Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Emirates, The 777 And The 350-10  
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1710 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 20079 times:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...echnology/2017651815_boeing03.html

Interesting article. Clark, in a low key way, says he wants the 777 for 13-18 hour flights. Describes the 350-10 as filling another niche - 10 hour flights.


Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19879 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes. The 777-9X's greater passenger capacity and higher lift would definitely attract airlines such as EK. 13-18hrs is basically ULH territory, so I'd imagine that the 777-8LX has some roles to play in the EK fleet of the future.

Given that EK is the largest 777 operator at present, and the way they're praising the 777X, I think it would be very likely that EK could be the launch airline for the 777X project, if Clark is willing to put his money where his mouth is - which he will, I'm sure, so long as Boeing meets its targets with the 777X.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30648 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 1):
Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes.

That is also the impression I have been getting from folks who talk to folks in EK's Fleet Planning group. The A350-1000 is a "super 777-200ER | A330-300" as well as a 777-300 replacement more than a pure 777-300ER replacement.


User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2921 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19819 times:

Different planes have different roles, even when its not always apparently so clear at first glace.

EK has had a habit of using aircraft in varying roles for quite a while, and the use of the next geeration of aircraft will likely be no different.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19771 times:

Hypothetically speaking if A brings the 350-10 with no further delays, when would it be set for its first flight?

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2597 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 19762 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 4):
Hypothetically speaking if A brings the 350-10 with no further delays, when would it be set for its first flight?

Airbus are targeting a 2017 EIS, so I'd imagine its first flight would be late 2015/early 2016.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 19268 times:

Given this use of the 350-1000 one can understand EKs frustration when A delays it 2 years to add 400nm to the ULH range. The new version also added 400nm to the max payload range from 5100nm to 5500nm but it did not increase the MSP rather lowered it with 1t to 67t.

The present 300ER is 3t better then that and expect the new to add 5t or more to that, ie the 777X would outlift the -1000 with 8-12t, that would be up to 15% more.



Non French in France
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day ago) and read 18651 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 6):
Given this use of the 350-1000 one can understand EKs frustration when A delays it 2 years to add 400nm to the ULH range. The new version also added 400nm to the max payload range from 5100nm to 5500nm but it did not increase the MSP rather lowered it with 1t to 67t.

Yes, but looking at a range ring with the current max range (8,420nm) from DXB:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=8420nm%40DXB

There's really nowhere on the EK network that it can't fly.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 18388 times:

My view is that EK look at just about the worse case ESAD for a city pair and set the space to sell based on that. Based on the restrictions they put on what they will sell on the 77W DXB-LAX I figure that they are basing these on an ESAD/ Gate to gate time in excess of the time table time. I believe this is consistent with their policy of being able to execute a flight close to 100% of the time based on the parameters they have set. Their timetable time DXB-LAX is 16h 30m or ~7600nm ESAD yet the seat limit they put on suggests something close to a 7800nm ESAD. Checking the last 20-days on FlightAware their sector times have been between 14h 24m. and 16h 01m. If they load the max passengers ( is it about 328?) do they vary their cargo load depending on the forecasted winds for the flight. I don't know. I believe the reason they keep the 77L on the DXB-LAX route is to sop up the cargo that they cannot load on the 77W flights.

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 23 hours ago) and read 17916 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 7):
Yes, but looking at a range ring with the current max range (8,420nm) from DXB:

Well EK does not reason like that, the 8400nm is for a spec cabin (ie light) with a spec load (ful pax+bags only, no cargo), now lets look at their real case:

1. They cram as many people in there as possible in more comfortable seats. ie their cabins weight 3-5t more then the spec case, ie we would have a OEW of 165-167t.

2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 14-19t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.

4. So the ship is loaded at 208-213t so you get some 95 to 100t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 13-15 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6000-6500nm leg to aim for.

The 8400nm is only there if you fly with a part fill cabin in the real case.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30648 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 17691 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At MTOW, an EK 777-300ER can load 60t of payload and 111t of fuel. I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t, but if we assume it is, that would give them a DOW of 180.5t.

