Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates Ready To Be New 777's Launch Operator  
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 24689 times:

Just received this news via the Flightglobal newswire, public news sources too would likely publish soon. EK's TC has spoken about the new 777 and says that "There's a lot of work going on [at Boeing on the new 777], and we're involved in it". He added that Boeing is "ready to rock and roll" and that if it meets EK's needs then it could sign up as a launch customer.
He has also stated that the 77W on DXB-LAX does not carry any cargo and gets a 20-seat payload penalty. TC also stated that GE President has got a "lot up on his sleeve for the new GE90-115B. He's definitely going to give us something on that".

Also related, TC has reacted angrily for the new A350-1000 revamp. Stating that if Airbus asked him, he would have said "Not good enough" and that although he initially wanted to switch 50 of his -900 orders to the -1000, this is now unlikely to happen.

Sorry, no link as the news does not appear to be published on the subscription-free website yet.

On the A350 : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...its-out-over-a350-1000-revamp.html

[Edited 2011-09-09 08:43:14]


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 24672 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Thread starter):
Also related, TC has reacted angrily for the new A350-1000 revamp. Stating that if Airbus asked him, he would have said "Not good enough" and that although he initially wanted to switch 50 of his -900 orders to the -1000, this is now unlikely to happen.

Sorry, no link as the news does not appear to be published on the subscription-free website yet.

Here you go....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...its-out-over-a350-1000-revamp.html



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24446 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 1):

Quoting KFlyer (Thread starter):
Also related, TC has reacted angrily for the new A350-1000 revamp. Stating that if Airbus asked him, he would have said "Not good enough" and that although he initially wanted to switch 50 of his -900 orders to the -1000, this is now unlikely to happen.

Sorry, no link as the news does not appear to be published on the subscription-free website yet.

Here you go....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...its-out-over-a350-1000-revamp.html


Thanks, I've edited the original post. But there still is not a public article for the 777 news.



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24373 times:

Great news. A lot of people on here don't care for TC, but the fact of the matter is he knows what he is talking about and he does what he says. I always enjoying hearing things from his perspective because they are honest and straight forward.


Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13130 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Above link had nothing on the 777, it was all A350-1000 (was the article modified?).  

I'm not shocked the largest 777 operator is in discussion for a better 777.   

Quoting KFlyer (Thread starter):
GE President has got a "lot up on his sleeve for the new GE90-115B. He's definitely going to give us something on that".

My bets: CMC high turbine, new low compressor (BLISKs), turbine (whider chord blades) and fan (almost a new low spool, but not quite if the shafts, bearings, and casings are kept).

The question is, will this be a derivative engine or a new engine? If new I would expect contra-rotation and a variable nozzle fan. That would be a further 4% to 5% fuel burn reduction.    Plus another 1% by having a superior Mach # profile via a new casing.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineflythere From Hong Kong, joined May 2010, 443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24271 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Thread starter):
He added that Boeing is "ready to rock and roll" and that if it meets EK's needs then it could sign up as a launch customer.
He has also stated that the 77W on DXB-LAX does not carry any cargo and gets a 20-seat payload penalty.

Well, EK is not stand alone, CX is also more than ready and has been urging Boeing to build the next-Gen 777 or upgrade 77W for some time.

Quote:
17/Sep/2010

Cathay CEO: Boeing Needs To Work On Improving 777 Efficiency

GENEVA -(Dow Jones)- U.S. aircraft maker Boeing Co. (BA) needs to work on improving the efficiency of its 777 commercial airliner, said Tony Tyler, chief executive of Hong-Kong-based Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (0293.HK), said Friday.

His comments came after Cathay Pacific sealed a deal with Boeing's European rival Airbus for 30 A350-900 aircraft, which industry observers have said highlights the U.S. company's need to upgrade and modernize its 777 planes.

"I think that's probably true," Tyler said, when asked to comment on the matter.

