Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Improved 773ER Vs A350-1000 Competition  
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19966 times:

It seems Emirates is pushing Boeing come up with a 777-300ER replacement having the economics of a A350-1000.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ccessor-and-hints-at-more-big.html

An improved wing, some weight savings, a stretch seem possible, but most of all I think we have to look at GE for an answer.. Can they GENX the GE90-11X for a substantial sfc improvement..

kaktusdigital

113 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6729 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19937 times:

Is Mr. Clarke stating that he does not think that the A350-1000 is a true 777-300ER replacement? I guess a more indepth review of the current 777 and the specifications of the A350-1000 are in order to better understand exactly what he is looking for.
Research time  


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19875 times:

@ Kessje


If Boeing will offer this new B777-Version, the sales of the B748I will drop to zero.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19883 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
Research time

Well, some quick research shows the A350-1000 is lighter, has 92 klbs engines and the 777-300ER is much heavier and has 115 klbs engines.

It seems Emirates like the bigger lift of the 777-300ER but the A350-1000 has set a new benchmark for efficiency the 777-300ER apparently does not meet. Hence he ask Boeing if they can solve this issue.

It seems the A350-1000 has recently been upgraded (bigger wing) and the Trent XWB is said to have growth potential too. With the economy recovering, not a time to not sit back at Boeing HQ it seems.

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):
@ Kessje

If Boeing will offer this new B777-Version, the sales of the B748I will drop to zero.

Probably, but it's better then Toulouse the 773ER potential..

[Edited 2010-06-22 03:31:17]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19705 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
Is Mr. Clarke stating that he does not think that the A350-1000 is a true 777-300ER replacement?

His VP of Route and Fleet Planning noted back in March 2008 that the A350-1000 could only carry 317 passengers on the same mission EK's 777-300ER's are carrying 354, though doing so with 11% less fuel burn per seat and 21% per trip.

As EK is geared for growth, I expect the A350-1000's lower passenger count is an issue for them since it means they need to fly more frequencies or give up market share.


User currently offlinepanais From Cyprus, joined May 2008, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19547 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
It seems Emirates like the bigger lift of the 777-300ER but the A350-1000 has set a new benchmark for efficiency the 777-300ER apparently does not meet. Hence he ask Boeing if they can solve this issue.

It seems that the A350-1000 is to the 777-300ER what the A321 is to the B757-200.


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 19545 times:

Quoting keesje (Thread starter):
An improved wing, some weight savings, a stretch seem possible, but most of all I think we have to look at GE for an answer.. Can they GENX the GE90-11X for a substantial sfc improvement..

Yes. But it still will be not as advanced as the GEnx or the Trent-XWB.

Quoting par13del (Reply 1):
Is Mr. Clarke stating that he does not think that the A350-1000 is a true 777-300ER replacement?

Well, for starters the A350-1000 is narrower than the 777 and cannot be fitted 10 abreast with the seat EK wants. And the cargo hauling abilities aren't as excellent as the 77W. 92k thrust means less fuel consumption, but also less potential to take lots of freight - especially at hot Asian airports (I believe that was the issue with the 787-9 compared to the A350-900, wasn't it?).

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
the Trent XWB is said to have growth potential

Perhaps enough to power an improved, lighter 777-300LR?    That would be a coup for RR. Although the exclusivity clause between GE and Boeing would prevent it for the LR versions of the 777 IIRC.   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12041 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19395 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While some have postulated 'laws' that state a smaller plane with better CASM will beat out a larger plane, EK is one airline which always wants bigger planes (that's one reason why I personally doubt they'll ever order 787s).

There's absolutely no doubt that EK loves the 77W (just as they love the A380). To the best of my knowledge, EK has never suggested the A350-1000 is the replacement for the 77W and in EK's model, I don't see how it can be. I see the A350 as the replacement plane for their A330s, A340s, 772s, 77Es and 773s.

I would see EK being the launch customer for any improved 77W. But that doesn't mean they won't take their A350-1000s. Indeed, they have previously suggested a desire to migrate some of their -900 orders to -1000s.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8092 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):
If Boeing will offer this new B777-Version, the sales of the B748I will drop to zero.

