Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Studies 777-8LX Ultra Long Concept  
User currently offlinecubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 410 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37917 times:

Boeing studies replacement of 777.200LR (Concept only) Service entry estimated 2020s. Mission range of 9480 nm. Estimated 14-16% fuel fuel burn per seat improvement over present -200LR.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...long-range-777-8lx-concept-368176/

160 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinephishphan70 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37950 times:

Glad to see the LR market being included into the 777X plans. Now if only I could afford my own.....

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37913 times:

From my too-late thread starter on the same subject...

I was assuming, and I expect everyone else here was too, that the 777-8X concept was a ULH-ranged straight shrink of the 777-9X. Apparently, not so. The 777-8X would be an 8000 nm shrink with derated engines, and now Boeing says it's studying a 9500 nm 777-8LX as well.

Personally, I can't see the point of either variant. They will be heavier than the A350-1000 but offer less capacity. The -8LX might sell a few copies for ULH, but I don't see any mission where the -8X would be the best product. The 787-10 would be better on shorter missions, while the A350-900 or -1000 would be the best product on longer ones.

It seems to me that Boeing should focus on the -9X, letting the 787-9 take care of the 8000 nm market for smaller planes and the 787-10 take care of the high-capacity medium-haul market.   


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10818 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37808 times:

I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.


User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37647 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.

Why is that?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37601 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

It would make a good freighter.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37435 times:

This thing sounds like a nonstarter to me. The only way it could become reality is if it is basically a shrink of a 777X in longer length and therefore has negligible development costs.


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 37386 times:

Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.

User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37157 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I don't know about what sense such an ultra long haul plane should make.

But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting.


The -9X will only be 8ft longer, hardly noticeable.

This seems to be the most informative article on the 777NG to date. Seems like it confirms a lot about what has been said around here.

Three things i found really interesting.

1) either this is a typo, or they are expecting some really big things to happen with this plane. But it said the -8LX which will be a ~14ft stretch over the -200, seating 353, would have a 14-16% fuel burn per seat reduction over the current -300ER. If they can do that, again assuming it was not supposed to be over the -200ER, then this is going to be one hell of an aircraft family!

2) The are proposing two sets of wings being available. A Longer 233ft wingspan with raked wingtips and a shorter, 225ft wingspan with blended winglets.

3) That the option for the folding wings is being brought back and will become standard on all the new 777's with the 233ft wingspan. This will be done to allow the 777 retain its Code E classification while on the ground and taxiing but will move it back to type F once it enters the runway. It said that the entire raked wingtip would be what folds to save on complexity in the system. It also noted that each wingtip would be 11ft in length. This to me seems like it would pretty much make the 225ft wing useless because once folded, the larger wing will still have a shorter span (211ft vs 225) than the wingleted wing.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37153 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make

AGREE 100%

what's the idea, flight from LAX to NRT and back to LAX without refueling???


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37110 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):

Reply 7, posted Mon Feb 13 2012 18:40:21 your local time (16 minutes 17 secs ago) and read 183 times:

Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.

I'm wondering, though if this extra range is achieved without the use of auxiliary tanks.


What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing
proportionally.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37087 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing
proportionally.

That's what that huge new CFRP wing is about. Airbus is doing exactly the same thing with the A350.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37008 times:

Three questions to our panel of experts:
1. Is an increase in 85 nautical miles worth the investment cost?
2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?
3. The article points out that the 777-LR is a niche aircraft. What is the realistic market for such a plane?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 37004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I still think Boeing is doing it wrong. The 777-8 should be the length of the 777-300ER (74m) and the 777-9 should be a 6m stretch out to 80m.

That being said, I can see what Boeing is doing here: use the 787 and the 777X to bracket the A350.

787-8
A350-800
787-9
A350-900
777-8
A350-1000
777-9

(The 787-10X would slot between the A350-900 and the 777-8, but I'm not including it because it will lack the range for deep B-maket missions)



Quoting Max Q (Reply 10):
What I don't understand is the very significant decrease in engine thrust despite the gross take off weight not decreasing proportionally.

The 777X is expected to have a not-significantly wider wingspan, which will help aerodynamic loading and allow lower engine thrusts.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36844 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
That being said, I can see what Boeing is doing here: use the 787 and the 777X to bracket the A350.

Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off. The 777-8 would seem to likely be only marginally competitive and the 777-9 would have to be carrying more passengers to compare favorably with an A350-1000.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36724 times:

Might these be the only markets that could really use any type of ultra-ultra-long-haul aircraft - listed in what I believe would be the most used?

LHR-SYD - 10573 mi
JFK-SYD - 9950 mi
NRT-GRU - 11489 mi
PEK-GRU - 10922 mi
HKG-GRU - 11195 mi

Any more?


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36673 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 15):
Any more?

NYC-SYD - 9940mi


User currently offlineIAD787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36628 times:

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 12):
2. How does such a small increase in range allow airlines to eliminate the "kangaroo stop"?

It's not about range, it comes with a 15% reduction in per seat fuel burn that significantly cuts the operating cost too. The -200LR can fly the route now, but not profitably as it's payload restricted. The 777-8LX will be 14ft longer than the 200ER/LR too, which means more cargo capacity as well.

IAD787



Former FlightBlogger turned Wall Street Journal Aerospace Beat Reporter
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 739 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 36632 times:

JNB-LAX, 10385mi if we're dreaming. Or sub in EZE for GRU or SIN for the Asia destinations.

I feel like they're putting the numbers together for this concept to see if anyone would want it. Says they're mooting folding wingtips, too.

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:48:47]

User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36487 times:

I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

8285nm SINº-EWRº Singaporeˇ 345x7
7621nm SIN-LAXº Singapore 345x5
7454nm SYDº-DFW º † Qantas ˇ 74Ex6
7334nm ATLº-JNBº Deltaˇ 77Lx7
7246nm DXBº-LAX Emirates ˇ 77Wx7 77Lx7
7215nm DFW-BNEº †† Qantas 74Ex6
7186nm BKKº-LAX Thai ˇ 345x7
7097nm DXB-IAHº Emirates 77Lx7
7041nm DXB-SFOº Emirates 77Wx7
10th Longest:
7014nm HKGº-JFKº Cathay Pacific ˇ 77Wx21
7009nm EWR-HKG Continentalˇ 77Ex7 / (Cathay Pacific 77W scheduled May)
6993nm DOHº-IAH Qatarˇ 77Lx7
6987nm DXB-DFW Emirates 77Lx7
6925nm JNB-JFK South Africanˇ 346x6
6883nm MELº-LAX Qantas 388x7 / V Australiaˇ 77Wx3
6828nm DTWº-HKG Delta 77Lx4
6787nm HKG Air Canadaˇ 77Lx7 / Cathay Pacific 77Wx13
6785nm TPE º-JFK EVAˇ 77Wx4 ØØ
6784nm BOMº-EWR Air Indiaˇ 77Lx7 / Continental 77Ex7
20th longest:
6772nm HKG-ORDº Cathay Pacific 77Wx7 / Unitedˇ 744x7
6741nm YVRº-SYD Air Canada 77Lx7

From: World’s Longest Flights 15 February Update (by yeogeo Jan 29 2012 in Aviation Polls)

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:55:30]

[Edited 2012-02-13 16:58:45]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36375 times:

Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.

User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36323 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm.

With today's aircraft. All but five* of the routes listed are being performed by aircraft that appeared in the last decade. As aircraft gain more range, more payload, and lower operating cost, these routes will become more reliable, more profitable, and more city pairs over >6,700 nm will be added.

* - And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36161 times:

I think what Boeing is doing is studying evey possible option for the 777. No doubt we'll hear a lot more theoretical variants...not all of which will make it to production.

Boeing will float the ideas and it will build whatever they get orders for.



What the...?
User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36107 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.

You are correct.


User currently offlinesharktail From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 36024 times:

So how would this compare to the 787-10? More range, obviously, and apparently 30 passengers more (323 for 787-10 and 353 for the 777). But if you are looking at 15% fuel burn improvements, would anyone still be interested in the 787-10 if you can get a 777-8(L)X that goes further and is close in fuel burn?

If they can pull that off, the 787-10 could be a casualty of friendly fire defending against the 350. Then again, I think Boeing wouldn't mind that much...


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 25, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 37172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off.

The 787-10X now looks to be 68m long, which is the same as the 777-8X. So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 37173 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.

Well thought way to put this, so a plane with about a 13,000 mi range can connect nonstop any two cities in the world.

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 18):
JNB-LAX, 10385mi if we're dreaming. Or sub in EZE for GRU or SIN for the Asia destinations.

Okay, those are good, and maybe MEL or AKL could get into this with European or U.S. East Coast markets, or a BKK or KUL to certain points in South America.

But if we really bent over backwards here, and make a most liberal assessment of the routes that would be economically successful (again, big stretch here) that still may be no more than about 30 or so routes as to where this bird would be needed.

Now, my observation here is not really to debate the merits of any individual route, and I'll admit that even I think that this 30 or so number is quite high. But just assuming that it is, would there be any financial benefit for either A or B to be looking producing such a craft with this small, limited of a market? And on that, I personally don't think so.

But then, Boeing produced 747 versions that served the short-haul Japanese market.

And of course The Concorde was produced, after all.......

 

[Edited 2012-02-13 17:49:37]

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 27, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 37395 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.

Just heavier, less efficient, and less competitive. Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 37336 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 22):

One could look at this as a counter re-action towards A extending the longevity of the 330 with the 330S. I believe that B has more options available and coming to corner the 350/330S as Stitch has brought to our attention. A visual of these 777x's would be nice!!   


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 29, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 36784 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 25):
The 787-10X now looks to be 68m long, which is the same as the 777-8X. So the 777-8X is to the long-range 787-10X.

So Boeing would have a 787-10 then a 777-8 then *another* 777-8L ? Isn't that a lot of R&D dollars to span 7500-9500 nm ?

I'd still vote for this line-up

787-8 (replace 763)
787-9 (replace 764/332)
787-10 (replace 772/333/343)
777-8L (replace 77L)
777-9 (replace 77W)


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 36570 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 29):
I'd still vote for this line-up

As do I, but without any 777-8 of any kind.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 36450 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 29):
So Boeing would have a 787-10 then a 777-8 then *another* 777-8L ? Isn't that a lot of R&D dollars to span 7500-9500 nm ?

As the 787-10 directly leverages the 787-9 and the 777-8LX would directly leverage the 777-8, I would imagine the costs of both would be (relatively) minimal.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.

Since the TOW is already there to support the 777-9X, offering it as an option for the 777-8LX doesn't hurt anything. I think of it like the A350-800HGW - maybe someone will find a use for it, but if they don't, then they chose a lower MTOW and de-rated engines and save on fees and maintenance.


User currently offlineqfa787380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 32, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 36404 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 30):
As do I, but without any 777-8 of any kind.

Actually, I agree. Eventually, Boeing could do an ULH version of the 789/-10 if the demand was there. As it is, the ULH market has even less demand than the VLA market!


User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 33, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 35927 times:

Still not enough thrust, Boeing will have to think twice before De rating the engines to the extent advertised.



So what that it has a composite wing, it is still not much lighter !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 34, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 35821 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 15):
JFK-SYD - 9950 mi
Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 16):
Quoting point2point (Reply 15):Any more?
NYC-SYD - 9940mi

JFK is in NYC. You skipped over that one??? LOL



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 35655 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

Wow, lift your sights a little. 21 EXISTING flights, right? But there are potentially dozens of other city pairs that this aircraft could open up. A little imagination...


User currently offlinecbrboy From Australia, joined Apr 2007, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 35508 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
All but five* of the routes listed are being performed by aircraft that appeared in the last decade.
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 21):
* - And two of those are CO's 772ER with Ge90-94Bs, which if I recall correctly, only became available in 2000.

