Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing 777-8X And -9X Now In The Pipe Line Part 2  
User currently offlinewilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9969 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Thread #1 is closed now, please continue the discussion here:

Boeing 777-8X And -9X Now In The Pipe Line (by MSN007 Jan 10 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Many thanks and enjoy.


It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9872 times:

The last posts was about hindsight in the 330re vs 350 saga, there is a lot to be said about that. In order keep the thread on it's subject I will do a comparision of the 358 vs a 333 as an example of the dilemma B is facing with 787-10 vs the 777-8. Bear with me as it pans out    :



   A333 vs 358
Once the 358 becomes available in 2015 (3 years down the line, ie present planning horizon of an airline IMO) what about the economics of this frame vs ordering a new 333 for legs up to 12 hours (assuming the 333 has sharklets by then and 340t MTOW)? I can only cover payload and fuel burn in a rough manner, the rest is for someone else to cover   . The 333 will have an OEW of some 6t lower then the 358 (125 vs 131t spec), the average fuel burns are 6t vs 5.3t/hr on max range legs. They both have about the same MSP, some spec 50t ie in reality some 45t or less. The 358 uses it's 19t higher MTOW to cover its 6t higher empty weight and to fly 2+ hours longer. At full load the 358 can fly 12 hour sectors, the updated 333 10 hours, at a lower max pax load some 16 vs 13 hours.

As can be seen they will both be very practical frames, on the frequent below 10 hours sectors the 333s lighter weight will even out the fuel burn deficit and it's 5 meter longer cabin will increase the revenue potential. If the 358 is equipped with 9 abrest economy they will be very similar in pax capability but the 333s 33 LD3 beats the 358s 28. So if you can fill the 333 vs a 358 you will have a close call on primary operating costs (fuel, crew etc) vs revenue potential. For ULH operation there is no question, the 358 gives you that flexibility. Now for other to speculate how our fictive airline will decide for a 2016 EIS (we have a promise from JL to get 2016 poitions for both    )



   B787-10 vs 777-8 (assuming the -8 uses the 200 fuse)
More difficult to say as none is frozen yet but about the same discussion    , a lighter 787-10 ( 131t vs 137t assumed with present proposed definitions) with a 5m longer cabin and a fuel burn of some 5.6t vs 6t/hr. The empty weights and MSPs are one tick higher (131 vs 137t and MSP about 55t spec for both) but the range capabilitys are about the same as the A case, -10 goes 10h vs 12h at full load and stops at 13h at max pax vs 16h for the -8. So with some small adjustment what would be your planning preference for a 2018 EIS, the -10 or the -8? (Albaugh told me we will get the slots and they will be on time  Wow!    )



  
Of course one would need to drag buying price, fiancing, maintenance cost and the whole thing into it but at this level what is the obvious reflections    ?

PS As Airbus just put their 2012 pricelist on the web here the list: 333 231m$ and 358 245m$. Now I think we can get a good price for the slow selling 358  dollarsign  . The prices for the 787-10 and 777-8 for someone else to speculate about DS

[Edited 2012-01-19 02:28:14]


Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9726 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The A350-800 is to the A330-200 what the A340-500 was to the A340-300 - a bit larger plane that is significantly heavier in order to give it C-Market (14,000km +) range. Using your 131t manufacturer spec OEM figure, that is 14t more than the A330-200.

Now the A350-800 inherits its range by default, since it is a straight shrink of the A350-900, which is also a C-Market plane. And Airbus seem to be trying to make the best of it by offering a higher MTOW option (259t) to allow it to maximize the payload-range curve. And Airbus' marketing materials for the A350-800 point out that it can carry 30 more passengers almost 2000nm farther than the latest (238t) A330-200.



Back to the 777-8 and 777-9, I'll just restate my opinion that the 777-8 should be a 74m "777-300ERX" and the 777-9 should be an 80m "777-400ER". Boeing should not bother with a 64m model (777-200) because the A350-900 and 787-9 already have that market covered.