Speaking on the sidelines of an aviation industry conference in Geneva, Tyler told Dow Jones Newswires that the U.S. aircraft maker should work towards improving fuel efficiency of the 777 model and increase its size to allow airlines to transport more passengers.

Tyler added that Boeing is aware of the need to modernize the 777 model range.

"I know they're looking to do that," he said.

At present, Cathay Pacific operates 16 777-300ERs, 12 777-300s as well as 5 777-200 models.



Rectification: now CX operates 24 77W, just a year after the interview report, and 6 more to be added in 2012.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24238 times:

Well if they don't like the new improved -1000 (not enough of a plane) God knows what they thought of the origonal!

Certainly from recent posts it looks more and more that the -800 does not have a huge market. Was it ever going to I wonder?

Perhaps they are guilty of spreading themselves too thin and creating a jack of all trades but a master of none.

To be fair I have not read any complaint about the core product - the 900.

But as for the 1000. Of course Airbus do talk to their clients.Either it is too small (PAX Nos) or it is not.Of course we only hear from 2 airlines so perhaps it is just these 2 that want a "longer" aircraft?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 24115 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
The question is, will this be a derivative engine or a new engine?

My question is how much of this can be added to existing GE90 engines via a PiP?

If the GE-9X can only be had as a new engine, I expect GE will be a bit hesitant to offer it due to RoI issues unless the 777X serves as an interim bridge to the NLA just as the 737MAX is to the NSA.



Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
Of course we only hear from 2 airlines so perhaps it is just these 2 that want a "longer" aircraft?

However, those are the two main current customers for the model.

[Edited 2011-09-09 09:12:09]

User currently offlineflash330 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 36 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 23828 times:

Ok, I find it hard to believe that Airbus and RR announced the upgrades to the 1000 without getting approval.from current and potential.customers, couldnt.A do a simple.stretch of the 900 for those.airlines that.don't need the extra performance?

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23787 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In the "QF to Fly 777-300ER?" thread, Chrisba777er commented:


Quoting Chrisba777er:
My gut says QF - like BA - are waiting for the final iteration of the A3510 to find out how capable she is going to be before making a decision, but could order 20+ A359s tomorrow and do very well with them.

  

I don't see Boeing having anything to really throw against the A350-900. A 777-200LR will already pants it on payload-over-range, but it's a heavy plane and even reducing the fuel burn with new engines is not going to negate the advantage the A350-900 gains from it's lower weight and equally advanced engines.

That being said, a 777-200LRX and 777FX would both kill any chance for the A350-900R and A350-900F in the marketplace, IMO.

The real battle would be the 777-300ERX vs. the A350-1000HGW. I've heard for years that EK really saw the A350-1000 as a "super 777-200ER" and not a true 777-300ER competitor. And Mr. Clark's latest comments about the original A350-1000 being a great 777-300A replacement seems to confirm what I've been hearing.

I could see EK's original strategy being a large A350-1000 fleet for missions to Europe, India, Africa and Asia and then the 777-300ER(Xs) would be doing the ULH missions to North and South America and Australia.

But with Airbus upgrading the A350-1000 to be able to compete with the 777-300ER(X) on ULH missions, that compromises it's efficiency on the sub-5000nm missions EK wanted to employ them on.

[Edited 2011-09-09 09:40:28]


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5467 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23716 times:

I continue to be perplexed by Tim Clark's absolute focus on his longest and most demanding missions when Europe and the Indian subcontinent are really EK's core business. The original A350-1000 would have been a better plane than the 77W, or the "new" A350-1000, for much of what EK does -- certainly enough to warrant 20 to 50 aircraft. Too much focus on ULH will result in a fleet of too-heavy airplanes.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23616 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 2):
Thanks, I've edited the original post. But there still is not a public article for the 777 news.

Here you go... Again  

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...lps-boeing-devise-new-777.html



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23549 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
I continue to be perplexed by Tim Clark's absolute focus on his longest and most demanding missions when Europe and the Indian subcontinent are really EK's core business.