If you are counting the 74Es in the list as the other three, you may not realise that the 747-400ER was launched in November 2000 and Qantas received the first −400ER on October 31, 2002.


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 35110 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 34):
JFK is in NYC. You skipped over that one??? LOL

Yes, I totally missed that.

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 35):
Wow, lift your sights a little. 21 EXISTING flights, right? But there are potentially dozens of other city pairs that this aircraft could open up. A little imagination...

ULH flights are expensive to operate and I don't see the 777-8LR being much cheaper to operate the 777-200LR.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 34868 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
Personally, I can't see the point of either variant.
Quoting na (Reply 3):
I dont know about what sense such an ultralonghaul plane should make.

It would serve as the 777F replacement. Given that the 777-8F and the 777-8LX is likely to be based off the same frame, developing both a freighter and a passenger variant is quite justifiable. The 777-8LX itself may not sell many copies, but the 777-8F probably will. It's a similar situation to what's happening with the 747-8F and 747-8i. If Boeing had not released the freighter version of the 747-8, the entire program would be as good as dead in the water.

The 777-8LX will also be a terrific A345/77L replacement, and as a competitor to the theoretical A359R.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6):
This thing sounds like a nonstarter to me. The only way it could become reality is if it is basically a shrink of a 777X in longer length and therefore has negligible development costs.

The fact that the 777-8F can potentially exist off the same frame as a 777-8X / 777-8LX makes this project worthwhile.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
Sorry but 85nm more than the 77L still doesn't make a SYD-LHR non-stop possible. The fuel burn savings may extend the life of the 772 but that's about it.

SYD-LHR is 9188nm GC. The 777-8LX will have 9480nm range. Now, I don't know how much the prevailing winds will add to the equation, because that would vary from season to season, and it is highly likely that payload would be restricted on that route. But that doesn't mean it's impossible. Impractical, maybe, but not impossible.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
Yes, but to properly do that they would need a 787-10 with long enough range to really compete with the A350-1000, and I don't think they can pull that off. The 777-8 would seem to likely be only marginally competitive and the 777-9 would have to be carrying more passengers to compare favorably with an A350-1000.

But they don't have a 787-10 with long range. The 787-10 is just going to be a straight stretch of the 787-9, thus it is likely to have less range than the 787-9. The 787-10 is also needed to cover the A333 replacement market. Making a long range 787-10 could reduce its efficiency on shorter regional routes.

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
I don't see the reason to spend money on this. They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm. Does any airline really need a 9500nm plane. I don't think so.

I think you're looking at this a bit too simplistically. Currently, there aren't many airlines that uses the 77L on routes where its range would be stretched to a limit. The 77L is capable of lifting its 52t MSP up to about 7500nm before it starts taking a payload penalty. The 777-8LX will probably perform even better in that regard, making it attractive for airlines that need to haul a lot of payload a long way.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27):
Just heavier, less efficient, and less competitive. Regardless, I think this 777-8LX is an answer to a question nobody's asking.

Isn't it generally true that the longer range version of an aircraft is heavier, less efficient and less competitive at shorter ranges? The 787-10 isn't designed for long range missions. That's where the 777-8X and 777-8LX comes in. Yes, the 787 would be a much better aircraft on routes within its capabilities, but the 777-8LX will fly further than any 787 can.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 34491 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
Isn't it generally true that the longer range version of an aircraft is heavier, less efficient and less competitive at shorter ranges? The 787-10 isn't designed for long range missions. That's where the 777-8X and 777-8LX comes in. Yes, the 787 would be a much better aircraft on routes within its capabilities, but the 777-8LX will fly further than any 787 can.

The rumored 787-10 won't be spec'ed less than 7000nm. So here we're suggesting 3 planes, one for 7000nm (787-10), one for 8200 nm (777-8), then another one for 9500nm (777-8L).

Essentially splitting "B market" and "C market" into 3 planes instead of 2.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 34319 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 37):
I don't see the 777-8LR being much cheaper to operate the 777-200LR.


That's because it wont be cheaper than the current -200LR. It will be 14-16% cheaper to operate than the -300ER. Boeing wouldn't design something without having an idea if it is wanted or not.

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that its carrying nearly 20% more passengers than that of the 777-200LR, plus the extra cargo, yet flying it the 85nm further than the -200LR. Plus, that's with no aux tanks. Put it in a configuration close to today's and i can see it easily performing the ULH routes like London-Sydney.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 41, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 34008 times:

The proposed stretched 777-9X(407 seats) could end up with GSM(gallon seat mile) that matches that of A350-1000(350 seats).

The proposed stretched B777-8X(353 seats) is unlikely to be lighter than A350-1000, and will therefore be at an operating disadvantage. Acquisition cost differential will have to be a major factor if B777-8X is to be competitive against A350-1000.

A simple stretch A350-1100, with lower range, may be what Airbus ends up doing to respond to B777-9X's GSM parity with A350-1000


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 42, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 33895 times:

Quoting cubastar (Thread starter):
Boeing studies replacement of 777.200LR (Concept only) Service entry estimated 2020s. Mission range of 9480 nm. Estimated 14-16% fuel fuel burn per seat improvement over present -200LR.

No reason not to. If they are doing the 777-9X, then the 777-8XLR is no different than the 77L. It will cost next to nothing to design and certify given that the 777-9X must be designed and certified. Almost all the components will be identical.

Quoting point2point (Reply 26):

But if we really bent over backwards here, and make a most liberal assessment of the routes that would be economically successful (again, big stretch here) that still may be no more than about 30 or so routes as to where this bird would be needed.

Airlines have been buying the 77L not only for its range, but also for its lifting power. Even at hot and high airports, it lifts a lot.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 43, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 33914 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
but if they don't, then they chose a lower MTOW and de-rated engines and save on fees and maintenance.

Or just get A350s.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
The fact that the 777-8F can potentially exist off the same frame as a 777-8X / 777-8LX makes this project worthwhile.

Not so much considering that the 77F has effectively no competitors and won't for some time.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
But they don't have a 787-10 with long range.

No they don't, but if they want a 787-10 they should make it that or go ahead with the Y3. I think the appeal of a 777X is just to narrow and moves away from the sweet spot of the market. It wouldn't be the sales slug the 747-8I is, but it would not pose much, if any, threat to the A350.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
The 777-8LX will also be a terrific A345/77L replacement,

Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 38):
Making a long range 787-10 could reduce its efficiency on shorter regional routes.

It would, but if the A350 is any indication, that's what customers want. Really Boeing should just launch the Y3 towards the end of this decade for entry into service during the early 2020s. Whether a 787-10 could complement that could go either way.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 33192 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 39):
The rumored 787-10 won't be spec'ed less than 7000nm. So here we're suggesting 3 planes, one for 7000nm (787-10), one for 8200 nm (777-8), then another one for 9500nm (777-8L).

Essentially splitting "B market" and "C market" into 3 planes instead of 2.

But that's only 2 different aircraft families, so if you look at it from the development cost point of view, the 787-10 being a straight stretch of the 787-9; and the 777-8X and 777-8LX to be 'doglegged' off the 777-9X program, it is quite a cost efficient way of bringing these aircraft onto the market.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 42):
No reason not to. If they are doing the 777-9X, then the 777-8XLR is no different than the 77L. It will cost next to nothing to design and certify given that the 777-9X must be designed and certified. Almost all the components will be identical.

  

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Not so much considering that the 77F has effectively no competitors and won't for some time.

But they'll come, and when they do, Boeing will be ready for them - converting the 777-8LX into the 777-8F shouldn't incur too much in terms of development costs.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
No they don't, but if they want a 787-10 they should make it that or go ahead with the Y3. I think the appeal of a 777X is just to narrow and moves away from the sweet spot of the market. It wouldn't be the sales slug the 747-8I is, but it would not pose much, if any, threat to the A350.

I cannot agree with that. The 777X program (particularly the 777-9X) as it is proposed is going to be one hell of an aircraft. The 777-8X and 777-8LX, as proposed in the article, will also offer about 15% better seat mile costs than the current 777-300ER. Given that the 777-8X and 777-8LX offers 12 fewer seats than the current 777-300ER, that is a significant achievement.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

... which needs to be replaced eventually. Yes, the ULH market may be small, but eventually, the A345 and 77L will run out of its useful life, and if there was no replacement, how will airlines sustain those routes that require the A345 or 77L? Besides, as DocLightning mentioned, development costs of the 777-8LX will not be significant given that it can be 'piggybacked' off the 777-9X program. In the 777-8, Boeing has the opportunity to sell some airframes at very little cost. Having both the 777-8X and the 777-8LX gives Boeing the ability to cover both the A350-900 and the theoretical A350-900R, thus giving customers an option. Focussing solely on the 777-9X would be a mistake, when the 777-8X can also be developed for very little additional cost.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
It would, but if the A350 is any indication, that's what customers want. Really Boeing should just launch the Y3 towards the end of this decade for entry into service during the early 2020s. Whether a 787-10 could complement that could go either way.

Well, EK and QR aren't particularly happy with the changes ...

Right now there doesn't seem to be an aircraft designed specifically for medium haul high capacity routes. The A333 has been a phenomenal success in that sector, and Boeing could have a slice of that with the 787-10. Making a long range 787-10 would at best be a compromised solution in an attempt to gain both the A333 and A359 markets. I think Boeing should design the 787-10 to be a direct A333 replacement with no more than 7000nm range, leaving the longer range market to the heavier and more capable 777-8X.

There's no reason to rush into the Y3. The 777X as it is proposed will do more than just hold the fort for many years to come.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 45, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 32212 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
as proposed in the article, will also offer about 15% better seat mile costs than the current 777-300ER. Given that the 777-8X and 777-8LX offers 12 fewer seats than the current 777-300ER, that is a significant achievement.

It may not mean much if Airbus achieves their 20-25% savings targets.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Having both the 777-8X and the 777-8LX gives Boeing the ability to cover both the A350-900 and the theoretical A350-900R, thus giving customers an option.

I suspect they will have little luck competing with the A350-900 with any 777 variant. Luckily the 787-9 should do nicely.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
There's no reason to rush into the Y3.

That's awfully easy to say now before the A350-1000 has really begun to gather momentum. But if it does what Airbus says it will, the only way a 777 will be able to compete is to add more seats, and that is going to make it too large for some customers. Some will find it okay, but many others won't.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 46, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 32078 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):

Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

I would bet that the additional cost of the -8LX development (given that they are going to do the -8X and -9X anyway, and the -8LX will have essentially all components in common with one of those two models) will be about ten or fifteen frames.

A single order from QF might justify the entire program, just as it justified the 747-400ER.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 47, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 31760 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46):

It wouldn't be a huge cost, but it wouldn't be a huge payoff either. I just don't see the case for the 777X. Boeing doesn't need to improve the 777 that soon and an improved 777X would be a band-aid to combat loss of market share more than a real competitor.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinen1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 560 posts, RR: 17
Reply 48, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 31664 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
This seems to be the most informative article on the 777NG to date.

Did you see this one?

http://www.aspireaviation.com/2012/0...ops-777x-to-challenge-airbus-a350/


User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 28097 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Since any two points on the Earth are no more than 12,500 miles apart, and ULH airplanes are now over 11,000 miles (not in nm) in max range, we will soon be hitting the airplane that will truely be a globe trotter.
Quoting point2point (Reply 26):
Well thought way to put this, so a plane with about a 13,000 mi range can connect nonstop any two cities in the world.

You guys are forgetting one very important factor: wind.

Let's take JFK-NRT as an example, where the GC distance is 5861nm. The cruising speed of a 777 is about 500 knots, so we get a flight time of almost 12 hours, but this only considers the still air distance.

