlines are using their 77Ls for benefits other than the range. It seems evident that if they need cargo they go with the 77L and if they need capacity they go with the 77W. As has been said previously, the -8LX will allow airlines to not have to make that choice and will probably have similar trip costs.

Quoting waly777 (Reply 148):
I suspect that whilst profitable, the profit margins will be pretty slim on that route when you take fuel and all block/flight hour costs into consideration.

In addition to the maintenance cost savings there should be a 35% fuel burn savings by swapping in the -8LX vs over the 345 in addition to the added revenue from the 2-3 additional rows of J.

See: Fuel Burn Delta A340-500 Vs. 777-200LR (by UAL747-600 Feb 6 2006 in Tech Ops) (see widebodyphotog in reply #8) and 15% additional seats from 77L to the 8LX plus lower fuel burn to get arrive at my conservative 35% figure.

I suspect the route may make a comeback.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-06 21:21:44 and read 5684 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 156):
They're dropping it because they can't make money on it, not because people don't want to fly the routes. Like I said above, the main issue with ULH flying is cost, not demand.

Now lets see what a 777-8LX would do to the cost of flying such routes. I have put both to fly the same leg, it is a leg which due to winds and alternate situation requires the max flying time of the A340-500, ie they both have nominal ESAD ranges of 8800nm. Then the -500 have a trip fuel of 153 tonnes and a cabin m2 fuel of 64 kg/knm/m2 versus the -8LX 115 tonnes and 42 kg/knm/m2.

That is a 35% reduction in fuel costs which is typically around 50% of the direct cost IIRC, further the engine maintenance should be less. Might enable a few more ULH routes. Further, a nominal pax occupancy the -500 have no weight left for cargo, the -8LX would have 13 tonnes of cargo to haul. I think we can see why EK is interested in both -8 and -9 variants    ,

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-06 21:25:39 and read 5683 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
In addition to the maintenance cost savings there should be a 35% fuel burn savings

 Big grin , we reached the same conclusions in very different ways and at the same time  Wow! , you post was not there when I started my excel changes and mine neither. Funny  .

[Edited 2013-05-06 21:26:26]

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-06 21:40:53 and read 5640 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 160):
, we reached the same conclusions in very different ways and at the same time   , you post was not there when I started my excel changes and mine neither. Funny  .

Stop copying my posts ferpe! Get your own original ideas and analysis.   Kidding. What timing, very funny.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: ferpe
Posted 2013-05-06 21:45:42 and read 5628 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 161):
Stop copying my posts ferpe! Get your own original ideas and analysis.

You found the better comment   

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-07 00:50:07 and read 5412 times.

Web mining on one hand, vs data mining
Same result !
Nice !
Thanks Tortugamon and Ferpe

-35% per seat
Question is now wether a 350 PAX bird for such ultra long haul is the right size !
And wait till 2021 !

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-07 03:00:28 and read 5231 times.

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 97):

I wonder during my lifetime there will be a commercial aircraft that will make it around the world without stopping.

Maybe airline companies will just have air to air fueling like the military some time soon.

or aircraft will be able to leave earth's atmosphere cheaply and let the rotation of the earth "fly" you there for long haul flights

Why would you want to fly all the way around the world except to say you flew around the world? In this day and age of economic realities you want to fly the wrong way? I posed the question that if you need an aircraft to fly more than half way, then, maybe you went in the wrong direction?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: EPA001
Posted 2013-05-07 03:40:26 and read 5145 times.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 159):
That is a 35% reduction in fuel costs which is typically around 50% of the direct cost IIRC, further the engine maintenance should be less. Might enable a few more ULH routes. Further, a nominal pax occupancy the -500 have no weight left for cargo, the -8LX would have 13 tonnes of cargo to haul. I think we can see why EK is interested in both -8 and -9 variants

Now that is a real significant number to watch. In just 15 years or so we can see such radical improvements being achieved by the airplane and engine manufacturers. Such numbers are very impressive and make this forum such a joy to read.  .