I still think the idea of a "777X/777NG" is not a great one, however. They should just drive down the manufacturing costs of the 777 as much as possible and get GE to PiP as much as they can out of the GE90 and just keep shifting what 777s they can for another decade until a 70m and 80m Y3 can be readied for service.

[Edited 2012-01-19 05:02:44]

[Edited 2012-01-19 05:03:30]

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 9646 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Back to the 777-8 and 777-9, I'll just restate my opinion that the 777-8 should be a 74m "777-300ERX" and the 777-9 should be an 80m "777-400ER". Boeing should not bother with a 64m model (777-200) because the A350-900 and 787-9 already have that market covered.

I guess that is what I think they should do as well. On the lower end of the spectrum the B777, even the X-version, will most likely be clearly beaten by the B787 and A350. At the top of the range the chances for the B777-X are the best, and maybe not too bad compared to the A35J (if you can fill it to the extend necessary).


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9592 times:

I see the 777-8X as a 777-200LR sucessor and the 787-10 as a 777-200A/777-200ER replacement. So the 787-10 will be well below the range of the 777-8X, so there will be two different airplanes for different missions.

Anyway, the 787-10 range will be below the 787-9. The -10 will be mainly targeted for TATL-routes, respectively.

A much lighter 777-8X (than 77L) should be sold better than it's predecessor and will be a perfect platform for the new 777 Freighter.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8928 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Below are some points raised in the CX A359 order thread which probably belongs in here, as it has little relevance to CX's A359 order.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
EK made it quite clear when they placed this order that they did so because they could no longer get their A350-1000's in the 2015-2017 time period, and as an insurance against further slippages to availablility of the A350-1000.

With that extra 50 being delivered just before the A35Js arrive, wouldn't they end up with more planes than they really need, assuming the A35J arrives on time? I think there's a little more to it than just 'insurance', but rather they are intended for replacement of its earliest 77Ws and/or expansion. Otherwise, they would've leased them.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 23):
As I said above, is the extra few percent of capacity worth an extra fleet type. I'm yet to be convinced it is, but if Boeing pull another rabbit out of its hat as it did with the 77W, then yes I can see it, if not I'm scepticle that it is worth it.

If they aren't already a 777 operator, I would be inclined to agree. But since they are, it's not really 'adding an extra type' with the costs associated with that. They already operate a substantial fleet of 777s, and presumably, transition between the current 77W and the future 77X would be minimal.

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 23):
They talked about the 748 quite a bit too, but that went nowhere.

That's because Boeing didn't build the 748 that they wanted, which - if I recall correctly - was to be a 744 sized, 8500nm plane, instead of a 76m stretch, 8000nm plane.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 27):
I’m intrigued as to why you think they would replace existing 77Ws with new build ones when the A35J will be able to operate the same routes but at a substantially reduced costs.

Because of the extra 50 77Ws that they recently ordered. Yes, I know they said it's for 'insurance', but supposing some of those 50 77Ws would replace its earliest 2005-build 77Ws, and others used as fleet expansion, then you are left with a new-ish fleet of 77Ws that are still too young to be replaced.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10109 posts, RR: 97
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8753 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
I think there's a little more to it than just 'insurance', but rather they are intended for replacement of its earliest 77Ws and/or expansion. Otherwise, they would've leased them.

I was going by what they said. And that's what they said.
What they do with them is something different, but in the context of the debate, nowhere has it been mentioned about using 773ER's to allow them to cancel their A350-1000's

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
They already operate a substantial fleet of 777s, and presumably, transition between the current 77W and the future 77X would be minimal.

That is, of course, a presumtion.

For what it's worth, one of the A340NG's achilles heels was that it was different enough to the original A340-200 and -300 to largely negate the transition costs to the 777.