Heading west across North America and then across the Pacific, our flight will be going into headwinds. Let's say we've got a good jetstream going that gives us a headwind component of 50 knots all the way. This means that our speed over ground has been reduced to 450 knots, which gives us an adjusted flight time of over 13 hours. To put this in terms of distance travelled through the air (including wind), you can either multiply the new flight time by the crusing speed (so 13 hours x 500 knots = 6500nm) or simply add 50 knots to the distance for every hour of flight ( (13*50 = 650nm) + 5861nm = 6511nm).

This difference is on a comparatively short flight which is not at all pushing the envelope, and it is calculated with a headwind that is not over the top. On a longer flight, or one with stronger winds, the issues increase. And we haven't taken routing restrictions (i.e. for political reasons or because of ETOPS no-go areas) into account yet.

Wind is the reason that LHR-SYD is already possible with a B77L, while SYD-LHR is not.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 27043 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
It wouldn't be a huge cost, but it wouldn't be a huge payoff either. I just don't see the case for the 777X. Boeing doesn't need to improve the 777 that soon and an improved 777X would be a band-aid to combat loss of market share more than a real competitor.

Are you referring to just the ULH versions or the whole 77X project? I agree that the ULH market isn’t worth a new specific version, but Boeing has to do something to counter the threat the A350 is going to pose.

Personally I’d love to see them do a whole new VVLT (Very very large twin) to fit just below the A380 and replace the 748I. I know this is wishful thinking on my part and Boeing would need to accept it the death of the 748I, but I think it would be the only way they could ever get close to the A380’s CASM perhaps even beating the current version.

I also accept that at present there isn’t an engine available to power such an aircraft, however, if they are talking about reducing thrust on the 777 because of lighter construction then in theory at least they shouldn’t require that much more than the 115 already available.


User currently offlinequalitydr From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 27044 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 19):
They're only 21 flights with lengths longer then 6700nm.

What about Delhi Indira Ghandi to Chicago O'Hare? Served by both American and Air India, it's shown as 7483 nm on a great circle mapper (15 h 47 m). I've been on that one (the American edition), nice flight. A 777, but not sure what variant; the pilot I chatted with said something about Extended Gross Weight...



All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 52, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 26390 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Two planes which have sold a combined 91 copies.

... which needs to be replaced eventually. Yes, the ULH market may be small, but eventually, the A345 and 77L will run out of its useful life, and if there was no replacement, how will airlines sustain those routes that require the A345 or 77L?

But as of now, those routes are just a handful. If you look at the current longest routes, only the top 4 are operated by A345/77L/744ER. From number 5, you start seeing 77W, 772-ER, 346, 380, etc. So my point is: it's not only that only 91 345/77L have been sold to date, but that the vast majority of them do not operate real ULH routes...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 26237 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 41):
The proposed stretched 777-9X(407 seats) could end up with GSM(gallon seat mile) that matches that of A350-1000(350 seats).

But then you have an A/C that has 16% larger capacity and that needs filling. As you say that could give it equal costs (in terms of fuel usage) per seat so then you are looking at an aircraft that has 16% higher costs for what additional gain? we know that the last seats to fill will then be the lowest yielding (why would an airline do anything different). The larger aircraft has to have a significantly lower CASM if it is to have a higher trip cost to outweigh the risks ( I wont pretend to know what that number is).

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):
I also accept that at present there isn’t an engine available to power such an aircraft, however, if they are talking about reducing thrust on the 777 because of lighter construction then in theory at least they shouldn’t require that much more than the 115 already available.

I can hear Keesje running towards his computer as we speak ready to tell all about the ecoliner  

Fred


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 54, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24400 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
Besides, as DocLightning mentioned, development costs of the 777-8LX will not be significant given that it can be 'piggybacked' off the 777-9X program. In the 777-8, Boeing has the opportunity to sell some airframes at very little cost. Having both the 777-8X and the 777-8LX gives Boeing the ability to cover both the A350-900 and the theoretical A350-900R, thus giving customers an option. Focussing solely on the 777-9X would be a mistake, when the 777-8X can also be developed for very little additional cost.

The 77L successfully piggybacked on 77W because it's the same plane, just chopping fuselage sections.

If we assume Boeing using a similar formula, then 777-9 chopped becomes 777-8L, which would be "too much plane" for 777-8 if the wing is over-designed (similar to the fate that A350-800 is suffering now).

The weight savings of 787-era carbon fiber alone should be enough to get Boeing to set aside their pride and focus dev dollars on stretching the 787 instead of "77E-neo" / "77E-max".


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 55, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24151 times:

Quoting qualitydr (Reply 51):
A 777, but not sure what variant; the pilot I chatted with said something about Extended Gross Weight...

777-200ER. (AA's are equipped with the maximum 656,000 lbs MTOW and Trent 894s.) Also, you're using statute miles; that flight is "only" 6503 nm.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
I suspect they will have little luck competing with the A350-900 with any 777 variant.

   Just like Boeing with the slightly smaller 787-9, Airbus appears with the A350-900 to have hit a sweet spot where its airframe is perfectly optimized. Any compromise (double stretch, shrink) will have a hard time competing. The 787-10 can do it on short routes, but on long routes the A350-900 should have the field to itself.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 44):
In the 777-8, Boeing has the opportunity to sell some airframes at very little cost.

That may be true for the 777-8LX. I still don't understand who will buy the non-L 777-8X, or for what missions. The bottom line is that it's significantly heavier than the A350-1000 but (unlike the 777-9X) won't have any more capacity.

[Edited 2012-02-14 04:44:54]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 56, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 24074 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Or just get A350s.

As always, the market will speak. I do believe the 777X isn't worth the effort, but then I don't know how many airlines are talking to Boeing behind the scenes saying "if you build it, we will buy it".

It's also possible the 777X is a smokescreen to hide development of Y3. The later the EIS and full production ramp of the A350 (and especially, A350-1000) slip, the less the need for a 777X and the 777 will continue to sell due to earlier availability. So Boeing can just keep talking 777X like they talked the 747X and 747 Advanced in the early 2000s and then just set them aside and launch Y3 mid-decade.


User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1027 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 23833 times:

Quoting qualitydr (Reply 51):
What about Delhi Indira Ghandi to Chicago O'Hare? Served by both American and Air India, it's shown as 7483 nm on a great circle mapper (15 h 47 m). I've been on that one (the American edition), nice flight. A 777, but not sure what variant; the pilot I chatted with said something about Extended Gross Weight...

The standard setting on the Great Circle Mapper is for statute miles (sm), not nautical miles, and ORD-DEL is 7483sm. In nautical miles, the distance is 6503nm.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-del&MS=wls&DU=nm



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7396 posts, RR: 16
Reply 58, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21794 times:

Try certifying a route like AKL-JNB direct with EDTO restrictions and it will have to travel far further than the 'gcmap' distance between the two cities. That is the reason such aircraft exist - it allows an airline to gainfully operate a routing, during any season, with any winds, any restrictions on the day without having to give up the maximum cargo and passenger load. In times like these where the difference between profits and losses is so minute - that can make the difference.

Noone in the Northern hemisphere ever seems to get how isolated everything is in the South, and just how much sea there is to traverse. It is nice to know that an aircraft can not just fly a route, but do so without much restriction.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21746 times:

The 77L can already do the longest flights, but I think noone wants to be in the air for 18 hours? Its just too long to stay in a seat.

I once flew LAX-SYD and that was about my upper limit, there are longer flights now, but I say 12 hours is max for me. Maybe if they drug you and you sleep for the whole flight   Or that orbital idea about 4 hours LHR-SYD was a good idea.

We could probably build an aircraft that flew 24 hour missions, but who would want to travel that way?!


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 60, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
It's also possible the 777X is a smokescreen to hide development of Y3

To be honest, Stitch, it's not that much of a smokescreen if you read the article.
All of the concepts being discussed are part of a range of options up to and including an all new airframe

Quote:
"Boeing continues to explore many options to build on the 777's popularity" including a new wing and even a clean-sheet aircraft, said the aircraft-maker, declining to discuss in detail the latest 777X concepts.

Rgds


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21489 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 59):

The 77L can already do the longest flights, but I think noone wants to be in the air for 18 hours? Its just too long to stay in a seat.

I once flew LAX-SYD and that was about my upper limit, there are longer flights now, but I say 12 hours is max for me. Maybe if they drug you and you sleep for the whole flight   Or that orbital idea about 4 hours LHR-SYD was a good idea.

We could probably build an aircraft that flew 24 hour missions, but who would want to travel that way?!

In J I wouldn't mind a bit if I can make LHR-SYD nonstop. Y is a huge pain, especially the EK way of flying 17 hour flights at 10-abreast 777.

If it's VS-level Premium Economy, then 18+ hour flights are manageable.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 62, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 21339 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 59):

We could probably build an aircraft that flew 24 hour missions, but who would want to travel that way?!

In premium cabin, no doubt I would like it. A nonstop would be just perfect for GRU-NRT-GRU.

With the block time for NRT-GRU of about 21:30, the flight could leave NRT 22:00 and land GRU 7:30. The return ia about 22 hours and could leave GRU 23:00 and land NRT 9:00.

This schedule would be perfect for people traveling on business going both ways.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 63, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 20137 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 62):
With the block time for NRT-GRU of about 21:30, the flight could leave NRT 22:00 and land GRU 7:30. The return ia about 22 hours and could leave GRU 23:00 and land NRT 9:00.

This schedule would be perfect for people traveling on business going both ways.

I think the value of red-eye is over-estimated here. JFK-LHR red-eye works because it's so short (and only 5 hour time difference), so the biz pax can actually function the next day. Not sure how one would look like after they fly 22 hours, even in Business class.

I'd vote for better airplane utilization than sitting on tarmac for 13-15.5 hours at *both* ends.


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6538 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19890 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
But that the 777 is possibly even stretched further than the 77W will make it a hideously looking plane. Maybe good for beancoutnters, but aesthecially disgusting




Are you suggesting that Boeing and the airlines only produce and sell aircraft that are pleasing to look at, and the airlines only buy aircraft aesthetically nice looking? That definitely would not be a very good business plan.


User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 65, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19087 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 53):
But then you have an A/C that has 16% larger capacity and that needs filling. As you say that could give it equal costs (in terms of fuel usage) per seat so then you are looking at an aircraft that has 16% higher costs for what additional gain? we know that the last seats to fill will then be the lowest yielding (why would an airline do anything different).

I wasn't suggesting that fuel burn per seat parity with A350-1000 will make the B777-9X desirable for all operators on all routes. EK with its 7-abreast J and 10 Y configuration should come out ahead with B777-9X on many of its B77W routes, whereas CX with 9-abreast in Y on 777-9X may not find it as attractive as A350-1000.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 53):
The larger aircraft has to have a significantly lower CASM if it is to have a higher trip cost to outweigh the risks ( I wont pretend to know what that number is).

Agree. As per my model, the operating efficiency dividing line between 9-abreast and 10-abreast platform for equivalent technology and capability(payload and range) is around 370-380 seats(3 class marketing).

A clean sheet Y3(10-abreast) with 370-380 seats could beat the fuel burn per seat of A350-1000, but not by much. Clean sheet Y3 models with 360 and 410 seats may be a good response to A350-1000(and a likely A350-1100 with 380 seats).


User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 16765 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
It would make a good freighter.

  

The 777F will also need a successor and the 777-8LX (well, I don't like that designation) is a perfect base with more payload, slightly more volume and additional range - a 777-8X basement freighter will fall behind!

Like 772ER vs. 772LR now, the 777-8LX in pax config provides more payload in certain missions than the projected 777-8X.

But in my mind, the projected 777-8X is dispensable, not the 777-8LX.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 67, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 16175 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 63):
I'd vote for better airplane utilization than sitting on tarmac for 13-15.5 hours at *both* ends.

No need to sit on the tarmac on both ends. If JAL or ANA flew the route with those times they could still use the aircraft to fly an Asian roundtrip during the day, or combine it with a trip to Europe adding a fourth aircraft.