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
In addition to the maintenance cost savings there should be a 35% fuel burn savings by swapping in the -8LX vs over the 345 in addition to the added revenue from the 2-3 additional rows of J.

It is really funny you and ferpe reached the same conclusions almost simultaneously. And did so in different ways.  .

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: waly777
Posted 2013-05-07 03:49:12 and read 5119 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 158):
In addition to the maintenance cost savings there should be a 35% fuel burn savings by swapping in the -8LX vs over the 345 in addition to the added revenue from the 2-3 additional rows of J.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 159):
That is a 35% reduction in fuel costs which is typically around 50% of the direct cost IIRC, further the engine maintenance should be less

Nice figures by both gentlemen, certainly backs up why certain carriers are very interested in the 8LX. I can certainly picture just how well the cost per seat figure would drop for ULH routes in general, in addition to the increased revenue generation from leftover cargo space.

It will certainly make quite a good freighter too.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: mjoelnir
Posted 2013-05-07 05:03:14 and read 4930 times.

If we compare the B777-8LX with the A340-500 or the B777-200LR we of course see a very big improvement.
Reduced fuel burn makes the biggest difference on the longest routes.

My only beef is, will the B777-8LX at EIS be the best horse in the stable?
I still believe Airbus will be there with the A350-900R with even better numbers. The A350-900R as an all new design in its sweet spot should be a lighter more economical competitor and because of the long distances the difference should be telling. I do not see a reason today, why the A350-900R could not have an EIS before 2020 and than the B777-8LX could be to late in a race already run.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: aviaponcho
Posted 2013-05-07 05:45:06 and read 4818 times.

A 777-8 in EK layout will probably be a 300PAX bird (8+56+236) with a 4 doors and based on the 777-200LR layout



(but considering the 458PAX in the new AC 777-300ER it might be dangerous to stick with only 4 doors with 170 inches less only ....)

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-07 09:29:13 and read 4584 times.

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 168):
(but considering the 458PAX in the new AC 777-300ER it might be dangerous to stick with only 4 doors with 170 inches less only ....)

The 777-300 has 5 exit doors on each side.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: Stitch
Posted 2013-05-07 11:07:09 and read 4463 times.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 169):
The 777-300 has 5 exit doors on each side.

Based on artist renderings, both models of the 777X will have four Type A doors per side. This should save about a half-ton of weight on the 777-9.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-07 11:16:23 and read 4430 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 170):
Based on artist renderings, both models of the 777X will have four Type A doors per side. This should save about a half-ton of weight on the 777-9.

  

Per the Aspire article on the 777-9/8x

Quote:
Besides, an artist’s rendering of the 777-9X recently released by Boeing shows a 787-styled vertical stabiliser in addition to featuring 4 Type A doors, thereby confirming Aspire Aviation‘s previous report that eliminating the overwing exit will save 1,000lbs (453.6kg) while stretching the separation between the exit doors to a maximum of 60ft (“Boeing chooses largest wingspan for 777X“, 26th Jul, 12).

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-07 11:35:39 and read 4372 times.

I assume the 5th door remains an option for the customers who want to seat more than 440 people?

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: rotating14
Posted 2013-05-07 12:00:52 and read 4308 times.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 172):
I assume the 5th door remains an option for the customers who want to seat more than 440 people?

Isn't the max layout around 410?? From we've been seeing and hearing at least. Im only asking

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: KarelXWB
Posted 2013-05-07 12:19:06 and read 4250 times.

407 pax in a typical 3-class Boeing configuration. But one can seat more pax in a 2 or 1 class configuration. I believe ANA has some > 500 777 seaters in their fleet and you need a 5th door to seat more than 440 pax.

Topic: RE: Boeing To Build World's Longest-range Airliner
Username: brilondon
Posted 2013-05-08 03:01:32 and read 3813 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 170):
Based on artist renderings, both models of the 777X will have four Type A doors per side. This should save about a half-ton of weight on the 777-9.

I was looking at what the poster had said about the AC aircraft which are 77Ws and it has 5 exit doors per side not the new 77X.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/