It's all about growth. He wants to establish his beach-head in the Americas and Australia/Oceania so that he can grow the business before his competitors can establish their own positions. So he starts with ~250 seat 777-200LRs and then grows to ~350-seat 777-300ERs and then ~450-seat A380-800s.

In my post above, I think EK saw the A350-1000 as the perfect plane for Europe, India and Asia and (an improved) 777-300ER as the perfect plane for the Americas and Australia.

Now Airbus has thrown a spanner in the works by trying to make the A350-1000 a better ULH plane, hurting it's economics on the LH missions EK planned to use them on.

So I could see EK deciding "well, might as well have one plane that can do LH and ULH" and looking at the 777X to be that plane.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23558 times:

Reply 6
The real battle would be the 777-300ERX vs. the A350-1000HGW. I've heard for years that EK really saw the A350-1000 as a "super 777-200ER" and not a true 777-300ER competitor. And Mr. Clark's latest comments about the original A350-1000 being a great 777-300A replacement seems to confirm what I've been hearing.

I could see EK's original strategy being a large A350-1000 fleet for missions to Europe, India, Africa and Asia and then the 777-300ER(Xs) would be doing the ULH missions to North and South America and Australia.

But with Airbus upgrading the A350-1000 to be able to compete with the 777-300ER(X) on ULH missions, that compromises it's efficiency on the sub-5000nm missions EK wanted to employ them on.....

Thank you for this.At least (for me) it at least makes some sense of his/their complaint. .If fact it tells you alot.Clearly (since these 2 clearly did not want the extra range payload) then it obviously means some other very influential players very much did!.OK you cannot please everybody I guess.

But (and here is the rub).No 777-300erx is going to deliver what they want either! Can't, not in a million years. So now we can see why Airbus did not involve them in their discussions.

A 'Cos they knew what they were going to say anyway.

B.'Cos they would have to buy it (as the nearest thing to what they need/want anyway) or at least that would be the theory.

As stated above I guess you could stretch a 900.But you can't be all things to all people or you would end up with 15 flavours of the aircraft!


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 23328 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 13):
But (and here is the rub).No 777-300erx is going to deliver what they want either! Can't, not in a million years. So now we can see why Airbus did not involve them in their discussions.

I would not say "impossible". Based on what Mr. Clark stated, his 777-300ERs are going out to LAX with no cargo and 334 seats filled. So he needs another 1.5 tons of payload lift to fill those 20 seats.

An EK 777-200LR on DXB-LAX burns ~121t of fuel and needs 133t to meet legal minimums. I figure a 777-300ER's fuel burn is likely not too different, especially on such a long mission (over 15 hours flight time) where the plane is at cruise.

So if GE and Boeing can reduce the minimum legal fuel load by 1% they could just about recover those 20 seats. And every 1% reduction beyond that is good for 1.3t of revenue cargo payload.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 22578 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):

I don't see Boeing having anything to really throw against the A350-900

Supposedly the B787-10X would be pitted against the A359 (according to Boeing), but I see the B787-10X as more of an A333 with "extra legs" (range/payload) than a "true" A359 competitor.

That being said, I've also heard carriers such as EK, BA as well as other Asian carriers would benefit from such a plane...makes sense.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 10):
I continue to be perplexed by Tim Clark's absolute focus on his longest and most demanding missions when Europe and the Indian subcontinent are really EK's core business. The original A350-1000 would have been a better plane than the 77W, or the "new" A350-1000, for much of what EK does -- certainly enough to warrant 20 to 50 aircraft. Too much focus on ULH will result in a fleet of too-heavy airplanes.

Maybe he knows a bit more than we do... 
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The real battle would be the 777-300ERX vs. the A350-1000HGW. I've heard for years that EK really saw the A350-1000 as a "super 777-200ER" and not a true 777-300ER competitor. And Mr. Clark's latest comments about the original A350-1000 being a great 777-300A replacement seems to confirm what I've been hearing.