Even with dedicated aircraft, say NRT-GRU-NRT overnight with three aircraft, the utilization would be almost 15 hours, which is very very good.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 68, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 15929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 58):
Try certifying a route like AKL-JNB direct with EDTO restrictions and it will have to travel far further than the 'gcmap' distance between the two cities.

The 777-200LR, 777-300ER and 777F all have ETOPS-330 certification from the FAA and NZ is working towards getting it from the New Zealand aviation authorities (they currently have ETOPS-240). Based on grcmap.com, there is only a bit of that route that is a "no go" under ETOPS-330 and with a still-air distance of ~6500nm, the 777-8, "777-8LR" and 777-9 (as well as the 777-200LR) should all be able to do it even with the extra distance necessary,


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 69, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14679 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 64):

Are you suggesting that Boeing and the airlines only produce and sell aircraft that are pleasing to look at, and the airlines only buy aircraft aesthetically nice looking?

That would be nice. But then there are such atrocities as the 732 and every single Airbus made other than the A330/A340 series.   

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):

It wouldn't be a huge cost, but it wouldn't be a huge payoff either.

Doesn't have to be. As long as it makes even a dollar, it's paid off. And it keeps the line moving and the workers working. It is a tiny little risk, and tiny risks are good ones to take.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 50):

I also accept that at present there isn’t an engine available to power such an aircraft, however, if they are talking about reducing thrust on the 777 because of lighter construction then in theory at least they shouldn’t require that much more than the 115 already available.

The limitation to engine size is the 747F cargo bay. If you have an AOG with a larger engine diameter than the -115, then you would have to charter an Antonov to carry it to the aircraft. Antonovs are in short supply, so the 747 cargo bay is the limiting factor.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 14167 times:

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 66):
But in my mind, the projected 777-8X is dispensable, not the 777-8LX.

  

The real meat are the 777-9X and the -8LX. Anything else, the 787 family will take care of.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 71, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 13026 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
so the 747 cargo bay is the limiting factor.

You may want to make it modular to fit in a 777 to make it more future proof.


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 72, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12613 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 70):
The real meat are the 777-9X and the -8LX. Anything else, the 787 family will take care of.

Well, this is all based on information about proposed studies.

To me, it's very likely that if it all goes forward, the study known as the -8LX will end up simply being the 778, with optional range to near 10000nm, standard at 8200nm, based on the same design as the 779 but a "shrink" from the 77W rather than a stretch of the 77W that the 779 would be.

It also looks like my suggestion that any 777X will not simply be the reengining of the same sized 777 family is gaining momentum. I'm not sure if 350 and 405 seats are enough of a spread though. Ultimately, you could see 340 and 405 or 350 and 415 (415 nominal being a 1:1 replacement for the 744 in size). But practically, because of the pointy nose of the 747, even a 405 seat 779 is a direct 1:1 replacement for the 744.

I would expect BA to be a launch customer for this family, ordering both the the 778 and 779 to replace the 744s that aren't going to be replaced by the A380, as well as older 772s that won't be replaced by 787s. Since they seem to have passed on the 748 despite absolutely needing 20 or so birds that would replace the 744 1:1 (not smaller or larger), this might be a major reason Boeing is pursuing this. CX, BA, UA, DL, SQ may be telling Boeing that they will sell well because they need aircraft of this ability, and the A350 and 787 aren't going to cut it as long haul heavy lifters.

Sad for the 748 from a pax POV, but not for Boeing. 748F will live on for a long time.



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 73, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12127 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
2) The are proposing two sets of wings being available. A Longer 233ft wingspan with raked wingtips and a shorter, 225ft wingspan with blended winglets.

Boeing already offered "wing options." Everybody went standard.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
3) That the option for the folding wings is being brought back and will become standard on all the new 777's with the 233ft wingspan. This will be done to allow the 777 retain its Code E classification while on the ground and taxiing but will move it back to type F once it enters the runway. It said that the entire raked wingtip would be what folds to save on complexity in the system. It also noted that each wingtip would be 11ft in length. This to me seems like it would pretty much make the 225ft wing useless because once folded, the larger wing will still have a shorter span (211ft vs 225) than the wingleted wing.

... I don't think the intent is for the 777 with folded wings to fly.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 74, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 11810 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
I don't know how many airlines are talking to Boeing behind the scenes saying "if you build it, we will buy it"

There's Emirates and probably a few others. But they likely won't see more than 30-35% market share in my estimation against the A350-1000. I think that improved 777s are either going to be too large or too inefficient.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
It's also possible the 777X is a smokescreen to hide development of Y3. The later the EIS and full production ramp of the A350 (and especially, A350-1000) slip, the less the need for a 777X and the 777 will continue to sell due to earlier availability. So Boeing can just keep talking 777X like they talked the 747X and 747 Advanced in the early 2000s and then just set them aside and launch Y3 mid-decade.

That's exactly the route I think they should take.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
As long as it makes even a dollar, it's paid off.

Not if it keeps you from doing something else that could make more dollars.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9836 posts, RR: 52
Reply 75, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11742 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):


Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
I don't know how many airlines are talking to Boeing behind the scenes saying "if you build it, we will buy it"

There's Emirates and probably a few others. But they likely won't see more than 30-35% market share in my estimation against the A350-1000. I think that improved 777s are either going to be too large or too inefficient.

I find it interesting which will prevail. Airbus has struggled with the A350-1000. There are only 4 customers with 2 having publicly stated disapproval with some aspects of the design and a third canceling some of its orders. The A350-1000 might turn out to be a big seller, but at the moment it is not yet, which leaves an opening for the 777 to come again. I find it really interesting how you can come up with an estimate for market share. To me, the race is wide open.

I personally don't expect it to be like the 767-400 vs A330 where the 767 was a simple stretch since that didn't certainly didn't lead to an extension in production of the 767 or represent a true competitor. From what I've read here the 777X looks to be a much bigger change. I think it is being proposed more like the 737NG was to the A320. It greatly improves an existing platform in an attempt to remain competitive against a new design. I think it is far too early to know if it will be like the 767-400 or 737NG. Both are possible. Boeing has made a stretched derivative with a new wing succeed before. McDonnell Douglas failed miserably with the MD-11.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 76, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11607 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 74):

Not if it keeps you from doing something else that could make more dollars.

Given that it will be using the same development team, same components, and same line as the other 777-8/9 variants, it won't keep them from doing anything else.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 77, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 11589 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 75):
Airbus has struggled with the A350-1000. There are only 4 customers with 2 having publicly stated disapproval with some aspects of the design and a third canceling some of its orders

It's a long way off and if Airbus gets even close to their promises, they won't be hurting for sales. Airlines won't be able to afford not having it, the same way a lot of airlines dropped A340s in favor of 777s.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 75):
From what I've read here the 777X looks to be a much bigger change.

It is, but I don't think there is any change Boeing can make to the 777 that will bring it to cost parity with the A350 without adding capacity.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 75):
I think it is being proposed more like the 737NG was to the A320.

There was no huge step change between those planes. Sure Airbus saved a few pounds with FBW, but they were both aluminum tubes with wings and the same engines.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11500 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
The limitation to engine size is the 747F cargo bay. If you have an AOG with a larger engine diameter than the -115, then you would have to charter an Antonov to carry it to the aircraft. Antonovs are in short supply, so the 747 cargo bay is the limiting factor.

Perhaps a future version of the GE90 could be designed like the GENx that allows the core and and fan to be taken apart for shipping.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 79, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 78):

Perhaps a future version of the GE90 could be designed like the GENx that allows the core and and fan to be taken apart for shipping.

The fan diameter is the issue. The GE90 can be dismantled IIRC. The thing is that if you have an AOG at an outstation, you need to get the engine, including the fan and fan case to the outstation for replacement. If the diameter of the fan case is bigger than the internal diameter of a 747F, then you have a serious logistical problem.

The good news is that during the GE90-115B testing program GE managed to get 126,000lbs (IIRC) out of the engine. So if they could do that, it should be possible to design an engine with the same physical dimensions but increased thrust.


User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 80, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11483 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 73):
Boeing already offered "wing options." Everybody went standard.



For what, the 777? There has only ever been one wing, nor have i ever read of multiple wings being offered in the beginning. Thinking about it, i don't think i have ever heard of a Boeing program that has been offered with multiple wings.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 73):
I don't think the intent is for the 777 with folded wings to fly.


If its not gonna fly, what will it do, just taxi there? Of course it will fly, I never said it would fly with them folded lol.

The folding tips will allow it to retain in its current class E category while taxiing around from the runway to the gate and vice versa and allow it to fit into the current gates. Once it enters the runway, the wingtips will be extended and it would become a class F aircraft.

I have a hard time believing that a wingleted wing of this size will outperform a wing with raked wingtips at all. Look at the 787-3 vs 787-8... Boeing Canceled it because it was only more efficient up to what, 300nm? and then the -8 was more economical... So the only other reason for a wingleted wing i see is for overall wingspan while on the ground. But the folding wingtips of the 233ft wing take care of this making the wingleted wing useless.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11425 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 79):
If the diameter of the fan case is bigger than the internal diameter of a 747F, then you have a serious logistical problem

Im calling BS on that...

If a larger engine is needed, one will be made. There is multiple ways to ship stuff and they wouldnt let something like that get in the way of efficiency of their aircraft. When they needed to ship 787 sections faster, what did they do? they went out and built 4 747LCF's...

However, it seems to me, that engines any larger, physically, than the GE-90 arent required because of the advances in technology have allowed engines of the same capabilities to become smaller. However, i think in the future size will once again begin to increase.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 11398 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 81):
However, it seems to me, that engines any larger, physically, than the GE-90 arent required because of the advances in technology have allowed engines of the same capabilities to become smaller. However, i think in the future size will once again begin to increase.

Do you foresee twin-engined VLA within 20 years ?


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11363 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 80):
For what, the 777? There has only ever been one wing, nor have i ever read of multiple wings being offered in the beginning. Thinking about it, i don't think i have ever heard of a Boeing program that has been offered with multiple wings.

IIRC, they were going to sell 777s with wings that folded and 777s with normal non-folding wings. I remember this because of MelJet..   I don't think that option is still available but in my opinion, those two options are "different" wings.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 80):
If its not gonna fly, what will it do, just taxi there? Of course it will fly, I never said it would fly with them folded lol.

Of course lol! But your original post confused me:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
This to me seems like it would pretty much make the 225ft wing useless because once folded, the larger wing will still have a shorter span (211ft vs 225) than the wingleted wing.

.... and now it makes perfect sense. 



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11233 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 82):


Personally, no, but I'm only just now beginning to understand the complexity of engines and aircraft design, so i cant really say other than pure guessing. But it seems to me that there has to be a point in which you will no longer gain anything by using a twin compared to a quad or Tri-jet or at least with todays technology. In the future if they can do it then, thats going to be one amazing piece of machinery. Im sure if the airlines want it, someone will build it and make it work though.


I don't think there will be any new VLA's for at least another 20 years and even then, I don't see one being a twin VLA.

For an A380 sized plane, it would require a 25,000-50,000lbs thrust increase per engine over the current GE-90.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 83):
IIRC, they were going to sell 777s with wings that folded and 777s with normal non-folding wings. I remember this because of MelJet.. I don't think that option is still available but in my opinion, those two options are "different" wings.



OK i was wondering if you were referring to this. I thought it was the same wing just with just the last 25ft being a folding section. I personally consider that "one wing", if that was indeed the case.

I'm also assuming that the wingleted wing will be completely different than the raked wing and not just being common until the point of the winglet/raked tip starting.

[Edited 2012-02-14 18:43:39]


Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 85, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 11053 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ghifty (Reply 83):
I don't think that option is still available but in my opinion, those two options are "different" wings.
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 84):
OK i was wondering if you were referring to this. I thought it was the same wing just with just the last 25ft being a folding section. I personally consider that "one wing", if that was indeed the case.