Trip fuel for LAX-DXB on the 777-200LR is 122t with a minimum fuel load of 133t and a TOW of 343t | MZFW of 209t.

Now going west, you fight winds aloft, so I would expect the fuel load to be higher. For DXB-JFK on a 777-300ER, average trip fuel is 109t with an average flight time of 13h30m.

[Edited 2012-03-03 09:11:14]

User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12411 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 17117 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
enough for a max 13-15 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6000-6500nm leg to aim for.

OK, let's work on that basis, taking the 6,000nm aircraft:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=6000nm%40DXB

It's not a North America or South America machine, but it'll do everything else except SE Australia; it'll be far more capable range-wise, than the standard 773. I'd call that a pretty good airplane.


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 16435 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 11):
I'd call that a pretty good airplane.

Which is why EK bought a big chunk of them.



Non French in France
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30648 posts, RR: 84
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 20 hours ago) and read 16139 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

EK does use the 777-300ER to the Americas, so it must be at least somewhat of a "machine" for those missions.   

User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 16005 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

I believe 175t DOW for a 77W was quoted by a pilot insider on another forum . Stitch might have that link.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t,

I believe they had a few that were slightly more than that or is it that they have a few at this MTOW with most a little less.?

EK use 180kg/m3 as a freight density , at least for the 777F so I don't see it varying much for passenger belly cargo.
My take from the load range table is , based on the DOW and MTOW above they are limited to ~209t ZFW or a payload of 31t plus a bit which is right on the mark for a 328- passenger load ~7600nm ESAD. With a slightly less MTOW than 351.5t. the ZFW drops back to ~206t which gets rid of the "plus a bit".


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30648 posts, RR: 84
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 15949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 14):
I believe they had a few that were slightly more than that or is it that they have a few at this MTOW with most a little less.?

351.5t would be Boeing's listed MTOW.

On the 10 April 2008 DXB-GRU flight, with 264 passengers, an EK 77W had a ZFW of 237t. It tanked 109t of fuel for the flight and departed with a TOW of 346t.


User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 17 hours ago) and read 14754 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
On the 10 April 2008 DXB-GRU flight, with 264 passengers, an EK 77W had a ZFW of 237t. It tanked 109t of fuel for the flight and departed with a TOW of 346t.

I don't doubt the numbers since they were supplied by someone else. I am puzzled by them . They mean a payload of about 62t. The passenger load would have been by generally accepted standards ~ 26.4 t which leaves 35.6t for cargo. I have trouble with that , unless the belly cargo on that day was about one third heavier than the typical industry standard. I suppose that is possible , there are always exceptions to the rule.   


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2800 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 8 hours ago) and read 12803 times:

Just realized I made quite a mistake in my previous post, the OEW of the 350-1000N is 152t not 162t OOOPS,  Wow!    .

So adjust everything 10t:

1. They cram as many people in there as possible in more comfortable seats. ie their cabins weight 3-5t more then the spec case, ie we would have a OEW of 155-157t.

2. They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 158-161t.

3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 24-29t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.

4. So the ship is loaded at 198-203t so you get some 105 to 110t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 14-16 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6700-7200nm leg to aim for.

The 8400nm is only there if you fly with a part fill cabin in the real case.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1546 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 12689 times:

So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

Ruscoe


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 379 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 12671 times:

Emirates and Qatar for that matter, are probably valuing payload vs burn differently than most carriers since they are getting the fuel at much lower prices at home base.

I am saying that they will prefer the higher payload capability of the 777 over lower burn figures of the 350 since they don't pay market price for fuel.


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 12645 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
3. Load the craft with pax+bags and cargo: Pax+bags will be something like 33-35t so now you have 24-29t for cargo but you only have 24 LD3 positions left after the bags are loaded, at 0,5t a piece you get 7t cargo on board as well unless you go for pallets or bulk cargo.
Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
4. So the ship is loaded at 198-203t so you get some 105 to 110t fuel in it before you are at MTOW, enough for a max 14-16 hours in the air which gives you a safe 6700-7200nm leg to aim for.