A few of us have heard about this for a while.. 
Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
An EK 777-200LR on DXB-LAX burns ~121t of fuel and needs 133t to meet legal minimums. I figure a 777-300ER's fuel burn is likely not too different, especially on such a long mission (over 15 hours flight time) where the plane is at cruise.

So if GE and Boeing can reduce the minimum legal fuel load by 1% they could just about recover those 20 seats. And every 1% reduction beyond that is good for 1.3t of revenue cargo payload.

I was thinking that EK would eventually use a "later-generation" A380 for such a route...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 22404 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
Supposedly the B787-10X would be pitted against the A359 (according to Boeing), but I see the B787-10X as more of an A333 with "extra legs" (range/payload) than a "true" A359 competitor.

Agreed.

It should be epic on missions of up to 10 hours, but for anything longer, the A350-900 will certainly have the edge.



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
I was thinking that EK would eventually use a "later-generation" A380 for such a route...

Also agreed. But until the route is strong enough to consistently need more than 350 seats, the 777-300ER would be their platform.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 21493 times:

Reading the articles in Flight, I am getting the impression that we really don't know the full story about what's going on between EK and Airbus about the A350-1000, largely because I can't believe they would make such a change unilaterally, without letting its current customers - particularly the big ones - know; surely no one would do this: "sorry, we've made a change to your originally contracted model, which will result in a two year delay" - in any field, let alone aviation.

So, what is really happening? I guess another issue is that it's not entirely clear what EK wants the 350-1000 to do; at one stage, a while back, we were hearing that it didn't have the range of the 77W, yet now, it seems to be aimed at high density routes up to 5,000mi? (Or am I reading that wrongly).

It doesn't surprise me in the least that EK is working with Boeing on a 777-300ERX; I think that has been an open secret for some time. Notwithstanding this, however, it still seems that there is space in the EK fleet for a 350-1000 size aircraft, but not in the 77W's range class. It will, as some above have suggested, be closer to a 773 (non-ER). I guess what I'd really like to hear from TC is a clear statement of what he expects the aircraft to do; tell Airbus directly and quit the grandstanding!


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 20525 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
I was thinking that EK would eventually use a "later-generation" A380 for such a route...

Also agreed. But until the route is strong enough to consistently need more than 350 seats, the 777-300ER would be their platform.

EK does fly 2 B77W's to LAX daily so I wouldn't be surprised to see that by the time EK do get their later-gen. A380's the numbers will be there...

Quoting Stitch (Reply 16):
It should be epic on missions of up to 10 hours, but for anything longer, the A350-900 will certainly have the edge.

That's about a 4000nm route. A lot of routes would fit into that category.   



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1596 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19984 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):
EK does fly 2 B77W's to LAX daily

When did they remove the 77L off the route? And what drove the decision to make the change?


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19619 times:

The CEO of Qatar, the launch customer is voicing similar concerns about the A350-1000. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ncel-a350-1000s-after-upgrade.html
It sounds like both EK and QR want the -1000 to simply be a better 77W. It's clear that a ton of airlines love the 77W, and it isn't hard to see why.
Even though I'm a huge 77W fan, I don't necessarily see the major drawback of a plane that has slightly more range than a 77W and 20 fewer seats. Shouldn't the A350 have significant fuel burn improvements over the 77W?

However, from the article, it sounds like it won't have a significantly lower CASM on 77W-length missions. Maybe 5%? How is this possible on a new CFRP aircraft?