When no airline committed to the folding wing option, Boeing dropped it. Doing so is said to have allowed them to increase the wing tank volume for the 777-200ER and 777-300.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 86, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10914 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 84):
But it seems to me that there has to be a point in which you will no longer gain anything by using a twin compared to a quad or Tri-jet or at least with todays technology.

It doesn't matter whether the engines are turbojets from the 1960's or antimatter-catalyzed fusion engines made of crystallized angel tears and unobtainium alloy. Four engines will burn more fuel than two. Four engines cost twice as much to maintain as two. Four engines will cost more to buy than two.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 84):

For an A380 sized plane, it would require a 25,000-50,000lbs thrust increase per engine over the current GE-90.

That is probably doable. The 744 needed 180,000 lb for an engine-out takeoff. When you consider that the engines are a significant portion of the aircraft's weight, switching from a quad to a twin alone would decrease the MTOW. New construction techniques and materials for a 744-sized twin would make it possible to use engines in the 125,000-150,000 lb range, and that is doable.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 87, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 10903 times:

Quoting ghifty (Reply 73):
Boeing already offered "wing options." Everybody went standard.

The issue here is that the 777 with 65m wingspan could fit into any 747 gate, which airlines found to be satisfactory and no need for the folding wingtips to get it into smaller gates. With a larger than 65m wingspan suddenly you start to lose gate compatiblity at alot of airports. Is it enough of a challenge to drive customers to a folding wing? We will see. Certificationwise I don't see an issue since they should be locked down even in the event of any systems failure. Its the ongoing MX cost that I think will make airlines pause, since they don't want any newfangled contraptions that cause them to cancel flights, and eat money all the time.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 88, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10784 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 81):

If a larger engine is needed, one will be made. There is multiple ways to ship stuff and they wouldnt let something like that get in the way of efficiency of their aircraft. When they needed to ship 787 sections faster, what did they do? they went out and built 4 747LCF's...

That's very different. The LCF doesn't need to respond to the average emergency; it flies on a regular schedule. It eases the manufacturing process so much that it makes business sense to spend all that money on development and certification.

For engines, it would be very uneconomical for an engine manufacturer to build their own cargo plane to ship engines for AOG cases. The aircraft would rarely be used and it would cost a huge amount to design and certify.

The GE90-115B was specifically built so as to be able to fit in a 747 cargo hold. The fan case is specifically designed to be one of the strongest components, capable of containing the energy of a fan blade at 100%N1. To do that, it has to be forged as a single piece; if it could be dismantled into halves, it would have two weak spots. There is no way to load this component "long-ways" because it is circular. This is the troublesome component.

Until the need for having a single forged fan case can be solved, any practical engine will need to be able to fit in the 747 cargo hold. Heaven help the airlines when the last 748F is retired...


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10552 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88):
The GE90-115B was specifically built so as to be able to fit in a 747 cargo hold. The fan case is specifically designed to be one of the strongest components, capable of containing the energy of a fan blade at 100%N1. To do that, it has to be forged as a single piece; if it could be dismantled into halves, it would have two weak spots. There is no way to load this component "long-ways" because it is circular. This is the troublesome component.

Until the need for having a single forged fan case can be solved, any practical engine will need to be able to fit in the 747 cargo hold. Heaven help the airlines when the last 748F is retired...

Last year we were taking about an engine with twice the thrust of a GE-90-115. As a first order approximation that would need a 41% bigger diameter fan. That fan assembly would actually fit inside a 747, although you'd need a bigger cargo door. It would even fit inside a 777 (again, needing a bigger cargo door). It would fit handily through the standard nose door of an An-124. It might even fit in a stock C-17. So while a bigger fan would have some transport issues, it shouldn't be a show-stopper. A subfleet of 747s or 777s with enlarged cargo doors would do, or some An-124a or C-17s.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 90, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10341 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
It may not mean much if Airbus achieves their 20-25% savings targets.

I always take one OEM's claim in comparison with a competitor's product with a grain of salt. In a recent comparison, Airbus assigned the 77W with 173t OEW rather than the 168t that's specified in Boeing's ACAP. Who knows how Airbus derived its 20-25% calculation? If it had said that the A350-1000 would be 20-25% more efficient than the A346, I'd believe them.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
I suspect they will have little luck competing with the A350-900 with any 777 variant.

I would think that the 777-8LX would compare favourably with the A359R. After careful consideration, however, I'll admit that the 'base' 777-8X will have a wing that's too large and too heavy, so unless Boeing designs an optimised wing specifically for the base 777-8X, you may be right with respect to the base 777-8.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
I just don't see the case for the 777X. Boeing doesn't need to improve the 777 that soon and an improved 777X would be a band-aid to combat loss of market share more than a real competitor.

I strongly disagree with that. Boeing does absolutely need to improve the 777, especially so when the A350 comes online. As for the 777X - well, it's too early to say that, isn't it? We don't know what specifications it'll have, all we have is speculations, albeit by respected aviation journalists who may have contacts inside the Boeing company. Unless some actual figures are released, it will be unwise to write off the 777X.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 52):
But as of now, those routes are just a handful. If you look at the current longest routes, only the top 4 are operated by A345/77L/744ER. From number 5, you start seeing 77W, 772-ER, 346, 380, etc. So my point is: it's not only that only 91 345/77L have been sold to date, but that the vast majority of them do not operate real ULH routes...

You said it yourself, the vast majority of them don't operate real ULH routes. All goes towards my point that the 77L and A345, and also the 777-8LX, are more than one trick ponies. Its range isn't the only selling factor. The 77L can carry its MSP of 52t up to 7500nm before it starts taking any payload penalties. There is no reason to suggest that the 777-8LX will be any less capable, payload/range wise.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 54):
The 77L successfully piggybacked on 77W because it's the same plane, just chopping fuselage sections.

If we assume Boeing using a similar formula, then 777-9 chopped becomes 777-8L, which would be "too much plane" for 777-8 if the wing is over-designed (similar to the fate that A350-800 is suffering now).

Point taken. Unless Boeing decides to design a different wing specifically optimised for the 'base' 777-8, the 777-8L is probably the more viable option than launching both the 777-8 and 777-8L.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 75):
I think it is far too early to know if it will be like the 767-400 or 737NG. Both are possible. Boeing has made a stretched derivative with a new wing succeed before.

  

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 77):
It is, but I don't think there is any change Boeing can make to the 777 that will bring it to cost parity with the A350 without adding capacity.

Adding capacity may not be a bad thing. I don't think the fact that the 747-8 isn't selling is sufficient evidence to suggest that there isn't a market above the 77W/A35J size. The fact that the 777-9X is a twin may make it more attractive to airlines. I am not convinced that the small size difference between the 777-9X and the A35J is fatal to the 777 program. I would say that all airlines that currently configure the 77W with more than 350 seats (Airbus' nominal 3-class layout for the A35J) are potential 777-9X customers.

[Edited 2012-02-15 03:38:26]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10205 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 87):
Its the ongoing MX cost that I think will make airlines pause, since they don't want any newfangled contraptions that cause them to cancel flights, and eat money all the time.

I understood weight being a major issue as well.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10080 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 90):
You said it yourself, the vast majority of them don't operate real ULH routes. All goes towards my point that the 77L and A345, and also the 777-8LX, are more than one trick ponies. Its range isn't the only selling factor.

Or you can turn that around and conclude that there is no need for a new airplane optimized for ULH routes.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 93, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9909 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting UALWN (Reply 92):
Or you can turn that around and conclude that there is no need for a new airplane optimized for ULH routes.

I don't follow ...  

Yes, ULH is a small market, but these planes are useful for more than just ULH. They are also useful for hauling a lot of freight a long way without incurring payload penalties. The use of the current 77L and A345 on routes that don't require its ultra long haul capabilities is proof (albeit circumstantial) of that. The 777-8LX could have 15% better seat mile costs than the current 777-300ER, despite having 12 fewer seats in its baseline configuration. The 77L, 77F and A345 will all eventually need to be replaced, so there is definitely a market for the 777-8LX, albeit a small one. Since this program can be 'piggybacked' off the 777-9X program, development cost would be minimal. From where I'm sitting, it makes perfect sense.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 94, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9919 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 90):
After careful consideration, however, I'll admit that the 'base' 777-8X will have a wing that's too large and too heavy, so unless Boeing designs an optimised wing specifically for the base 777-8X, you may be right with respect to the base 777-8.

I would not bet on that, I have been puzzeled by the figures given by John and here is why:

(it might seem a bit technical but I have explained everything in plain English rather the usual formulas, the conclusions at the end is the interesting stuff)

- Thrust and wing config required for a frame is among other things dictated by take-off distance at MTOW to clear an obstacle after lif-off and then climb at a certain rate with 1 engine. This is the most critical parameter for how strong engines you need once the wing is defined. We can assume this distance to be the same for 77W, any 777X and 35J.

- How much thrust you need is thus a function of your MTOW and yours wings lift capability but also drag at that lift.

- Lift is given by wing area and how effective your high lift devices are at the takeoff positions. We can assume that the 787, 35j and 77X all have the same lift capability per wing area (the wing configs are essentially the same with a Cl for take-off of some 1.5), so lift will depend on the wing area.

- Drag will depend on wing aspect ratio for drag due to lift and primarily wing area and fuselage area for parasitic drag at take-off and climb, most other contributors will not differ between the frames in question.

- Commonly one also divides wing area and thrust with MTOW to get Wing loading and Thrust loading, it tells you how much burden there is on that thrust lbf  .


The data given in Johns article enables us to calculate this for the frames in question and compare (don't worry a spreadsheet does the job fore me  ). For the 777X I can't get things to jive and you will see why:


................Thrust.lb......MTOW.t......Wing area.m2....Fuse area.m2.....Aspect ratio......Wing l..............Thrust l.
77W..........2*115k...........344..................428.................1150.................9.7..................808...............29.8%
35J............2*93k.............298..................461.................1118...............10.3..................646...............28.3%
35JN..........2*97k.............308..................461.................1118...............10.3..................668...............28.6%
777-9X.......2*100k............344..................480.................1184...............10.6.................719................26.6%
777-8XL.....2*100k............344..................480.................1062...............10.6.................719................26.6%
787-8.........2*70k..............228.................325...................836...............11.1..................701...............27.9%
787-9.........2*78k..............251.................325...................836...............11.1..................701...............27.9%


As can be seen everything seems OK except that the 777-9X and 8XL seems quite low on power despite being up on all other values. One can say "yes but the wing is bigger". Well not so much given the info from Johns article (+10% area and 71m span), not to go with 100klbf engines. It seems the 777X will not be a frame loved by the pilots (they always rave of a high power ratio like 757 or DC9-20-30 ).


The much criticized slouch 35J classic (IT MUST HAVE MORE POWER.....) seems like a peppy frame compared to our new 777X. Just for fun, the frame that climbes with the curvature of the earth, the 343 has a power ratio of 22.3% but that is a 4 holer    .

[Edited 2012-02-15 08:20:08]


Non French in France
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9828 times:

Is there a rule of thumb for short term engine capability compared to normal rated thrust? As in the new 100k engine being Ok'd for several minutes of 110% or so thrust to satisfy engine out on takeoff? Or are you only allowed to consider rated thrust for that?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 96, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9788 times:

Nice chart...thanks...it clears things up a lot....but, of course, I do have questions.

If we're talking about power load as the limitation, primarily in an engine out takeoff situation, what are the consequences of the 77x having a power load 2% lower than the 35j?

Would it have the engine out performance to get certified?

If certification itself isn't an issue, would it's engine out performance limit the airports it could use or impose other limitations like step climbs?

...and just one more. Since planes throttle down in for some climb and all cruise, the max rating is mostly needed for engine out performance. It seems to me that 100k engines probably provide more than enough power for cruise. Might GE, (or any engine maker), make an engine with nominal 100k rating but has an emergency engine out boost to allow for engine out takeoff performance?