Sorry to point out another flaw in your calculations, but if you have 24 LD3's at 0.5t each, thats 12t of cargo you can load, not 7t. That makes the ship loaded at 203-208t to leave 100-105t of fuel to acheive MTOW.

A quick question for you, how many litres of fuel is 100t?


User currently offlinencfc99 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 7 hours ago) and read 12633 times:

Quoting packsonflight (Reply 19):
Emirates and Qatar for that matter, are probably valuing payload vs burn differently than most carriers since they are getting the fuel at much lower prices at home base.

I am saying that they will prefer the higher payload capability of the 777 over lower burn figures of the 350 since they don't pay market price for fuel

I think you forgot the smiley to let everyone know the above post was a joke.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8883 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 12578 times:

Quoting ncfc99 (Reply 20):
A quick question for you, how many litres of fuel is 100t?

Just divide it by the specific gravity, 0.8 would work for Jet A1.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinesunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4883 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 12502 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):
So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

Assuming a MTOW within the present landing gear capability, max passenger load of 323 at ~6500nm.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9981 posts, RR: 96
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 12484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 1):
Clark has been basically saying this all along, if I recall, that he bought the A350-1000 to replace the 777-300 'A' models on medium haul routes.

The A350-1000 is in no way a medium haul aircraft, no matter what Tim Clark says. We might as well call the 773ER and 787 "medium haul" too

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
They need catering as well and newpapers to the pax, add 3-4t more, ie DOW 168-171t.

The DOW of EK's 773ER's is some 175 - 176 tonnes. I somehow doubt that the DOW of the A350-1000 would be only 5 tonnes less. The difference in the weight of the engines alone approaches that.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 17):
Just realized I made quite a mistake in my previous post, the OEW of the 350-1000N is 152t not 162t OOOPS

Fair comment. So if it's spec is 350 pax for 8 400Nm, then it should be good for a ZFW of 184 tonnes to 8 400Nm (which implies 124 tonnes of fuel tanked for that range)

But in the same way EK's 773ER's have a DOW some 9t heavier than the "spec" 166 tonnes, I think it would be safe to assume the same for the A350-1000.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
I'm not sure if EK's 777-300ERs are at 351.5t, but if we assume it is, that would give them a DOW of 180.5t.

My understanding is that the 773ER's that EK fly on DXB-LAX are indeed the 352 tonners, procured for just that purpose.
This plane, at 7 600Nm ESAD will have a ZFW of about 210 tonnes, according to the ACAP. And this aligns quite nicely with the 35 - 36 tonnes payload EK's 773ER's are said to be capable of from DXB - LAX, if the troe DOW is 174 - 175 tonnes.
Fuel tanked must be about 142 tonnes if they take off at MTOW

(By my calculations) The A350-1000 should be capable of a ZFW of about 194 tonnes at 7 600Nm ESAD (and 114 tonnes of fuel tanked), which notionally implies a payload of about 42 tonnes. But if it's fit-out for DOW is similarly heavy to the 773ER, in reality, this is more likely to be about 33-34 tonnes, by my calcs - a midges less than the 773ER

(As a data point, to mimic EK's alleged 21% difference in fuel burn, it would be necessary for the A350-1000 to tank 117 tonnes, for a ZFW of 191 tonnes, which would put the payload at 7 600Nm ESAD down around 31 tonnes....unless I've got something wrong)

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 18):
So where is the 787-10 positioned in all this?