The 777X will exhibit similar characteristics if it is changed enough (and from whqat I see it bears little resemblance to the 777's flying today

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
That's because Boeing didn't build the 748 that they wanted, which - if I recall correctly - was to be a 744 sized, 8500nm plane, instead of a 76m stretch, 8000nm plane

What's ironic about that is that the "stretched" 748i has very similar range capability to the A380-800 anyway.
If LH's configurations are anything to go by, I suspect it is the A380's ability to be lavish with the accommodation, and STILL make economic sense that swung the balance..

Rgds


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8597 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
That's because Boeing didn't build the 748 that they wanted, which - if I recall correctly - was to be a 744 sized, 8500nm plane, instead of a 76m stretch, 8000nm plane.

EK was, IMO, never serious. At best, it might have been a hedge against the A380 delivery delays for the North American missions that the 77Ws could not do at high loads, but once frame availability slipped from the original late 2009/early 2010, that went out the window. The 747-8 today could fly 9000nm and EK would eschew it, IMO.



Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):
If LH's configurations are anything to go by, I suspect it is the A380's ability to be lavish with the accommodation, and STILL make economic sense that swung the balance.

Agreed. Based on lightsaber's analysis, the 747-8 looks to (theoretically) have the advantage with high-density Economy cabins. Yes, the A380 can pack even more folks in, but the 747-8 could have the better balance of supply of seats meeting demand for seats. But when it comes to premium cabin, the A380 is untouchable in economics, IMO.

So I guess Boeing needs another GFC to kill premium cabin demand to really spur interest.   


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 741 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8578 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
Quoting astuteman (Reply 22):
EK made it quite clear when they placed this order that they did so because they could no longer get their A350-1000's in the 2015-2017 time period, and as an insurance against further slippages to availablility of the A350-1000.

With that extra 50 being delivered just before the A35Js arrive, wouldn't they end up with more planes than they really need, assuming the A35J arrives on time? I think there's a little more to it than just 'insurance', but rather they are intended for replacement of its earliest 77Ws and/or expansion. Otherwise, they would've leased them.


I'd say the options are the insurance.

I've read on this site that EK own very few aircraft, so most of the recent EK 777 purchases are based on a sale and lease back at the time of delivery, I have asked if any members of this site have good information on how long they are leased for, but I only know that the 343's leases expire this year. As far as I know they lease aircraft for about 12 years, so based on that, if the last 77W is delivered around 2018, they should all leave the fleet by about 2030, 2020-2030 seems a good time frame for a gradual replacement of them all with 35J or 777X's or both, with the optioned 77W 's as insurance if either or both new planes are late. Also, if they are all on a 12 year lease, there are over 40 77W to be replaced between 2017-2020, thats without thinking about replacing the 58 772's, 345's, 773's & 332's which are going to need replacing. Thats the best part of 100 planes to be replaced with existing 359 & 77W orders, without thinking about expansion. The more I think about it, the more it falls into place, assuming the lease duration is 12 years.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 5):
Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 23):
They talked about the 748 quite a bit too, but that went nowhere.

That's because Boeing didn't build the 748 that they wanted, which - if I recall correctly - was to be a 744 sized, 8500nm plane, instead of a 76m stretch, 8000nm plane.


Thats very true but do you think EK will get the 777X they want this time?


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8503 times:

I note that in Flight online they speak more about the use of blended winglets on the 330 along with upping the lifting capability of the aircraft. It is very clear that they have by no means given up on the aircraft.And nor should they,Boeing still have real problems both cranking out 787's and also getting them on a diet. These 2 factors alone will keep the 330 ticking along very nicely. The 777NG's do not compete directly with them,neither in fact does the 787-10 unless they can reduce weight/increase range.Which we have yet to see.
In the longer term it would have to have a Gen-x 2B to stay compeditive. But no need for it today as the 787 order line stretches so far to the right.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8274 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 8):
The more I think about it, the more it falls into place, assuming the lease duration is 12 years.