Thanks



What the...?
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9715 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 96):
...and just one more. Since planes throttle down in for some climb and all cruise, the max rating is mostly needed for engine out performance. It seems to me that 100k engines probably provide more than enough power for cruise. Might GE, (or any engine maker), make an engine with nominal 100k rating but has an emergency engine out boost to allow for engine out takeoff performance?

I would have thought if this was possible then it would have been already applied to other twins, as it obviously has great potential for fuel savings.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 98, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9730 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 93):
Yes, ULH is a small market, but these planes are useful for more than just ULH.

Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else. If 90%+ of their missions are not ULH, why buy an airplane that is optimized for the remaining 10% and not one optimized for that 90%, abandoning altogether the handful of ULH routes flown with 77L/345? Actually, is any of those ULH routes even profitable?



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9727 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Is there a rule of thumb for short term engine capability compared to normal rated thrust? As in the new 100k engine being Ok'd for several minutes of 110% or so thrust to satisfy engine out on takeoff? Or are you only allowed to consider rated thrust for that?

I think that Airbus design goal with the 350 was 3000 meter runway at ISA and reach FL350 within 30 minutes at MTOW

What kind of engine is needed to achieve that, has a lot to do with the wing/engine combination.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 100, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9670 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Is there a rule of thumb for short term engine capability compared to normal rated thrust? As in the new 100k engine being Ok'd for several minutes of 110% or so thrust to satisfy engine out on takeoff? Or are you only allowed to consider rated thrust for that?
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 96):
It seems to me that 100k engines probably provide more than enough power for cruise.

For a 2 holer you typically need less then 20% of the TO power for the cruise phase. That is why it is so important to clarify what TSFC you talk about, the TO one is not interesting, you need the thrust they optimized the engine around, the cruise at around 20% or less where you also have the cruise TSFC.

This cruise TSFC is typically around 0.5-0.7 for modern engines, the latest GEnx, T1000 have 0.53 or thereabouts, the TXWB just below 0.53 which should be the range for the GE90X as well, the present GE90 is around 0.56 .


Re an emergency rating for 1 engine out, they have a 5 min rating which is the one we have given here and then a continues climb without time limit which is lower.

[Edited 2012-02-15 08:30:39]


Non French in France
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 101, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9637 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 94):
We can assume that the 787, 35j and 77X all have the same lift capability per wing area (the wing configs are essentially the same with a Cl for take-off of some 1.5), so lift will depend on the wing area.

It seems as though Boeing may need to add larger high-lift devices as part of the new CFRP wing to give the 777X adequate climb performance. How much larger can they go without incurring severe weight penalties or compromising other objectives?


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 102, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9672 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 99):
I think that Airbus design goal with the 350 was 3000 meter runway at ISA and reach FL350 within 30 minutes at MTOW

You can assume that the 777X should be similar, the first is pretty much a must and the second desirable, the 777X team would have some explaining to do on especially the second I guess  .

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 101):
It seems as though Boeing may need to add larger high-lift devices as part of the new CFRP wing to give the 777X adequate climb performance. How much larger can they go without incurring severe weight penalties or compromising other objectives?

It is not about getting higher lift, they have plenty to play with, get the slats and flaps further out and you get to an average lift coefficient around 2.5. The problem is the drag you create by needing more lift, you need a good TO L/D ratio just like for cruise.

Therefore what all this says is that they must have a low drag configuration for the TO phase as every other value is worse then 35J, ref the A350 prototype threads discussion around wings one can guess the 777X team is playing with a droop nose on the inboard part of the front leading edge as well to lower the TO 1 engine out drag.

[Edited 2012-02-15 08:41:13]


Non French in France
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7202 posts, RR: 50
Reply 103, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9667 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 69):
The limitation to engine size is the 747F cargo bay. If you have an AOG with a larger engine diameter than the -115, then you would have to charter an Antonov to carry it to the aircraft. Antonovs are in short supply, so the 747 cargo bay is the limiting factor.

Not any more. Boeing could conceivably divert a Dreamlifter; although there are legal issues to overcome. But since it will be strictly in support of Boeing products I think it could be worked out fairly easily. If Boeing does build an aircraft with a larger fan diameter I am sure they will consider the issue. But all of the talk I have heard about the 777X project is that they will be reducing thrust requirements by using a larger wing, not increasing them.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21590 posts, RR: 59
Reply 104, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9471 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 103):
Not any more. Boeing could conceivably divert a Dreamlifter; although there are legal issues to overcome.

But it's not just in emergencies. Spares need to get around the world on a regular basis. Boat/train/oversized truck is too slow for many applications. There are plenty of 747Fs out there, but only a few antonovs and the dreamlifters are all busy. This sized spare can't be mounted on the "fifth mount point" on a 747 wing, either. Part of proper design is assuring any product can be built, transported and supported economically.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineflyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9425 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88):
That's very different. The LCF doesn't need to respond to the average emergency; it flies on a regular schedule. It eases the manufacturing process so much that it makes business sense to spend all that money on development and certification.

Also the LCF cargo bay doors can't support themselves while they are opening or fully open, so they are only useful for transporting specialized cargo between the handful of airports with the highly specialized support equipment. An airline needing a spare engine flown in and a non-working engine flown out, is unlikely to be at those airports.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 106, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9403 times:

I made a copy and paste error for the fuselage area for the 789, it should be 926m2, here now the corrected table:

................Thrust.lb......MTOW.t......Wing area.m2....Fuse area.m2.....Aspect ratio......Wing l..............Thrust l.
77W..........2*115k...........344..................428.................1150.................9.7..................808...............29.8%
35J............2*93k.............298..................461.................1118...............10.3..................646...............28.3%
35JN..........2*97k.............308..................461.................1118...............10.3..................668...............28.6%
777-9X.......2*100k............344..................480.................1184...............10.6.................719................26.6%
777-8XL.....2*100k............344..................480.................1062...............10.6.................719................26.6%
787-8.........2*70k..............228.................325...................836...............11.1..................701...............27.9%
787-9.........2*78k..............251.................325...................926...............11.1..................701...............27.9%


At take-off config these modern frames have a lift vs drag ratio of some 14-15, ie if you lift 344t you have a drag of around 344/14,5 = 24t force or 54klbf.

Now if you loose one engine on the 777X you have 100klbf left, but to the 54klbf of drag comes the drag of one stopped engine and drag from the vertical tail compensating the asymmetrical thrust, hard to say how much that is. You also need a thrust surplus for the climb and a turbofan looses thrust as you gain speed, at climb speed you have some 80-90% left.

[Edited 2012-02-15 11:48:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9302 times:

Does anybody know how much still air range is needed to fly SYD LHR non stop all year round?

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1904 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9177 times:

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 105):
Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 105):
Also the LCF cargo bay doors can't support themselves while they are opening or fully open, so they are only useful for transporting specialized cargo between the handful of airports with the highly specialized support equipment. An airline needing a spare engine flown in and a non-working engine flown out, is unlikely to be at those airports.

They have a procedure for opening the tail with a forklift if needed. A big forklift.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 109, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 9094 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 107):

Does anybody know how much still air range is needed to fly SYD LHR non stop all year round?

Entirely back of envelope calculation :

10573mi GC
120 km winds, padding 14%
westbound guestimate : 12053mi

Rounded : ~12,000 mi / 10,430nm / 19,300 km


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20375 posts, RR: 59
Reply 110, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8944 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 89):

Last year we were taking about an engine with twice the thrust of a GE-90-115. As a first order approximation that would need a 41% bigger diameter fan. That fan assembly would actually fit inside a 747, although you'd need a bigger cargo door. It would even fit inside a 777 (again, needing a bigger cargo door). It would fit handily through the standard nose door of an An-124.

What about the fan case? Would that fit, too?

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 103):

Not any more. Boeing could conceivably divert a Dreamlifter;

Which would cause a production delay on the 787 line.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):

Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else.

The 77L is within 1% of fuel consumption per ASM of the 772, IIRC. The CASM for the two models on a given mission is essentially identical. This is why few airlines are ordering new 772's and instead are opting for 77L's. That said, the 77L competes with A333, which is optimized for shorter missions, which is why it sells better.


User currently offlineCO787EWR From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 8941 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Actually, is any of those ULH routes even profitable?

SQ is still going daily on the SIN-EWR

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 110):
The 77L is within 1% of fuel consumption per ASM of the 772, IIRC. The CASM for the two models on a given mission is essentially identical. This is why few airlines are ordering new 772's and instead are opting for 77L's. That said, the 77L competes with A333, which is optimized for shorter missions, which is why it sells better.

For the layman what are you saying? Are you saying if you flew a 77E and 77L on the same route with the same load-factor you would only burn 1% more fuel per mile.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 112, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8926 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Actually, is any of those ULH routes even profitable?

If you count NYC-HKG (8060sm) as ULH, then it's definitely profitable if sufficient O&D exists.

It went from 0 nonstop in 1999 to 4x nonstop daily today, with rumors of a 5th one.

Most other non-EK ULH routes haven't added frequency or up-gauged in a while, so who knows how profitable those are. TG is throwing in the towel. SQ shrinks LAX to 5x weekly.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 113, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8876 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 110):
This is why few airlines are ordering new 772's and instead are opting for 77L's.

I would rephrase that: few airlines are ordering 77Ls, even fewer are ordering 772s.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 606 posts, RR: 1
Reply 114, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8712 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 88):

For engines, it would be very uneconomical for an engine manufacturer to build their own cargo plane to ship engines for AOG cases. The aircraft would rarely be used and it would cost a huge amount to design and certify.

Internally is not the only way to ship an engine. There is no reason why a plane cant be built to have an extra hard point on the wing to accept an engine on the pylon, just like the 747.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineJet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 878 posts, RR: 0
Reply 115, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
it said the -8LX which will be a ~14ft stretch over the -200,
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 8):
The -9X will only be 8ft longer, hardly noticeable.

Has anyone seen or made drawings comparing -8X and -9X dimensions to the existing -200 and -300 series?

A quick look on google didn't produce anything . . .

Thanks


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 116, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8467 times:

Quoting CO787EWR (Reply 111):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Actually, is any of those ULH routes even profitable?

SQ is still going daily on the SIN-EWR

And given that many of the top-10 routes are expanding, I'd say that they are (or are headed that way in QF's SYD-DFW case).


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 117, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8152 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 116):
And given that many of the top-10 routes are expanding, I'd say that they are


Not all of those top 10 routes are flown with 345/77L,. Those that are don't seem to be fairing particularly well:
* EWR-SIN: business only.
* LAX-SIN: business only, going from daily to 5/wk.
* ATL-JNB: doing fine
* LAX-DXB: doing fine
* LAX-BKK: TG wants to cut it
* IAH-DXB: going from 14/wk to 7/wk.

[Edited 2012-02-16 00:12:31]


AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 118, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8047 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 117):
Not all of those top 10 routes are flown with 345/77L,. Those that are don't seem to be fairing particularly well:

I was more commenting on the overall state of ULH travel... In any case:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 117):
EWR-SIN: business only.

And still strong at daily, despite the recent addition of the A380 to JFK.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 117):
LAX-SIN: business only, going from daily to 5/wk.

Due solely to the addition of the A380 via NRT. Can I also ask what 'business only' is supposed to imply (just curious, not attacking you!!)

Quoting UALWN (Reply 117):
LAX-BKK: TG wants to cut it

Should never have been opened in the first place...

Quoting UALWN (Reply 117):
IAH-DXB: going from 14/wk to 7/wk.

Only to allow the opening of an all new ULH route (DXB-DFW). Seems pretty strong to me if EK is keen to expand...


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 118):
And still strong at daily

Strong? Are loads really good?