About 1 500Nm behind the A350-1000's "medium haul" routes.
I wonder if that classifies the 787-10 as a "short-haul" aircraft     

Rgds


25 CXB77L : I didn't say that the A350-1000 is a 'medium haul' aircraft, I only pointed out that EK purchased the A350-1000 for that purpose, as per Clark's stat
26 Post contains images ferpe : Thanks all for finding my mis-calculations, must bring my brain to maintenance soon . I don't think TC referred to the present 77W being that much mor
27 rheinwaldner : TC was always good for a lot of stories. I remember the 748i fans putting their (almost last) hope in EK because TC has dreamt of a VLA with more rang
28 CXB77L : That's right, as I recall. EK wanted a 744-sized aircraft that could do 8500nm, not a stretched 744 that could only fly 8000nm. Since Boeing didn't b
29 Post contains images flipdewaf : TC says:"Boeing, Make me this plane and I will buy it." Boeing gets as close as possible and airbus get scared because they might lose out on big ord
30 Post contains images EPA001 : He sure has a lot of power given the big orders he places at both companies. He might have a bit too much power, but if the OEM's give in, then they
31 eaa3 : How can basically every destination on the Eurasian continent, Africa, South-East Asia be considered a niche. It's the backbone of Emirates fleet. Em
32 Post contains links CXB77L : No, it does not. The 777-300ER has a payload advantage over the A350-1000 up to approximately 7000nm. The chart is in this thread: A350-1000: To Be R
33 YTZ : Doesn't EK only have 20 A35Ja on order? So why the worrying? Or is he planning on converting all his A359 orders.
34 Post contains images ferpe : Here a payload range chart of the 77W (B ACAP figures), 35J and 35JN (A figures): Once you are around or beyond 6000nm ESAD they are pretty similar an
35 Stitch : When EK talked about the 747-8, they talked about a shorter version than the model that was already available. Of course, they were never serious abo
36 YTZ : I would think that EK is just working towards fleet simplification here. Seems pretty obvious to me that the A35J will be for any trip less than 10 hr
37 frmrCapCadet : LH targets their wide bodies very carefully. Perhaps that is the manner in which Clark from EK used the term 'niche' for the 350-10, with the implicat
38 Post contains images astuteman : That's fair enough One of the advantages that his order quantities confers, I guess... Rgds
39 Post contains links and images ferpe : As CXB77L pointed out in the "777, 7810 and 350 killer thread" the payload-range chart I presented above was an old one that I had in my image bank he
40 Post contains images rotating14 : Keep in mind that we are talking about a carrier who operates over 100 777's with over 90 more on the way. I would bet the farm that EK and Boeing al
41 lightsaber : That it is... Nothing stops either OEM from ignoring him. But that would be like ignoring Juan Tripp's TATL famous 707 order. Step #1: negotiate with
42 Post contains links LAXDESI : Copy of OP from my thread in the technical forum comparing A350-1000 to B777-9X(407) seats. A350-100 Versus B777-9X(407 Seats) Analysis (by LAXDESI Ma
43 flipdewaf : If the A3510 has a lower wing loading and a higher T/W how will the 779X wing differ to gain similar runway performance and what bearing will this ha
44 Post contains links rheinwaldner : So it is unlucky that the 77X would have a 8000nm design range as well (as currently drafted). And almost funny is that the A35J now has 8500nm desig
45 Post contains links CXB77L : How so? EK wanted 8500nm from the 748i, not from the 777-9X. What they want from the 777-9X is quite clearly encapsulated in that article. The 748i d
46 Post contains images astuteman : I think you'll have a hard time selling that idea.. The 748i shouldh have a max payload range of some 6 200Nm, some 500m greater than the 777-300ER.
47 Post contains images CXB77L : That it does. I stand corrected. I was mistakenly looking at the 744 chart ...
48 Irishpower : Clark mentioned in the article that EK will be adding 2 new US destinations to their network, what are they? ORD? MIA? IAD? ATL?
49 ferpe : This is what I can't grasp either. The dimensioning case for the wing and engines are many times the 1 engine out at V2, ie about 170kts, there the d