Doric Air Finance sells shares in their EK A388 and 77W leases and the lease time-frame is 12 years.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7969 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Back to the 777-8 and 777-9, I'll just restate my opinion that the 777-8 should be a 74m "777-300ERX" and the 777-9 should be an 80m "777-400ER".

That would make the 777-8 a 385 seat(3 class marketing with 10 Y) and 777-9 a 415 seat aircraft. I don't see the 777-9 happening though.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I still think the idea of a "777X/777NG" is not a great one, however.

I would agree. By my calculations, 777-9X(77W length) beats the A350-1000 on operating economics only in EK or AF type cabin layout(7J and 10Y). For most other airlines, A350-1000 should have better operating economics than B777-9X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
They should just drive down the manufacturing costs of the 777 as much as possible and get GE to PiP as much as they can out of the GE90 and just keep shifting what 777s they can for another decade until a 70m and 80m Y3 can be readied for service

By my calculations, a 10 abreast platform with equivalent technology and capability has better operating economics than a 9-abreast platform beyond 370-380 seats(3 class marketing). A 70m Y3(365 seats, 10 abreast)) will nearly straddle the efficiency dividing line between 9 and 10 abreast platform.

IMO, Boeing will likely reengine and rewing the current B77W before undertaking Y3.



Quoting ferpe (Reply 1):
PS As Airbus just put their 2012 pricelist on the web here the list: 333 231m$ and 358 245m$. Now I think we can get a good price for the slow selling 358 .

B789 has a list price of $227 million. Unless you must buy Airbus, B788 and B789(in 9-abreast Y) make excellent replacements for A332 and A333 respectively.


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7531 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 11):
B789 has a list price of $227 million. Unless you must buy Airbus, B788 and B789(in 9-abreast Y) make excellent replacements for A332 and A333 respectively.

What are the seating capacities of the B788/B789 in comparison to the A332/A333? The unreliable numbers I have, respectively, are 264/280 and 293/335.

Based on that data, even the 789 is smaller, capacity wise, than the 332. So... you pay less to get less?

I've always assumed that the 788 is 764 sized, and the 789 is A330-200 sized..

EDIT: I looked at the Boeing/Airbus website.. 788: 230-250, 789: 250-290. 332: 253, 300. And.. 764: 245, 358: 250, 359: 300.

So basically, the 788 is a direct competitor to the A330-200 (for cheaper) which in turn is getting replaced in-house by the A350-800. And the 789 is a direct competitor to the A330-300 (also cheaper) which in turn is getting replaced in-house by the A350-900. So.. The 772 is being replaced by the 789/78-10. 773's competitor is the A350-1000. I thought the A350 was supposed to be *larger* than the A330, like.. the A350-800 replaced A333, A359 gets into 777 territory, etc. When did this change?

I can't imagine an A350-1100 rolling off the factory, so effectively a 787-10 or 777-400 would own the market between 773 and 748/A388.

[Edited 2012-01-23 22:51:03]

[Edited 2012-01-23 22:51:53]


Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 685 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7414 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):

  

If even JL can admit that a 773-er with almost 2 decades + worth of old technology "is a tough nut to crack" what makes them(Airbus) think that the techs at Boeing aren't going to tighten their grip on this cash cow of a market even more?? Airbus in this scenario will have to show its hand before Boeing does in respect to the new T7's being developed.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7208 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
What are the seating capacities of the B788/B789 in comparison to the A332/A333?