Quoting qf002 (Reply 118):
Can I also ask what 'business only' is supposed to imply

Well, it means it carries only about 100 people.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 118):
Only to allow the opening of an all new ULH route (DXB-DFW).

But not operated with a specific ULH airplane, which is the point of this thread.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 120, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7871 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 119):
Strong? Are loads really good?

Fantastic, based on some random dates I've looked up on ExpertFlyer over the next 4-6 weeks... There are even a couple of flights showing only a couple of seats available. Load factors in the 90's, alongside the higher than market fares should overcome the higher cost of the flight. I daresay SQ is doing quite well out of them.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 119):
Well, it means it carries only about 100 people.

So? 100 pax at an average fare of $10-15k each is better than 250 pax at an average fare of $3k each (assuming 50J/200Y).

Quoting UALWN (Reply 119):
But not operated with a specific ULH airplane, which is the point of this thread.

Eh? DXB-DFW will be flown with 77L's...


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7894 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 119):
Quoting qf002 (Reply 118):
Can I also ask what 'business only' is supposed to imply

Well, it means it carries only about 100 people.

For SQ with an 80% load factor:

A345 business direct only: 80 pax at $10k return = $800k revenue per return flight
77W mix: 4 first @$12k + 34 business @ $8K + 194 Y pax @ $2K = $708k revenue per return flight

Direct flight has higher fare than SIN->FRA->JFK. I used 77W for calculation as it is the closest in config alternative for this route - the A380 is not a straight comparison. I also used higher load factor of 85% for Y.

Seems that business direct is not such a bad business after all. You can change your assumptions, but it won't make the business only a really bad config compared with mix. And don't start to argue that this could have Y instead of J. I have done an extremely comfortable Y+ compared with normal Y on this route and it is still torture. Standard Y on an 19 hour flight is just horrible beyond imagination.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7836 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 120):
Eh? DXB-DFW will be flown with 77L's...

You're right, I thought it would be a 77W. But it could have been flown by a 77W. The point is that there are only a handful of ULH routes currently operated by specific ULH planes (345/77L) and beyond the reach of other planes. Truly a handful: EWR-SIN, LAX-SIN, JNB-ATL, maybe also LAX-BKK (which ends in a couple of months) and DXB-IAH. For shorter flights, it is already possible (and probably more economical) to use a 77W or a 346, as EK does on DXB-SFO and DXB-LAX, or SA on JNB-JFK, or even a 777-200ER, as CO deploys on EWR-HKG. Given all this, I don't see why either A or B should now spend any time or money planning the replacement of the 345/77L.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 123, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7833 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 121):
Standard Y on an 19 hour flight is just horrible beyond imagination.

Which is another problem for ULH flights. And if you then go the J-only route, well maybe with the decreased weight you no longer need an ULH plane to fly your ULH route.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 124, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7764 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else.

Your premise that ULH aircraft are only good at flying ULH routes is blatantly false. The very fact that A345s and 77Ls flies routes that are within the range capabilities of other aircraft is proof of that. Show me another aircraft (other than the 77L) that can carry a 52t payload at 7500nm still air distance. The 77W can't, the A345 can't, nor can the A346. The 77L's capabilities extend beyond simply flying a very long distance.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 122):
Given all this, I don't see why either A or B should now spend any time or money planning the replacement of the 345/77L.

Simple answer. Development costs for either the A359R or the 777-8LX would be minimal as it can be piggybacked off the A350 and 777X programs. The 777-8LX will also form the basis of the next 777F. These aircraft do not need to sell in mass volumes to recouperate its development cost. The rest of the A350 program, and the 777-9X would be successful enough to cover the development costs of the 777X program, and likewise the A359 will form the financial backbone of the A350 family.

[Edited 2012-02-16 04:53:47]


Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 125, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7672 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 124):
Your premise that ULH routes are only good at flying ULH routes is blatantly false. The very fact that A345s and 77Ls flies routes that are within the range capabilities of other aircraft is proof of that.

The economics of ULH aircraft on other routes just aren't good enough.

EK is flying 77Ws with restrictions instead of 77Ls on its SFO and LAX routes these days, because even a restricted 77W makes more money.

AC cancelled part of its 77L order and went with 77Ws instead, because the 77L only worked on the true ULH routes (HKG, SYD).

SA refused new A345s at a steep discount from Airbus, preferring to fly A346s with restrictions on its JFK nonstop service.

EK and SQ keep their A345s only because there is no demand for them on the secondhand market and so replacing them would be prohibitively expensive. (Both airlines looked hard at replacing their A345 fleets with 77L (SQ) or 77W (EK).)

AI has been trying to find a buyer or lessee for its 77Ls, without success, for a couple of years now.

Only DL seems to genuinely love its 77Ls.

Most airlines are finding that non-ULH frames are better for all missions up to near-ULH, and that ULH missions are very difficult economically. That is why a new 777-8LX will be very difficult for Boeing to sell in any significant numbers.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 126, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7608 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 125):

Thank you. I tried to say the same back in reply 98:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else. If 90%+ of their missions are not ULH, why buy an airplane that is optimized for the remaining 10% and not one optimized for that 90%, abandoning altogether the handful of ULH routes flown with 77L/345?

but you did it much better.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 127, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7673 times:

I dare say QF or VA would be potentially buyers if they can get:

MEL-LHR/CDG/FRA
SYD-LHR/CDG/FRA
MEL-DFW/ORD/NYC
SYD-DFW/ORD/NYC
MEL/SYD-GRU/GIG

sectors out of the planes. Given that so many people fly one-stop to those European cities (and more) you can call it and say there is demand for direct non-stop services in the long term. Why? Because they would have an advantage over all the foreign airlines which fly to Australia on the 'roo routes: they wouldn't need to stop whereas all the foreign airlines would have to rely on their hub networks (min 2 hours on the ground adding to trip length).

Yes Australia is still only a tiny amount of the global aviation market and the plane would be even more niche than the 77L already is, but there are clearly more sectors from continent to continent where they could fly. And in 20 years the Houstons, Dallas, Atlantas, will be much larger cities and probably have the same type of demand that Melbournes and Sydneys will have to far flung destinations.

$0.03


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 128, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7621 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 110):
Quoting rwessel (Reply 89):

Last year we were taking about an engine with twice the thrust of a GE-90-115. As a first order approximation that would need a 41% bigger diameter fan. That fan assembly would actually fit inside a 747, although you'd need a bigger cargo door. It would even fit inside a 777 (again, needing a bigger cargo door). It would fit handily through the standard nose door of an An-124.

What about the fan case? Would that fit, too?

I meant the fan case. A GE-90-115 fan case is about 135 inches in diameter. Scaled up 41%, that's about 190 inches. A 747 main deck is about 240 inches wide on the inside.

You need a bigger door. Big enough to present some structural issues, but nowhere near what they had to deal with on SOFIA, for example. The telescope opening is about a foot and a half too short, but far, far taller than necessary for a cargo application. It also has to open in flight.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 129, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

Quoting tayser (Reply 127):
I dare say QF or VA would be potentially buyers if they can get:

I'd like to agree, but I don't think it's practical.

1. The Premium traffic isn't there to support an all-F/J aircraft. 19 hours in W, let alone Y, is not going to go down well.

2. Such nonstop flights to Europe would still end up being 1 stop flights for everyone living outside SYD (I don't realistically see service from MEL/BNE/PER given the obvious trends). Why do the domestic-international transfter thing and end up on the plane for as long as going via DXB/SIN/HKG etc, with (probably) increased cost and decreased comfort overall? So that's 2/3 of the Australian population out...

3. Costs of these ULH flights are extraordinarily high. Oil ain't getting any cheaper, and the cost of doing business out of Australia is only going to keep on rising. SQ can probably pull a profit from their slightly shorter, all-J flights, but I highly doubt that either QF or VA would be able to make money on the route.

4. Flights to North America will be 789 territory... Why add a whole other type when you can cover most things with what you already have (remember how keen AJ is to scale back to a two-type fleet?)

I wish I shared your optimism... TBH I see fewer ULH flights in the future as costs keep increasing rather than more...


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 130, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6967 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 125):
AI has been trying to find a buyer or lessee for its 77Ls, without success, for a couple of years now.

AI is hardly the best example given their financial situation at present.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 125):
Most airlines are finding that non-ULH frames are better for all missions up to near-ULH, and that ULH missions are very difficult economically. That is why a new 777-8LX will be very difficult for Boeing to sell in any significant numbers.

The 77L may have only sold a handful, but when you combine the sales of the 77L and the 77F, things aren't as bad as you're making it out to be. I don't think you can simply look at the numbers of the 777-8LX that Boeing is likely to sell. Yes, ULH is a niche market, but the development cost of the 777-8LX isn't going to be astronomical. The 777-8LX will also form the basis of the '777-8F'. Given the success of the current 777F, the 777-8F is likely to also be a big seller. It's only a matter of time before Airbus launches an A359F to get a share of the 777F market. Boeing would need a new 777-8 in order to respond. The 777-9X and the 777-8F sales alone should recover the development cost of the 777X program as a whole, never mind the fact that the 777-8LX will also be able to add a few to the total sales figures for next to nothing.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 131, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6923 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Yes, but they are optimized for ULH and, therefore, suboptimal for anything else.

That's arguably true for the A340-500, but not so much the 777-200LR. And that's not a slam on the A340-500, just a reflection that Airbus had to raise the OEW significantly to give it ULH range compared to what Boeing needed to do with the 777-200LR. And yes, I am fully aware the A340-500 is a larger plane than the A340-300 whereas the 777-200LR and 777-200ER are effectively the same size, but still, the A340-500 ended up some 35t heavier than the 777-200LR and 45t heavier than the A340-300.

In comparison, the 777-200LR added 7t over the 777-200ER. And as few orders the 777-200LR has secured, they are orders I believe that Boeing would not have secured if they'd only offered the 777-200ER as the 777-200LR offered the necessary performance boost.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
Actually, is any of those ULH routes even profitable?

I imagine SQ makes a nice chunk of change on their two A345 routes.



Quoting UALWN (Reply 98):
If 90%+ of their missions are not ULH, why buy an airplane that is optimized for the remaining 10% and not one optimized for that 90%

The 787 and A350 (and A330-200HGW, for that matter,) offer a good bit more nominal range than most of their operators will probably use, but then almost all missions are loaded with more than just passengers and their bags so that extraneous range at nominal loads becomes useful range at higher loads.


User currently onlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2289 posts, RR: 5
Reply 132, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6818 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 125):

A fine post!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 130):
AI is hardly the best example given their financial situation at present.

In a list of all notable 77L customers obviously AI needs to be mentioned. Also the point seabosdca was making was absolutely not related to the financial shape of the particular operator: the AI case just proves that the second hand market is non-existent.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4070 posts, RR: 13
Reply 133, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 125):
Most airlines are finding that non-ULH frames are better for all missions up to near-ULH, and that ULH missions are very difficult economically. That is why a new 777-8LX will be very difficult for Boeing to sell in any significant numbers.

Isn't your reasoning a contradiction in itself? All data seems to indicate that Boeing will develop a new long range of the 777 focusing on better efficiency, with marginally greater range. So the economics of ULH should improve by a large margin. That will make more ULH routes possible and near-ULH routes more efficient. The new version will be vastly more appealing than the 77L.



Stop pop up ads
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 134, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6656 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 133):
So the economics of ULH should improve by a large margin.

So will the economics of other routes, because the 777-8LX is not being developed in a vacuum and non-ULH types will improve right along with it. It will still be more efficient to fly a mostly full 777-9X (or A350-1000) than a full 777-8X on all but the very longest sectors, just like it's more efficient to fly a mostly full 77W today. And the very longest ULH sectors will still inherently be a struggle against updated ordinary aircraft (A350-1000, 787-10) flying shorter sectors to and from a connecting hub.