50 Post contains images astuteman : Easily done, my friend. Easily done. I've always been intrigued by just how close the 744's R/P chart is to the 773ER's. They're not that far from be
51 Post contains links frigatebird : You could very well be right there. I guess we'll learn more later this, apparently Boeing already has an RFP out to GE and RR for the 777X engines.
52 StickShaker : Is that with or without fuel in the tailplane tank (or has that issue been resolved) ? Regards, StickShaker
53 rheinwaldner : So Clark could have bought an aircraft years ago that was superior regarding payload over range than the 77W? And he didn't? I think efficiency was t
54 Post contains images EPA001 : Boeing expects that issue to be resolved in 2013. Must be a bit more difficult to resolve then earlier anticipated. I think you can read that is the
55 Stitch : If he takes over 100 of them, like he has the 777-300ER, that's not a bad niche. And then consider carriers like AF/KL, NZ and the others who current
56 Daysleeper : To say the least, going back through previous projects that have involved re-lofting the wings I cannot find anything that would make Boeings claim o
57 Stitch : It doesn't sound so impossible to me. The A350-1000 will lift 308t with 194,000 pounds of thrust and a wing 65m wide. The 777-8X will lift 320t with 1
58 Daysleeper : Sorry, it perhaps wasn't clear that i was refering to the 9X which would have the same 351,500 KG MTOW.
59 Stitch : The 777X wing is said to be new, so that means it will be supercritical and incorporate decades of design improvements over the 777's wing. So even t
60 Daysleeper : I agree there is going to be some improvement over the 77W, but I was comparing to the A350 whose wings are going to be just as new as the 77X’s.
61 LAXDESI : Boeing is planning for 753,000 lbs. MTOW for 777-9X, which is about 22,000 lbs. lower than the current MTOW. Comparing the 77W to the proposed stretc
62 Daysleeper : The last article I’d read stated the 9X would maintain the 77W’s MTOW, however searching the web does throw up various estimates ranging from 340
63 frigatebird : Knowing EK and TC, price must have played a significant role as well. And EK wanted guarantees from Boeing it was a 8300NM plane. Boeing knew it coul
64 ferpe : This is not quite correct, you have to include the effect on the wingllet on those frames that have it, it does lower induced drag in the same way as
65 Stitch : If I am interpreting your statement correctly, your belief is that Boeing will take the current 777 wing, extend it a bit, and make it out of CFRP in
66 zeke : Need to be careful what data you base your statements on, some of the information presented in this thread for the -1000 is clearly incorrect, the -1
67 nomorerjs : ORD (Chicago) will probably the last metro area with 10M people to see EK. Rumors have been going on for years, but nothing yet. EY is here and QR wil
68 Post contains links and images ferpe : That is not what I am saying, the -1000 wing has winglets and the 2 of the 8X variants might have winglets as well. When you compare the -1000 wing a
69 rheinwaldner : So we have 200 to 300 sales. What if the rest will be much less excited? I only say that EK's interest does not mean much. They have been excited abo
70 Post contains images Stitch : If the business case for the 777X is insufficient to justify the investment, then it won't happen. As to thrust vs. lift, I have to assume Boeing kno
71 zeke : Based on those numbers, the -1000 has the best L/D ratio.
72 mogandoCI : Some type of replacement between 772A and 773A. It'd be fine along the shorter transatlantic runs, but would be choking along the longer transpacific
73 Stitch : Like the 787-8, the 787-10 is MTOW-constrained. It cannot fill it's tanks sufficiently at high ZFWs to fly longer (13+ hour) missions. To achieve the
74 mogandoCI : But in terms of long-term sales prospects, is it smarter to re-wing a light body or re-engine a heavy body ?
75 Stitch : I'm not sure they need to do either, to be honest. The 787-9 is the 777-200ER's replacement for long-haul missions in the current Boeing portfolio. T
76 rheinwaldner : Nobody can look into the future. Not even Boeing. Boeing has launched the 753, 764 and even the 748 with high and documented expectations. Only the m
77 CXB77L : As I said before, Boeing didn't build the 748i that Clark wanted. He walked away from the deal. That's just the way it is. Actually, the A332 was lar