The 787-8 cabin is about 2.5 meters shorter than the A330-200 and the 787-9 cabin is about 2 meters shorter than the A330-300. So the 787s will fit roughly one less row of Business Class or two less rows of Economy Class. They will fit one extra seat per row in Economy, so overall they will hold more people.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1610 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7175 times:

re reply 14.
Yes but...
The 788 is as near as damn it a better 767.The 789 is the model really aimed at the heart of the 330 straddling both expressions. However it was origionally designed to continue the new standard of seating set by the 777. (very nice IMHO).But to gain an edge they have had to offer the aircraft with 707 17" seats.Ok on a 737 shorthaul but a pain (IMHO) on long 744 type trips.
Range.It appears time and time again that Airbus can and will (sharklets/T/O weight) be able to match range.So it is really about fuel burn (and the non existance at this point of the 789).How much is airframe and how much is engine? If it is not the airframe (ie the extra weight issue "sticks") then they better watch out as there is an engine ready and waiting (it's on the 748) for the 330.
Boeing will have known that they were developing the perfect (bleed) engine for the 330.I wonder if there are any clauses in their contract with GE on this engine?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting parapente (Reply 15):
I wonder if there are any clauses in their contract with GE on this engine?

I am 110% confident there will not be an A330neo.

Airbus won't offer it because it hurts the current RoI on the A330 (due to the extra costs of creating it) and the future RoI of the A350 (because some airlines bought it because there was no A330neo).

GE won't make an engine for it unless they have exclusivity. And considering how many A330s have been delivered - and are scheduled to be delivered - with the Trent 700 engine (because it's the best engine on the A330 right now), how many airlines are going to scrap that investment to go GE when they can get RR on the A350?

RR won't make an engine for it because they already own the A330 market with the Trent 700 and they own the A350 market with the Trent XWB.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10109 posts, RR: 97
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7093 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
The 772 is being replaced by the 789/78-10. 773's competitor is the A350-1000. I thought the A350 was supposed to be *larger* than the A330, like.. the A350-800 replaced A333, A359 gets into 777 territory, etc. When did this change?

I can't imagine an A350-1100 rolling off the factory, so effectively a 787-10 or 777-400 would own the market between 773 and 748/A388.

I think you can exclude the 787-10 from that scenario. There's no way it will be bigger than the A350-1000 or 777-300ER.

The last I recall from Boeing was that it was to be a c. 5m stretch of the 787-9, limited by the trade-off between weights and range, and being limited to c. 252 tonnes, which would limit it to about the same c. 280m2 cabin area as the A350-900 and 777-200ER/LR
The A350-900 is almost exactly the same cabin size as the 772ER, being slightly narrower and slightly longer.
The A350-1000 just falls short of the 773ER, being the same length but slightly narrower.

I'm intigued that you have no difficulty whatsoever imagining a 777-400 "rolling off the factory", but can't imagine an A350-1100 doing so.
Curious.
I'd be interested to know why.

Rgds


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4802 posts, RR: 40
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7071 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
I'm intigued that you have no difficulty whatsoever imagining a 777-400 "rolling off the factory", but can't imagine an A350-1100 doing so.
Curious.
I'd be interested to know why.


I sometimes still think there are two different sets of laws of physics on A-net. Those that apply to Airbus and those that apply to Boeing. Which miraculously are applied whenever they suit certain arguments.  .

The harsh reality however is that there is only one set of laws of physics. Every day practice shows that now, and will do show so in the future. Though some might be desperately hanging on to their favorite airplane which today might be the standard. In 6 years time or so that landscape of standards will have shifted towards the B787 and A350, and away from the A330 and even more from the B777.

How much the B777-X can make up of that is still unknown. But it for sure will never match the newest standard setting planes on the market.  .


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6879 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
I sometimes still think there are two different sets of laws of physics on A-net. Those that apply to Airbus and those that apply to Boeing. Which miraculously are applied whenever they suit certain arguments.

Yes, absolutely. I wonder where people get THAT idea.....  


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6564 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The 787-9 is a direct replacement for the 777-200 family if you seat 4 abreast in First, 6 abreast in Business and 9 abreast in Economy as they have appear to have identical cabin lengths of ~48m based on data I have seen on the Net.

The 787-10X has fluctuated between a 5m and 6m stretch (so 53-54m cabin length), so it would fall between the 777-200 and 777-300 families (the 777-300 has a ~58m cabin).

Based on data I have seen on the Net, the A350-900 looks to have a ~52m cabin length, so the 787-10X will be a bit larger (by 1-2m).