In fact, improvements to the range of the mainstream aircraft (8000 nm 777-9X, 8150 nm A350-1000) will only further marginalize the ULH aircraft.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2976 posts, RR: 2
Reply 135, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6654 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 131):
That's arguably true for the A340-500, but not so much the 777-200LR.

You're probably right, but yet, as it has been pointed out above, carriers like EK or SA choose to fly the 77W or 346 in missions that seem to be taylor-made for the 77L or the 345, preferring to take small weight penalties. Which seems to indicate that indeed, even for those ULH missions, the 77W and 346 make more economical sense than the 77L and 345. If that's the case, what is left for the 77L/345?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 131):
I imagine SQ makes a nice chunk of change on their two A345 routes.

Yet they are moving to 5/wk in the LAX-SIN route...



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 136, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6598 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 135):
You're probably right, but yet, as it has been pointed out above, carriers like EK or SA choose to fly the 77W or 346 in missions that seem to be taylor-made for the 77L or the 345, preferring to take small weight penalties. Which seems to indicate that indeed, even for those ULH missions, the 77W and 346 make more economical sense than the 77L and 345. If that's the case, what is left for the 77L/345?

My gut feeling is that if you're cargo heavy, go with 77L, but if you're pax heavy, take the 77W.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 137, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6500 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 135):
You're probably right, but yet, as it has been pointed out above, carriers like EK or SA choose to fly the 77W or 346 in missions that seem to be taylor-made for the 77L or the 345, preferring to take small weight penalties.

I believe EK bought the A340-500 more for her lifting ability on missions out to 12,000km versus her ability to fly farther than 15,000km. At the time, it was the only EK plane with the First Class suites and fancy Business Class seating and I imagine the DOW with them was quite high. Add in high ambient temps at DXB, and the A345 might have been the only viable platform at the time for the job. I believe the 777-200LR fills a similar role with EK - it can lift 45t and fly it ~15 hours even when temps at DXB are north of 40°C.

As for SA, they need/prefer four engines and as they operate only two classes, I would not be surprised if the DOW of their A340-600 was close to EK's on the A340-500 so the A340-600 should have plenty of legs for SA's missions.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 135):
Yet they are moving to 5/wk in the LAX-SIN route...

I am going to assume the new schedule is M-F, which would make sense as I imagine Business Class demand is low on the weekends.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 138, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6468 times:

I don't think the LR model is a priority since it will more than likely be a straight shrink, (obviously not a walk in the park but pretty much as easy to engineer as a variant can be), maintaining the MTOW of the longer model with lower empty weight which can go to fuel or cargo.

It will be something that will happen if there is customer demand. If they can sell it first, the engineering will be a relative no brainer. I really don't think a shrink is as difficult to achieve as a stretch, since they will keep the heavier MTOW, they don't have to be quite as strict about getting out every possible ounce of weight.

The 77L and the 77W pretty much have this arrangement as will the 787-9 and 787-10....similar MTOW, different strengths, basically using the same parts bin except for a couple of fuse plugs.



What the...?
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 139, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 137):
I am going to assume the new schedule is M-F, which would make sense as I imagine Business Class demand is low on the weekends.

Sunday is not that low because many prefer a good night sleep prior to attending business on Monday.

I'd guestimate x26


User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2361 posts, RR: 25
Reply 140, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6133 times:

With the 789 coming into service, I just wonder how much value there is to a 777-8ULX.

The 789 offers to fly the max payload to 5700nm. That's 11.5 hours. That should be good for just about any airline, excepting the Gulf 3 perhaps. Consider that the 789's MTOW range is about the same as 764ER's. The difference is that the 787 brings more payload to that range.

Boeing had better hope that this attracts a large order from EK. Other than the Gulf airlines, I can't see too many airlines being interested.


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6111 times:

The 77L makes sense if you have cargo to haul, if you are not a major cargo handler, pax+cargo makes a decent return in dollars I would bet.

I don't think we will ever see LHR-SYD route, no matter how good the aircraft is. Its just too long of a flight to be comfortable to anyone but cargo. Does anyone have the flight time in hours? It must be around 18-19 hours? Horrible!


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 142, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6073 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sweair (Reply 141):
I don't think we will ever see LHR-SYD route, no matter how good the aircraft is. Its just too long of a flight to be comfortable to anyone but cargo.

I believe LHR-SYD non-stop can only work with premium cabin travel.

When SQ had an Economy Class cabin on their A340-500s, it was similar in comfort to domestic First Class on United States carriers and loads were said to be poor to the point that they eventually got rid of it. I expect this was because even though it was very comfortable, it was not conducive to extended sleeping (like a true premium cabin hard product is).

So if Super Premium Economy doesn't fly, there is no way Premium Economy, to say nothing of Plain Ol' Economy, will work on that mission.

However, I expect the premium cabins on those planes helps make the one-stop services profitable and therefore airlines will not want to replace the premium cabins on their current one-stops with more Economy seats.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 143, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

I think they'll offer the plane because it's going to be 99% in common with the -9x, so why wouldn't they? It's like the ATR42. Nobody expects it too get many orders but it doesn't cost anything to offer it since it's almost identical, except for length, to the 72.

So basically, they'll offer it since it doesn't make sense not to.



What the...?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 144, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5956 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 143):
So basically, they'll offer it since it doesn't make sense not to.

The other part of the issue is that I don't think it makes much sense to offer the -9X either.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 145, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):

I believe LHR-SYD non-stop can only work with premium cabin travel

It's SYD-LHR that's the challenge.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 146, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5926 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 144):

I do. It will be the closest one can come to a true 747 replacement in a twin. It also helps to further differentiate the 77x from the -1000.



What the...?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3432 posts, RR: 4
Reply 147, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5904 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 142):
I believe LHR-SYD non-stop can only work with premium cabin travel.

I could see a 3 class plane making sense if Y class was more of a Y+ in space to keep the wieght down and help justify the extra money the ticket costs. When we talk about a plane the size of the 777-8LX, a pure premium cabin is a whole lot of capacity banking on just one segment of travel.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 148, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 146):
It also helps to further differentiate the 77x from the -1000.

...by moving away from the part of the market where the 777-300ER has been so incredibly successful.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 149, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5867 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 147):
I could see a 3 class plane making sense if Y class was more of a Y+ in space to keep the weight down and help justify the extra money the ticket costs.

I just can't see anyone spending a day, literally, in an Economy style seat. It has to at least be a cradle/angled flat seat so a person can (more or less) fully extend and be still be supported. And that is going to require at least twice the pitch of an Economy seat (64+ inches).


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 150, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5836 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 148):
...by moving away from the part of the market where the 777-300ER has been so incredibly successful.

It's a dangerous game to assume that what customers wanted yesterday is the same thing they will want tomorrow. The capacity of the 777-300ER was set in 1995. Future customers may very well demand the additional capacity over the existing 77W.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 151, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5646 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 148):

There's nothing to say the market doesn't extend upwards. With oil going ever upward, CASM will be more important...and no doubt, the 9x will be the 777 CASM king.

The market didn't exist before the 77W, basically it created a market and currently owns it. There is no reason why the market might not extend further upwards. After all, it goes all the way to the 380...and that market didn't exist before the 380. Every market had a plane which created it.

Just look at the 77E. It started the 777 family but the real meat was the larger model. Perhaps the 9x will be the meat of the market. There is absolutely no way to know right now since the plane doesn't exist which can fit into the market.

The closest is the 748...and that's not flying off of the shelves but 748ish seating with the economy of a twin seems like it has a chance to me.

The kicker is that Boeing seems to think so and they don't produce many dogs so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They've been pretty much on the button so far with the 777...the 1000th rolling off of the line is testament to that.



What the...?
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15845 posts, RR: 27
Reply 152, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
and no doubt, the 9x will be the 777 CASM king.

...if you can fill it. And a lot of airlines won't be able to and the CASM likely won't be much, if any, better than the A350.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
The market didn't exist before the 77W, basically it created a market and currently owns it.

The demand was there, but the lack of ETOPS and 115000 lb thrust engines kept it on the back burner until recently.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
They've been pretty much on the button so far with the 777.

...so maybe changing the formula isn't such a great idea. If airlines want more seats they can get more seats in the 747-8, which they've been stunningly indifferent to.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 153, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5518 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
...if you can fill it. And a lot of airlines won't be able to and the CASM likely won't be much, if any, better than the A350.

That's ok...there's no reason every aircraft has to kill the competition. There's probably room for something from everybody.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
The demand was there, but the lack of ETOPS and 115000 lb thrust engines kept it on the back burner until recently.

Boeing knew both were coming and they wisely prepared for them and got GE on board by offering them exclusivity.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 152):
...so maybe changing the formula isn't such a great idea. If airlines want more seats they can get more seats in the 747-8, which they've been stunningly indifferent to.

If they can do the 777x like they seem to think they can, it'll be way cheaper to operate and put two in the temple of the 748i.

By floating this concept, Boeing has basically signaled that they're willing to sacrifice the 748i. Regardless, they seem keen on it and we'll see in 5 or so years.

They have some lofty goals...and it'll be fascinating to follow the progress.



What the...?
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5856 posts, RR: 6
Reply 154, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5503 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 147):
When we talk about a plane the size of the 777-8LX, a pure premium cabin is a whole lot of capacity banking on just one segment of travel.

   This is why, if there is to be a future LHR-SYD aircraft, I think it will be an all-premium 787-8LRX or A350-800R.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 155, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5504 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 151):
The market didn't exist before the 77W, basically it created a market and currently owns it.

I believe it did exist and was quite adequately addressed at the time by the A340-600.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 156, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 5341 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 155):

True...the 346 created that segment of the market...which didn't exist before and combined with 77w deliveries, there were over 400 aircraft delivered in that segment in a decade. Not too shabby, really.

It may be the sweet spot for the 777 for now but Boeing figures it may be worth their while to do the 77x.

Unfortunately, it'll be a long, slow wait for real details about two key questions; how will they get those extra inches from the interior width and how much weight can they lose?

And who knows? Maybe by the time they build a whole new wing and brand new engines, they might decide on a brand new fuselage as well...and it'll morph into Y3.

[Edited 2012-02-18 00:07:12]


What the...?
User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5104 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 156):
And who knows? Maybe by the time they build a whole new wing and brand new engines, they might decide on a brand new fuselage as well...and it'll morph into Y3.

But if this rather well-received and highly effiicient cross section wouldn't change in a meaningful way, why focus on a part that promised the smallest returns, when a simple material update would also keep the efficient production line running?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 158, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

Quoting SeJoWa (Reply 157):

The fuse is also one of the least technical parts of the plane to change. The realy tough thiings are the wings and engines. I suspect their number one choice is to chip away whatever excess they can and go to al-li. By the time they need it, I don't doubt that there will be more than enough data to make the switch in materials relatively simple.

On the other hand, they already plan to tweak the cabin width by...well...I'm not sure how...slimmer braces and insulation, it seems. I've read as miuch as 4 inches can be had but like everything else in the program, the best guess is still just a guess.

At this point,, it's all speculation...which is a good fun thought exercise which has produced some interesting ideas...but nothing we should take too seriously.

No doubt Boeing will throw a few curve balls into the mix before they freeze the design...in a few years.



What the...?
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2695 posts, RR: 5
Reply 159, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4920 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 134):
So will the economics of other routes, because the 777-8LX is not being developed in a vacuum and non-ULH types will improve right along with it. It will still be more efficient to fly a mostly full 777-9X (or A350-1000) than a full 777-8X on all but the very longest sectors, just like it's more efficient to fly a mostly full 77W today. And the very longest ULH sectors will still inherently be a struggle against updated ordinary aircraft (A350-1000, 787-10) flying shorter sectors to and from a connecting hub.

In fact, improvements to the range of the mainstream aircraft (8000 nm 777-9X, 8150 nm A350-1000) will only further marginalize the U