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1610 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 19097 times:

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 20):
It sounds like both EK and QR want the -1000 to simply be a better 77W

But I really don't think it will be a true one on one 77W replacement. And I don't think most airlines regarded it as such. That's why the 77W kept selling, and the A35J wasn't such a runaway success as Airbus had hoped. So Airbus tried to close the gap - but didn't quite make it yet. But it became a bit less fuel efficient and 2 years later as a result. And that's where I believe the disappointment came from. Either do it right, or don't bother at all and stick with the original design. Although IMO the original A350-1000 wouldn't have made its EIS target of 2015 anyway.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 20):
Shouldn't the A350 have significant fuel burn improvements over the 77W?

Absolutely. And once the A35J gets close to EIS, we will see 77W orders dry up. Boeing hopes that this won't happen before 2018-2019, and will have launched a 777NG by then. And it can be successful, not by competing directly with the A35J, but positioning it between the -1000 and the A380 as a longer, wider (10 abreast, sorry people) aircraft. It's the only chance to match the A35J's CASM.

Quoting bonusonus (Reply 20):
However, from the article, it sounds like it won't have a significantly lower CASM on 77W-length missions. Maybe 5%? How is this possible on a new CFRP aircraft?

5-10%, from earlier comments from QR and EK. CFRP isn't the miracle product many people thought. Additional lightning protection is needed, making things heavier than originally planned. Look at the difference in efficiency between the current A332 and 788, it isn't that much of a gap at all (yet). And I still believe the panel approach is a bit less efficient than barrels, although there are conflicting reports.



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,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 17610 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 17):
know; surely no one would do this: "sorry, we've made a change to your originally contracted model, which will result in a two year delay"
Quoting bonusonus (Reply 20):
it sounds like it won't have a significantly lower CASM on 77W-length missions. Maybe 5%? How is this possible on a new CFRP aircraft?



I think there is genuine and reasonable concern that Airbus is having, and may continue to have trouble meeting their promised specs. The most recent "improvement" to the 1000 should not result in a two year delay if the original was on track at this stage of development.

What well run airlines need is certainty and risk alleviation, and that is what the current and future 777 has that the 350-1000 does not have, and that is why they are still selling, despite Airbus performance figures which should have stopped the 777 in its tracks.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15925 times:

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 19):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 18):
EK does fly 2 B77W's to LAX daily

When did they remove the 77L off the route? And what drove the decision to make the change?

I have no idea really. I do recall taking an EK B77L photo @ LAX back in May but I was looking at their schedules this morning and it stated B77Ws but now its back to 1 B77W and 1 B77L maybe it was a typo by me?

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 21):
, but positioning it between the -1000 and the A380 as a longer, wider (10 abreast, sorry people) aircraft. It's the only chance to match the A35J's CASM.

If Boeing can improve the sidewalls (make them thinner and more efficient) then 10-across wouldn't be too bad.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 21):
Look at the difference in efficiency between the current A332 and 788, it isn't that much of a gap at all (yet). And I still believe the panel approach is a bit less efficient than barrels, although there are conflicting reports.

From what I'm hearing, even the first batch of B787's are going to have incredible economics over the A332.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15744 posts, RR: 27
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 14993 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Thread starter):
EK's TC has spoken about the new 777 and says that "There's a lot of work going on [at Boeing on the new 777], and we're involved in it". He added that Boeing is "ready to rock and roll" and that if it meets EK's needs then it could sign up as a launch customer.

Not really a surprise, but I'm not quite sure why Boeing would make a major investment in the 777 at this point.

Quoting parapente (Reply 6):
Well if they don't like the new improved -1000 (not enough of a plane) God knows what they thought of the origonal!

I thought the original -1000 was better, and would have been an excellent plane for Middle Eastern carriers. Not a 77W replacement on longer flights, but for flying to India, Southeast Asia, and Europe it would have been hard to beat. It will still be pretty good, but I don't think the gains at the top end justify sacrificing performance on shorter flights.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The real battle would be the 777-300ERX vs. the A350-1000HGW. I've heard for years that EK really saw the A350-1000 as a "super 777-200ER" and not a true 777-300ER competitor.