The 748 sales are next to ZERO anyways, the 77W has effectively killed the 747 as a passenger airplane. Or at the very least that is what the purchases by Asia-Pacific airlines have indicated. Boeing needs a 777NG ASAP.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19307 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 7):
I see the A350 as the replacement plane for their A330s, A340s, 772s, 77Es and 773s.

In the article it states 2011 will be the beginning of the fleet rollover and that 68 aircraft are to be replaced, still 18 773's to be delivered followed by 70 A350's, this certainly allows for replacement at the smaller end of the fleet and then some growth. There is also the (very good) prospect of an additional 773 order this summer.

It would appear to me that the smallest plane in the EK fleet beyond 2015ish will be the A359 Wow!

[Edited 2010-06-22 04:55:28]

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10365 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19247 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 2):
f Boeing will offer this new B777-Version, the sales of the B748I will drop to zero.

Not necessarily as the 748I is a far bigger aircraft. But it will further limit the sales of the Queen of the Skies. And thats another reason why Boeing shouldnt come up with such an aircraft. At least not before 2015. Otherwise its a shot in the foot. Boeing is making many mistakes in overlapping types. The largest 787 will largely kill the 772, a revamped 77W will reduce the 748I. Imho they should build a 777NG of a size halfway between the 772 and the 77W. That wouldnt harm the 787 and the 748I.
But even if Boeing makes this mistake and builds a 77WNG the A350-1000 will largely limit the sales of such a plane as its lighter. On all but the longest routes the A350 will likely be better.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19235 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Boeing can sell significantly more 777-300ERX's than they can 747-8's, they'd be fiscally foolish not to launch the program.

The 747-8 program does have the freighter model to fall back on, after all.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 19079 times:

Quoting na (Reply 10):
And thats another reason why Boeing shouldnt come up with such an aircraft. At least not before 2015. Otherwise its a shot in the foot.

Boeing doesn't decide what aircraft the airlines want. Better a few hundred 777NG's then a few dozen 8is..


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 819 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 18239 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 9):
It would appear to me that the smallest plane in the EK fleet beyond 2015ish will be the A359

I don't understand how that is sustainable unless they are doing only hub to hub flights. Are you going to fly into Nice with a A359?

I think the problem here is Emirates. What they want is a 2 engined behemoth approaching the size of the A380. As mentioned in other threads, it's just really hard to engineer a 380- 400 seat + 7k ranged aircraft with 2 engines. I think that's what they want even if its not explicitly what they are saying. The 777 would be hard to stretch much larger and you'd have to redesign the wing, landing carriage and use more composites. Unless EK wants to buy 500 I don't see how it would make sense.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 730 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 17462 times:

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 13):
I don't understand how that is sustainable unless they are doing only hub to hub flights. Are you going to fly into Nice with a A359?

Ek are building an enormous hub that they can then connect people through. They will connect you from point A (your oigin airport) via thier hub at DXB, to points c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k etc. The majority of travellers are point-hub-point travellers. Point to point routes are very conveinient, but only if you live near one of the points, and those points are usually hubs. In the north of the UK, if I need to go anywhere other than SIN, ISL, DOH, ABU and a few others destinations east of europe, I have got to hub somewhere. EK only need a few people from NCE to want to travel to each of their destinations the other side of DXB to fill a A359. The same applies to all thier destinations that are not hubs, and are not served by thier flag carriers.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 13):
I don't understand how that is sustainable unless they are doing only hub to hub flights. Are you going to fly into Nice with a A359?

Aren't they planning to send the A380 to Nice?

Anyway, EK's startegy is predicated on significant and continuous growth so today's 250-seat (average) A330-200s are sufficient today, but a few years from now traffic on those routes will have grown to require 320-seat (average) A350-900s.

And that is where the A350-1000 comes up short - it provides growth for routes currently flown with EK's A340-300s, A340-500s, 777-200s and 777-200ERs. But it cannot provide growth for routes flown with EK's 777-300s and 777-300ERs. For that, EK must step up to the A380-800, which might be too much of an initial jump. EK could add the 747-8, but they appear to prefer a 400 to 500-seat "777-400ER".


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17122 times:

“We’ve told Boeing we need to look at something that has the legs, the lift and economics of today’s -300ER but with the A350-1000’s predicted fuel burn.”