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21544 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 787-9 is a direct replacement for the 777-200 family if you seat 4 abreast in First, 6 abreast in Business and 9 abreast in Economy as they have appear to have identical cabin lengths of ~48m based on data I have seen on the Net.

The 787-10X has fluctuated between a 5m and 6m stretch (so 53-54m cabin length), so it would fall between the 777-200 and 777-300 families (the 777-300 has a ~58m cabin).

Based on data I have seen on the Net, the A350-900 looks to have a ~52m cabin length, so the 787-10X will be a bit larger (by 1-2m).

This is why I don't agree with you on the 777-8 being the length of the 77W. I think it should be the length of the 787-10X proposal, and the 777-9 be 80m. Rather than nominal capacity of 365 and 415, (too close), that brings the 70m 778 to 340 seats or so, giving a more reasonable spacing between the two models, and still enough of a difference between the 789 and 778 as well (290-340).



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
I'm intigued that you have no difficulty whatsoever imagining a 777-400 "rolling off the factory", but can't imagine an A350-1100 doing so.
Curious.
I'd be interested to know why.

Happy birthday! Now, as far as the stretch. The 777 has two lengths, -200 and -300. The A350 already has three lengths, and I assume that the -900 and -1000 are stretches of the -800. So.. Effectively an A350-1100 would be a 3rd stretch, making a total of 4 lengths. Doesn't an air-frame get to a point where it's so long that it loses efficiency drastically?

Unless, the A358 is a shrunken A359 (which would then be the "original" A350) meaning that the -1000 and -1100 would be, respectively, like the -300 and "-400" of the 777.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 17):
I think you can exclude the 787-10 from that scenario. There's no way it will be bigger than the A350-1000 or 777-300ER.

Okay, thanks. I was confusing the *old* proposed 787-10 with whatever is in planning phases now.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 18):
I sometimes still think there are two different sets of laws of physics on A-net. Those that apply to Airbus and those that apply to Boeing. Which miraculously are applied whenever they suit certain arguments.  .

Oh please, don't get into a tizzy. I think many of us here can agree that four airframe stretches is a lot different than three, likewise for 3 vs. 2. If Airbus OR Boeing could keep on stretching their aircraft without any range/payload penalties we'd be seeing 60m long 737/A320. Not every post with A and B in it is A vs. B, you know.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 13):
If even JL can admit that a 773-er with almost 2 decades + worth of old technology "is a tough nut to crack" what makes them(Airbus) think that the techs at Boeing aren't going to tighten their grip on this cash cow of a market even more?? Airbus in this scenario will have to show its hand before Boeing does in respect to the new T7's being developed.

I don't think Airbus thinks that Boeing is sitting this through, at all. And if they did, they'd have to be mighty stupid.. because.. you know, this entire thread is based on rumours of Boeing actually taking action to make a 777NG. I'm sure that the information Airbus has on Boeing is much greater than what we Anetters know.



Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I still think the idea of a "777X/777NG" is not a great one, however. They should just drive down the manufacturing costs of the 777 as much as possible and get GE to PiP as much as they can out of the GE90 and just keep shifting what 777s they can for another decade until a 70m and 80m Y3 can be readied for service.

That's probably ideal. At least that way, once the A350 has been introduced Boeing can know exactly what Airbus has on the tables, and (hopefully) beat it to pieces with a "Y3." The 777 has already set the bar quite high.


[Edited 2012-01-24 17:41:40]


Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6415 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 21):
This is why I don't agree with you on the 777-8 being the length of the 77W. I think it should be the length of the 787-10X proposal, and the 777-9 be 80m.

I suppose it depends on what is more important to operators - seats, or total payload.

By going bigger (70m and 80m) and wider (10-abreast with the same seats as the A350 at 9-abreast), the 77X would add 6 more rows, which would be two rows more than the A350-900 and A350-1000. And each row would have one more seat in each row (Business and Economy).