78 frigatebird : That is your opinion, and I respect that. But: And neither can you. So why do you think you are smarter than all Boeing technicians, executives and m
79 Post contains images rheinwaldner : Much further, that's the difference. Such analogy considerations only work if e.g. the range does not differ as much as between A332 and 764. E.g. 77
80 Post contains images Stitch : Well the 757-300 was a free stretch. The 767-400ER was a bit more involved and the 747-8 quite so. And the failure of the 767-400ER in the market and
81 Irishpower : Clark mentioned in the article that EK will be adding 2 new US destinations to their network, what are they? ORD? MIA? IAD? ATL?
82 abba : Stitch, I think that you are right here. We are possibly talking about an EIS sometime in the next decade. That would give the Y3 at least 10 years o
83 flipdewaf : If it's only a 10 year difference then the A350 should be able to be upgraded to match it no problem surely. Fred
84 Post contains links CXB77L : Boeing are gearing up for an end of year 777X launch. Apparently, they have made their conclusion already. If they were to launch the Y3, the rumour
85 rheinwaldner : I agree. Especially as the 77X would already be more than half of a new design (new engines + new wings are 2/3 if we consider wing, fuselage and eng
86 StickShaker : Would this be Boeing's chosen route if the 787 had not created such a financial black hole ? I'm guessing that Boeing have achieved better ROI's on d
87 PITingres : I think I agree except for your first point. The development cost would be much more than 77X IMHO. (Depending, of course, on what 77X turns out to i
88 Stitch : Money is the last thing holding Boeing back from new product. They have plenty of cash on hand, plenty of cash coming in, and access to plenty of cas
89 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : If the primary difference is comfort level, then I don't see the business case for the 777X - for those airlines. It might be more appealing, but tha
90 StickShaker : I understand that a company the size of Boeing will always have access to cash but I was wondering if the board of directors and major shareholders w
91 Post contains images Stitch : Boeing filed a patent in 2010 for a transonic Blended Wing Body widebody that looks kind of like the Honeydew concept crossed with Sonic Cruiser. I d
92 rheinwaldner : The 77X's key feature is a new wing. Tremendous hopes are coupled on the new composite wing for the 77X: a massive OEW reduction, a massive wingarea
93 A342 : But we have two engines, not just one, don't we? Or what am I missing? A342
94 Post contains images Stitch : Let us remember that the problem with the 787 wing-to-body join was that it was too strong. So Boeing already knows they can put more load on the ori
95 Roseflyer : A larger wing with more advanced high lift devices can do that. The 787 design has included additional features such as spoiler droop to improve low
96 Post contains images ferpe : It is not about lift but lift vs. drag to get your field performance and safe 1 engine out characteristics. Today's wings (eg 787) can generate lift
97 PlanesNTrains : So, in other words, no. If Boeing proceeds to launch a 777X - deeming it a valid venture - you would still not be on board. I'm fine with that, but j
98 rheinwaldner : You are correct. I calculated the one-engine-out case (by mistake). Using both engines the delta would be reduced somewhat. Exactly. I am realistic e
Top Of Page
Forum Index

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

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Emirates To Be The Biggest Airline In 10 Years? posted Sat Oct 10 2009 21:33:30 by Q120
Does Emirates Fly The 777 To Manchester? posted Sun May 13 2001 18:41:09 by GF-A330
The 777 And The DC-10/MD-11 posted Tue Oct 10 2000 13:05:49 by Critter592
Efficiency Of The 777-9X vs 747-8I? posted Mon Mar 5 2012 06:33:53 by SSPhoenix
What If 787 And A350 Kill The 777? (Part 2) posted Thu Mar 1 2012 03:12:31 by SA7700
What If 787 And A350 Kill The 777? (Part 1) posted Wed Feb 22 2012 03:01:54 by na
Gallois Speaks On The 380, 350 And More posted Sun Dec 12 2010 09:03:16 by JoeCanuck
The New Frontier: #10 posted Fri Jul 9 2010 20:54:53 by knope2001
Emirates Future In The US posted Thu Apr 29 2010 07:50:33 by Malayil
LH To Leave Caracas At The End Of 10/2010 posted Tue Apr 13 2010 17:59:21 by Avianca