Well obviously if one takes that literally it's simply not possible - so he can't really mean that.

If however he means fuel burn per passenger mile - in the way LH show what their planes do - well thats different.

Even then the 777 would have to grow somewha (extra pax) to get to that level of economics.Since EK offer in economy 9 acros in their 777 and the obvious comfort of 380 econ I cannot see how they could suddenly revert to 17.2 in 1960 seats at 10 across.So the 777 would have to grow a little longer.


Its all very difficult to see how it could be done.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EK is actually 10 abreast in Economy on the 777. It's why the 77W carries more people than the A35J, even though they offer similar seating floorspace.

I imagine if GE really overhauled the GE90-11xB, they could knock up to 10% off the SFC. Then take 10+ tons of MWE out of the structure and add a new or heavily-reprofiled wing and you will probably get close to the 10% per seat / 20% per trip fuel reduction you need to (effectively) match the A350-1000.

[Edited 2010-06-22 09:08:03]

User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 48
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 17027 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
His VP of Route and Fleet Planning noted back in March 2008 that the A350-1000 could only carry 317 passengers on the same mission EK's 777-300ER's are carrying 354, though doing so with 11% less fuel burn per seat and 21% per trip.

My estimate is a difference of 25 seats between a 3 class A350-1000 and B773ER(10-abreast), and not 37. I did this for AF configuration.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 18):
My estimate is a difference of 25 seats between a 3 class A350-1000 and B773ER(10-abreast), and not 37. I did this for AF configuration.

Since EK's VP knows exactly what mission rules are in play for the 777-300ER and directly applied them to whatever data he had at that time on the A350-1000, I have to take his statement as the actual seat difference, at least as it was in 2008.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1509 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16819 times:

Thanks Stitch. I have to admit mine was a total guess (9 across) I knew if I was wrong someone would pick me up.But I am really glad you did - plus your other comments as it all now begins to make sense.

Knowing your posts I am somewhat surprised at the 10% engine figure.With those amazing blades at the Smithsoneon it's one hell of an engine and really not that old. Are you really comfortable with 10.Are you seeing a new contra rotating core (I am not). We have (was it Boeing engineer?) who hinted at some pretty cool things they are doing with the wing.This I totally believe.And loosing some weigh.Yes to that to the 777 is largely "pre carbon" so much to be gained here. Could go AlLi but I don't think so (even though it was in the origonal 777 specs). 10 across.I have read your previous posts on this ( wall lining/insulation) so thats a given .

If they can do this it ain't good news for the 351 really. Perhaps they will have to "raise their game".

PS Is it 25 or 37 it's a big difference in the trip costs.


User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16648 times:

I see that the A333 order seems to be dead in the water and as has been mentioned above, the A359 seems likely to be the smallest aircraft in the fleet. I wonder if this is poses a risk to EK's growth plan. In order to fill the A380s, EK is going to maximise the feed to them and that means continuing growth and adding new destinations in Europe and Asia to feed them. EK, as we know, has a practice of not starting a new route until it can go daily - or nearly daily to start with. Bearing in mind that the other regional competitors - QR and EY particularly are snapping at EK's (and each other's) heels, does having a 350 seater as your smallest aircraft (it's not going to be far short of that - it's bigger than the 333) make sense?

Look at QR yesterday, announcing a shedload of new routes, some of which it can start with the A32X series and move up to 332s (and 787s); when it comes to being able to start up new routes, which airline will be in a better position to do so - a 787 operator or a 359 operator. I'd pick the former. And ultimately, if QR takes full advantage of this, it can undermine EK by getting into new markets before EK can. Sure, EK can rely on existing markets (and admittedly it has got a foothold in all of the major ones), but there is still considerable growth potential in new markets. If EK is undermined by competitiors at "ground level", does this not undermine its ability to meet growth targets? It seems to me that an airline with 90 A380s in service/order cannot allow other carriers - particularly regional competitors - to steal a march on them and with a 350 seater as its smallest type, that's exactly what it's doing.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16602 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
EK could add the 747-8, but they appear to prefer a 400 to 500-seat "777-400ER".

Have they actually said that?