So looking at EK three-class birds:

777-8: 12F | 42J | 296Y | 346T
777-200ER: 12F | 42J | 236Y | 290T
A350-900: 6F | 35J | 249Y | 290T *

777-9: 12F | 42J | 364Y | 418T
777-300ER: 12F | 42J | 304Y | 358T
A350-1000: 12F | 35J | 270Y | 317T **

* - EK have stated that the A350-900 will seat 290, as well, so I am guessing the A350-900 would have a smaller First Class section and a larger Economy section. At the same “row-density” of the 777-200ER, the A350-900 would seat 260 in 12F | 35J | 213Y.

** - EK have stated that the A350-1000 will seat 317.




Quoting ghifty (Reply 22):
I assume that the -900 and -1000 are stretches of the -800.

The A350-900 is the baseline model. The A350-800 is a 10-frame shrink and the A350-1000 is an 11-frame stretch.

[Edited 2012-01-24 18:08:41]

User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10109 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6397 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 22):
The A350 already has three lengths, and I assume that the -900 and -1000 are stretches of the -800

Not sure why you would assume that.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 22):
Unless, the A358 is a shrunken A359 (which would then be the "original" A350) meaning that the -1000 and -1100 would be, respectively, like the -300 and "-400" of the 777

The A350-800 is currently quite specifically a simple shrink of the A350-900, which is the base model.

So yes, the A350-1000 is the first stretch.

And as EPA001 points out, there is nothing you can do to the 777 that you can't do to the A350 - the engines that Boeing are requesting for the 777X are even in the same thrust range as the A350-1000's, at c. 98k lb thrust.

Rgds


25 ghifty : Well, then never mind. I'm in total agreement that whenever can be done to the 777 can be done to the A350, since I was under the false impression th
26 Stitch : Well the fuselage diameter would remain the same, but many of us figure Boeing could get a few more inches out of the cabin width by using new (and t
27 lightsaber : This I agree with. The 777-200 length 777 is like the 736, something that sold well in the past and just won't have enough of a market to justify it
28 BlueSky1976 : The 778X would be larger in length than 777-200. I believe Boeing can make it work, it would be more like 737-700 to the -800 rather than -600.
29 ghifty : So, two 777NG's for the future. Makes some sense, but why go bigger (to the -400ER)? Airbus hasn't even said anything about an A350-1100, so the -400
30 Post contains images EPA001 : I am well aware of that. And I try (to some point) to avoid discussions like that. That explains everything. . Accepted of course.
31 Stitch : EK has stated they are interested in a larger 777. The key is how serious they are, but if they are serious, they could orders scores of them. I expe
32 Post contains links sweair : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...oise-tests-were-successful-202909/ They have done tests on a 777ER with noise reducing tech like 787 has. Will
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...
Planes And City Icons In The Same Pic. posted Thu Aug 26 2010 09:09:16 by bongo
What Determines Where UPS And FedEx Fly In The US? posted Tue Mar 18 2008 16:28:52 by FalconBird
Delta And UA Now In Merger Talks posted Wed Nov 14 2007 11:31:56 by Flydl2atl
Condition Of Pan Am And TWA 747 In The 80's posted Fri May 4 2007 22:32:06 by 747400sp
KLM Orders Boeing 777-300ER And More posted Tue Nov 14 2006 21:47:08 by Kevin
EY To JFK Now In The Schedules posted Tue Jul 4 2006 02:13:16 by Flyguy1
Translift And DC8 Charters In The 90s posted Fri Feb 17 2006 13:45:02 by Orion737
Recent And Developing Trends In The Airline Indust posted Sun May 29 2005 21:51:11 by 777STL
How Will Rp And Zw Fare In The HP/US Deal? posted Sat Apr 23 2005 19:39:50 by Jdwfloyd
WN And HP Routes In The West Question posted Thu Apr 21 2005 01:11:55 by PanAm747