That makes sense, except that it raises the question of why he feels the need to bitch about its range then.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 21):
Boeing hopes that this won't happen before 2018-2019, and will have launched a 777NG by then.

With the A350 being bumped back, the 777 can keep selling until about that time. By that point Boeing might as well launch an all new plane rather than an improved 777 that would have to rely on extra capacity to get close to the A350 on costs. It would be okay for Emirates and Cathay, but likely wouldn't be that appealing to a lot of other customers.

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 19):
When did they remove the 77L off the route? And what drove the decision to make the change?

Even with the restriction, EK probably still nets 40-50 extra seats on the 77W.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 JoeCanuck : I wonder how much weight Boeing could shave off using the new exotic aluminums for the entire structure. Alcoa is pushing their new tin as a viable a
26 alangirvan : When the 777-300ER was first being discussed, some reporters said that some Asian carriers were asking Boeing for 50 extra seats, with no range penal
27 BMI727 : If some of the rumors on this site are to be believed, potentially quite a bit. Honestly I think this is the way to go for the 777: just make several
28 ComeAndGo : He has said it before, he wants to move Pax + 20t cargo between Dubai and LA. First it was a "promised" A346 that could do the job but only to SFO. T
29 JoeCanuck : I can't really find any good figures...how much lighter is the current iteration of the 350-1000 than the 77W?
30 Stitch : Airbus has yet to release any OEM specification OEW figures. Figures I have heard for actual airline configurations is under 10 tons.
31 cx828 : so may be CX can use some new 777 to launch HKG-DFW or HKG-MIA without payload restriction??
32 JoeCanuck : Thanks...and that's about what Clark wants Boeing to take out of the 77W. As well as maybe doing the nifty new aluminum thing, would it be possible f
33 morrisond : When BoeEng was a frequent poster on this site, he mentioned being able to take major weight (a few tons) out of a re-engineered/optimised wing (it co
34 VC10er : Apology from a novice... What does ULH mean/stand for? And what does the W stand for as in 777W? Thanks...
35 RWA380 : ULH = Ultra long haul
36 VC10er : I wouldn't have figured that out on my own! Thanks
37 kaitak : The "W" doesn't actually mean anything as such; it's just the model identifier for the -300ER, just as "74Y" is the identifier for the 747-400F; the
38 Post contains images CXB77L : Admittedly, as a biased, dyed-in-the-wool 777 fan, part of me is wishing that the A350-1000 falls flat on its face ... I think this is precisely wher
39 Post contains images ferpe : Here is the story for those who can read a range-payload diagram, the 77W figures are the real ones from Boeings APAC document, the 350-1000 classic a
40 Jacobin777 : Here we go, I am currently checking the EK's timetable-both flights are listed as a B77W. Dubai (DXB) Los Angeles (LAX) 14 September 2011 EK217 DXB 0
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...
A340 Conviasa Ready To Be Delivered? posted Mon Mar 5 2007 15:45:37 by FCKC
Martin George To Be New CEO Of Gulf Air? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 21:17:14 by GF-A330
Emirates A380 To Be Delivered In April/Fly In July posted Wed Apr 26 2006 12:00:28 by Singapore_Air
F9 To Be New Reality Show Star posted Fri Apr 29 2005 00:34:37 by UAL747DEN
Klagenfurt To Be New Destination For HLX! posted Wed Jul 16 2003 19:51:35 by RJ100
Boeing To Introduce New 777 Member: 777-250ERX posted Tue Nov 5 2002 19:26:01 by Bigo747
New Delta 777 To Be At LAX, Open To Public! posted Mon Mar 27 2000 20:37:31 by DeltaAir
Air India 777 Likely To Be Scrapped posted Tue Jan 4 2011 08:38:59 by na
Will The New United Be The Next 739ER Operator? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 11:52:15 by EA772LR
Boeing 777-200 BCF To Be Started In 2011? posted Tue Oct 19 2010 07:03:37 by 328JET