The article sort of suggests a 773ER that's cheaper to run.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I imagine if GE really overhauled the GE90-11xB, they could knock up to 10% off the SFC. Then take 10+ tons of MWE out of the structure and add a new or heavily-reprofiled wing and you will probably get close to the 10% per seat / 20% per trip fuel reduction you need to (effectively) match the A350-1000.

Whether 10% off SFC and 10t off MWE are possible is obviously debatable, but I would suspect that the added capability either or both of an SFC improvement and MWE reduction would give the 773ER, on top of the lifting advantage it already has, should mean it doesn't actually need to match the A350-1000's trip fuel burn. although the article does imply that.  
Quoting parapente (Reply 20):
If they can do this it ain't good news for the 351 really

I'm not sure that it necessarily has to be. Any aircraft should expect competition, and the A350-1000 will be no different.

I struggle to see how Boeing can ever get the trip cost of even a "777NG" to match that of the A350-1000, which means there should be a market for the A350-1000 still, just in a more competitive environment than it might otherwise face from today's 773ER

Rgds


User currently offlineFlyWhisperjets From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16598 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 13):
I don't understand how that is sustainable unless they are doing only hub to hub flights. Are you going to fly into Nice with a A359?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
Aren't they planning to send the A380 to Nice

Wow! They are going to be number one !!!! Just wait till DXB takes over ATL's record for movements and loads!!!! They will win my business in a heartbeat when the start MLB-DXB-JFK.....I'm sick of Delta flying me through ATL....So exciting! Whats the world coming to.....                ....Billy



1st. time Eastern Lockheed L-188, 1st. jet Delta Convair 880
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 16598 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 20):
Knowing your posts I am somewhat surprised at the 10% engine figure.

Someone like lightsaber would be in a far better position to comment, but to reach that figure I would imagine GE would have to do everything - new fan, contra-rotation, "BLISK"(?) blades, improved IBRs, etc. etc. etc. Some of it might be able to be "PiP'd" on existing GE90-11xB engines, but I would not be surprised if one would have to hang new engines to obtain maximum benefit, which generally would mean a new airframe, as well (be it 777-300ERX / 777-400ER).


25 BMI727 : I think that if the 777NG looks like it will never be able to be a good performer against the A350 I would just as soon scrap the whole thing and go
26 Post contains links and images EA772LR : Oh come on Astuteman, you know Tim Clarke really believes that Airbus and Boeing can wave magic wands and provide. With the cancellation (all but) of
27 EA772LR : I think the problem there though is that although the 787-10 would compete against the A359 (and very favorably too), the -11 wouldn't stack up again
28 BMI727 : There is probably something to that, although at a glance, I don't think a 787 would suffer nearly as much. The 777 fuselage is almost 2 feet wider t
29 CFBFrame : That's why you build a/c on a plan that's driven by demand and market understanding. When things die, if you've done it right, there is something in
30 Post contains images keesje : I think the A350-1000 as presented by Airbus recently, with (even) bigger wings and engines that can provide growth indicates the -1000 isn't the end
31 XT6Wagon : I think they are planning missions that will be passenger only due to range, which means that fuel burn savings would be worth more than payload incr
32 scbriml : If they don't ask, they definitely won't get! EK always want more - it's how their business model works. Some people (not suggesting you) either can'
33 Post contains images EPA001 : Well, if they get close enough, combined with the capacity advantages the B77W already has, it still might be a very attractive airliner, and not onl
34 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, Clark has expressed interest in larger/longer 777 models. He wants that, as well.
35 Stitch : The issue with a longer 787 (the -10 / -11 / -12) is that it pretty much matches the A350 family in capability and performance (assuming said models g
36 Post contains images flyingAY : Keeping in mind that EK has 90 (!) A380s in fleet and on order total, I don't think they're planning to give up market share. Especially considering
37 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, but even if every 77W city-pair today becomes an A388 city-pair "tomorrow"(and with 90 frames, they're getting close), we will still have 773/77
38 justloveplanes : Clarke's comments are somewhat ambiguous as to what he means. He specified current 777 performance with predicted A350 fuel burn. He doesn't mention
39 JayinKitsap : I have heard that the nose section of the 777 is both expensive and pretty heavy. Would doing a 777 nose barrel similar to what Spirit is doing for th
40 Post contains images BMI727 : Unless you have evidence to indicate that those programs (you could toss the A318 in there too) did not make a profit, it is unfair for you to charac
41 Post contains images YBCS : Nicely stated!
42 Post contains images flyglobal : Even if I have a fair chance to be beaten up by the religious A-net law of 2 holers are the one and only to go I say: Given the chance that it is damn
43 Post contains links LAXDESI : My latest estimates for A350-1000 and B773ER(from my thread in the technical forum): A350-10 Versus B773 ER Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Jun 1 2008
44 Post contains images dash9 : The 350 family makes me think of the e-jet family, made of two pairs. 170/175 shares much of their components, like the 358 and 359. Then comes the 1
45 Post contains images astuteman : I want to be careful to point out that I was trying to say I don't think a 777NG necessarily HAS to match the A350-1000's trip costs in order to be c
46 LAXDESI : Airbus's latest specs. lists about 471,000 lbs. for A350-1000 MZFW. This reduces the MSP by 10,000 lbs to 136,700 lbs, and makes 773ER more competiti
47 Post contains images keesje : Small correction the plan was 8i first, 2/3 of the sales were expected to be for the 8i. But they changed the plan LH ordered long after launch. Howe
48 Post contains images allegro : ... umm ... the have sold 256 737-900ER's ... thats pretty good ... agree with the rest though, and would throw in A345, 346 as well ... tough road t
49 keesje : 737-900ER, 256 on order of which 75% for Lion Air and 38 for contintal (that also bought 762ER, 764ER, 753, not 783 sofar..) Wouldn't this increase A
50 BoeEngr : The 737-900ER has been ordered by Arik Air (3), Azerbaijan Airlines (4), Blue Air (3), Continental Airlines (36), GECAS (6), Korean Air (4), Lion Air
51 seabosdca : If AA had bought 178 739ER frames, the tone of your post would be a little different... but Indonesia is growing like gangbusters, it's a huge place,
52 BoeEngr : The 757-300 sold 55, hardly stellar, but as you said, an "easy fix". The 767-400ER was indeed a slow seller and very disappointing. The 737-900ER sol
53 keesje : Because we are talking a few dozen here & it's competitor continues selling hundreds to the major airlines everywhere. I must confess I didn't kn
54 LAXDESI : Since MSP = MZFW-OEW, a lower MZFW will result in a lower MSP. IIRC, Airbus had announced a higher MTOW along with higher OEW to meet payload/range t
55 BoeEngr : Well, 256 is hardly "a few dozen" in my books, but nonetheless, you are correct that there are more A321 sales than 737-900ER, but I repeat, that doe
56 XT6Wagon : Don't know where you are getting this from, but whatever. Its not different. The problem for the A380 is a high risk from high costs in a single fram
57 BMI727 : And 90 of 234 A380 orders are from Emirates, so at what percentage is your magical cutoff? Especially ones that were probably relatively inexpensive
58 BMI727 : I think that the economy has had a huge negative effect on the A380. When the good times return, there will be more orders for the A380...and 748 and
59 flipdewaf : Current A380 markets increase frequency in the future, current T7 routes go to A380, current A330 routes go to 77W. I don't think EK are going to stic
60 Post contains images astuteman : They also announced a 5t increase in MZFW at the same time....... Which was sort of my point...... As I said, I don't disagree that a 10-across 777 b
61 rheinwaldner : Yes but there are even low cost derivatives of existing designs that were much more succesfull. I subscribe this! I have a certain idea that while GT
62 Stitch : The wider cabin of the 77W also should allow additional Business Class seating, especially of the type employed by BA and UA, amongst others. At leas
63 Post contains images astuteman : Indeed. One of the reasons to say that things are by no means black-and-white is that a lot of it might be dependent upon how an airline wants to con
64 keesje : Not according to Boeing. But EK wanted the 787-10 5 yrs ago, but skipped because of range. Then placed a huge order for the A350. The marginal differ
65 AirbusA6 : 10Y in the 777 isn't new, EK has had it from the start on their 777s, and it's not universal either, many airlines are still ordering 9Y 777s now, and
66 328JET : @ AirbusA6 I think i have to agree. To offer comparable levels of comfort, B777 with 10 abreast is like A388 with 11 abreast are equal.
67 Post contains images EPA001 : That is more or less true. The walls of the A380 on the lower deck being more vertical would still leave a bit more room on the A380 if it was config
68 LAXDESI : I wonder if Airbus's listed MZFW of 471,000 lbs. accounts for the 5t increase.
69 Post contains images astuteman : As the Airbus website shows the 3t MTOW increase, there's no reason to suspect it doesn't also show the MZFW increase, I would have thought. Be nice
70 allegro : No. One of the big selling points of the original 777 to airlines was the ability to add one extra biz class seat per row ... remember all the Airbus
71 Post contains images EA772LR : I wonder if that 0.8% improvement finally tips the 77W over the 8,000nm mark?? If this is the case, then it'll only be a matter of time before airlin
72 328JET : @ EA777LR I think so too, but i do not like it... As far as I know Air Austral is considering 11-abreast seating.
73 BMI727 : A lot has changed in five years, not the least of which being that 9 wide is now more or less standard for the 787, making today's -9 roughly equival
74 LAXDESI : I thought Air Austral was able to reach 840 seats in all Y configuration with 10 abreast on main deck. IIRC, isn't A380 limited to a maximum of 850 s
75 Post contains images EA772LR : I'm excited to see a new big-twin from Airbus, and can't wait to the wings of the A350. Yeah no doubt, though I think Boeing is in a good place with
76 Post contains images astuteman : I'm not an expert, but I've played about with some layouts and got some people who do know a bit more to critique... I can see how to get 840 seats o
77 LAXDESI : If that's what it takes to get to 840, then Air Austral should sell the upper deck seats at a premium.
78 Post contains images keesje : And you did an outstanding job You should share them in a seperate thread. I would like to know what comes out of a maindeck with 11 abreast 30-31 in
79 Post contains images frigatebird : 853, to be precise. That was the number of 'passengers' during the A380 evacuation test (and an additional 20 crew). And the test was conducted with
80 LAXDESI : EK is planning a 2 class 600 seat configuration for A380 for medium haul market. Looking at EK's configuration, and taking out crew rest area for shor
81 Post contains images astuteman : I suspect the A350-800 holds a few surprises for those who are sceptical of it... How do you know? One for a rainy day Rgds
82 Post contains images Stitch : I think where the A350-800 will do best is on routes where an A330-200 is operating at the extreme limits of the payload/range chart. The extra MTOW
83 Post contains images EA772LR : Isn't that an oxymoron? Then do you think the A332 HGW is too little too late?? What's the point when you can get an A358 (or really a 788)?
84 LAXDESI : It's not too late if you can't get A358/B788 delivered sooner. Orders for both A332 and A333 should dry up in the near future. A358 does better than
85 BMI727 : It is going to be a fine plane, but I suspect it may be a bit heavy for short to medium range routes though it should be more than competitive with t
86 Post contains images astuteman : You should be able to fit about that number at 32" pitch at 11-across, with the crew rest sited below decks - so even long-haul isn't out of the ques
87 LAXDESI : Here's a summary of listed specs. for B789 and A358: ............................B789.....................A358 MTOW..............546,700 lbs.........
88 Post contains images EPA001 : These numbers sound very plausible to me. .
89 Stitch : Likely true, but a 787-9 will carry more people and significantly more cargo volume and it looks to EIS with a pax+bag range ≥8200nm (assuming engi
90 BMI727 : That is kinda my assumption. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a 787-8ER either. But what could really turn the range game on its head is if Boeing
91 328JET : I really do not expect a B787-10. Im my personal view Boeing will develop a third B777 generation instead of.
92 BMI727 : I don't think that the existence of a 787-10 rules that out at all. Ideally, I would go with the long range 787-10 and then build a 777NG family cons
93 Stitch : A 787-10 would slot in between the A350-900 and A350-1000. However, if Airbus does launch an A350-1100, then Boeing needs to launch a 75m 787-11 or an
94 ash185 : Yeah i think its still quite a possibility but still some time away as they have to make it competitive. They could then make the 777 replacement pos
95 BMI727 : True, but by the time Airbus gets around to an A350-1100, Boeing may be closing in on the time when they could start a Y3 as well. I think that the 7
96 WarpSpeed : Could the A350-1000 be redefined to such a size (or near it) as a near term solution to better compete against a 777NG? The -1000, under current spec
97 BMI727 : I don't see why they couldn't, but it might be more effort and money to design. I don't think that the 777NG will ever be that. Quite a few Anetters
98 LAXDESI : The warmed over 8 abreast A330 would have found it difficult to compete against 9-abreast B787 in the long run. The 10 abreast 777NG does not face th
99 Post contains images PM : I'll be fascinated to see it. Perhaps rather less in a hurry to try it...
100 astuteman : Given the current specs, the A350-800 should physically outlift the 787-9 by up to 5t above 6 000Nm, on similar trip costs, whilst being as you say,
101 vctony : One would assume that a 787-10 that comes between the A359 and the A3510 would be an almost perfect 777-200ER replacement.
102 Stitch : Yes, but unless it's hauling lead ingots, an A350-800 is likely to run out of cargo hold space before it runs out of payload weight. The 787-9 has sp
103 Post contains images astuteman : Is this a characteristic the 787-8 and A330-200 suffer from? I completely take the point that the 787-9 has more physical payload capacity. I find it
104 parapente : Re above - Vietnam as an example? If (as they say) the 788 does not have the "legs" for Europe or N America then I would have thought the 358 would ha
105 Stitch : If the 787-9 enters service with a pax+bag range of 8200nm, that would be within 100nm of the baseline A350-800 and 350nm of the A350-800HGW. The 787
106 Post contains images astuteman : If they already have a contract for 787-8's, surely it's a lot easier just to transfer from the 787-8 to the 787-9 than get into messy cancellations
107 parapente : So if I have understood that correctly. A 789 is a different flavour of a 358 So a 359 is a better 772er a 78-10 with existing engines and undercarria
108 Stitch : If the 787-8 is fuel-volume limited at 227t MTOW, then yes, it won't be able to fly as far as the 787-9 and, by extension, the A350-800. If this beco
109 BMI727 : A couple years ago, I would have put a checkmark here, but now with the 787 at 9 abreast it may be a 77E replacement for many carriers. I think that
110 Post contains links and images astuteman : You are correct (as usual) . http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...s-it-begins-a350-800-detailed.html How did we get on to 787 v A358 in a 777 v A35
111 Post contains images Stitch : That's airliners.net for ya. More tangents than a Geometry 101 class.
112 Post contains images EA772LR : As far as manufacturer specs, I completely agree. I guess it's probably always been that way. 763, then A332, then A333, then 77E, etc. Fair comment.
113 BMI727 : Because everything is hopelessly intertwined.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A350-1000 Design Firmed Up With Larger Wing posted Thu Apr 22 2010 22:15:36 by Scipio
Emirates Warns Airbus On A350 posted Fri Mar 12 2010 16:25:13 by Lumberton
New Airbus A350-1000 Order Air Caraïbes posted Mon Sep 15 2008 01:25:37 by PanAm_DC10
Etihad's Order Includes The A350-1000? posted Tue Jul 22 2008 17:45:53 by TriniA340
Emirates To Announce 100 A350 And 20 747-8 posted Wed Oct 10 2007 08:07:18 by Carls
GEnx Vs. Trent 1000 posted Sat Jul 7 2007 00:43:40 by Pillowtester
Emirates Closer To 100 X A350 / 787 Order posted Tue Jun 12 2007 21:31:36 by EI321
Emirates Gets (5) 773ER's Via Gecas posted Tue Mar 6 2007 17:33:09 by BoeingFever777
Finnair: A330 Vs A350 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 10:57:12 by Ravel
EK's 787 Vs A350 Decision Not Imminent posted Mon May 22 2006 12:01:21 by Atmx2000
A350-1000 Any Further Stretch Likely? posted Sat Jul 10 2010 11:30:26 by ACES320
A350-1000 Design Firmed Up With Larger Wing posted Thu Apr 22 2010 22:15:36 by Scipio
Emirates Warns Airbus On A350 posted Fri Mar 12 2010 16:25:13 by Lumberton