Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any Current 777 Operators Who Won't Order 777X  
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16609 times:

I'm curious if anyone thinks there will be any current 777 operators that will not order the 777X.

I'm not expecting all the current operators to order the next generation 777 and Airbus may take a few who decide to go with the A350 but who sticks out as a current customer that will not order the newer models?

106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 729 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16544 times:

I think it is too early to speculate. We don't know enough about either 777X or A350-1000. We also do not know if Airbus plans to stretch A350 further.

User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8372 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 16438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter):
I'm not expecting all the current operators to order the next generation 777 and Airbus may take a few who decide to go with the A350 but who sticks out as a current customer that will not order the newer models?

Many airline will fly both, current 777 with A350 orders include AF, Cathay, Singapore, United, Emirates and Qatar, all should get the 777X.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2987 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16356 times:

It all comes down to the A350-1000 IMO. If that frame is a strong replacement for the ULH ops that airlines currently use some of their 77W's for, then I can see many forgoing the 777X for a fleet of A350's.

I don't see airlines like CX and SQ choosing to order the 777X unless they need to because there's nothing else capable of flying the routes they need the stretched A350 for. It's just messy, and an unnecessary cost addition.

I do see a strong future for the 777X if it goes ahead though... Especially if integration with the 787 is tight (ie common cockpit, common mx systems etc).


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16287 times:

I’d hazard a guess that BA will go with an A350/787 combination, they had a bad experience as one of the original 772 customers and only ended up with the 77W because they were part of the 787 compensation deal.

User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 890 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 16186 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 4):

I’d hazard a guess that BA will go with an A350/787 combination, they had a bad experience as one of the original 772 customers and only ended up with the 77W because they were part of the 787 compensation deal.

Wave that Airbus flag my friend. BA rather enjoys their 77Ws ... a lot, hence their top up order. How do you explain the fleet of 43 777s + 6 77Ws in their fleet if they had a bad experience.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16111 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 5):
Wave that Airbus flag my friend.

I wasn’t aware Airbus made the 787.

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 5):
BA rather enjoys their 77Ws ... a lot, hence their top up order. How do you explain the fleet of 43 777s + 6 77Ws in their fleet if they had a bad experience.

Past/present experience’s with the 777 are only part of the reason I don’t think BA will order the 77X, the main one being it’ simply not going to be as efficient as the A3510.


User currently onlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7582 posts, RR: 42
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16025 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter):
I'm curious if anyone thinks there will be any current 777 operators that will not order the 777X

Let's look at AM. They have 4 77Es and 7 767ERs (some -200s and some -300s). They will replace the 767s with 788s on a one-to-one basis. The 77Es (277 seats in 2-class configuration I believe) will probably stay longer but when the time comes AM might feel they can replace them with 789s. I personally would love to see AM order 777-800Xs to replace the 77Es but as I said, they may go the 789 route instead.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 890 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16019 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
I wasn’t aware Airbus made the 787.

Someone is in a sarcastic mood today.   I just don't understand your argument about BA's experience with their 777s - its the backbone of their fleet. Minus BA38 , which was clearly a unique situation, I would say they love their 777s.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
it’ simply not going to be as efficient as the A3510

And yet customers keep ordering the 77W by the hundreds with the A350-1000 suffering in sales. I do believe the A350-1000 will be a big success, but for a plane that hasn't been developed yet ... lets wait and see.


User currently offlineSASMD82 From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 771 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 16009 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 5):
Wave that Airbus flag my friend. BA rather enjoys their 77Ws ... a lot, hence their top up order. How do you explain the fleet of 43 777s + 6 77Ws in their fleet if they had a bad experience.

If the 787 was build by Airbus, Boeing would probably have had the same problems as McDonnell Douglas had in the 90s.

I do agree with you that the 77W is - by now - the most logical replacement for the ancient 744. I expect them to be part of their fleet for a long time and to fly aside of the B787s, A359 and A388.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2613 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15881 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

I don't see why we need to speculate so soon. We don't know who's going to order it until it becomes a reality. That said, I don't see EK not ordering it, given the way they've publicly praised the concept. The way I see it, every current 777 operator is a potential 777X customer. Even if they have ordered A350s, none of them have stated categorically that they will not buy the 777X. It is quite possible that the 777X will be flown alongside the 787 and A350 in the long haul fleets of the early 2020s.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
Past/present experience’s with the 777 are only part of the reason I don’t think BA will order the 77X

What experiences? The issues they had with the early GE90s aside (which are the sort of problems every new type early in its career will experience), what negative operational experiences have BA had with the 777, which has been reported about? And before you mention BA38, the final AAIB report held that the incident was specific to RR Trent 800 powered aircraft.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
the main one being it’ simply not going to be as efficient as the A3510.

On which routes? With what seating configurations? Granted that the 777-9X, being larger and heavier, will use more fuel per trip, but its 57-seat advantage, and possible payload and cargo capacity advantage also means it has the potential to earn more revenue and thus reduce its costs per seat / tonne.

Quote:

If launched under its current conceptual specifications, say those familiar with the details, the 777-9X would yield a 21% improvement in per-seat fuel burn and a 16% improvement a cash operating cost per-seat over today's 777-300ER.

Such jumps in efficiency are more usually reserved for clean sheet aircraft, and simply put, the long-range twin would be Boeing's most efficient jetliner ever developed, even exceeding the conceptual performance of its 787-9 and -10X.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/Features/Boeing-777-special/777X/

Yes, the A350 will be a fantastic aircraft, but the 777X will be every bit as good. In my view, part of the reason why the A35J has yet to take off in terms of orders is because customers are waiting for Boeing to reveal their offering, namely the 777-9X, before evaluating both types to see which one would best suit their needs.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15858 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
Yes, the A350 will be a fantastic aircraft, but the 777X will be every bit as good.

I'm starting to come around to the 777X being worth the investment.

In 2006, Airbus claimed that the A350-1000 would be 25% more fuel efficient per seat and 25% cheaper in cash operating costs. I was skeptical Airbus would hit those figures and now that the A350-1000 is heavier, I'm even more so.

So it's possible the 777-9 will match the A350-1000 on fuel burn per seat and be very close in cash operating costs.

And before someone says "yeah, only if they can fill it", the Airbus Aficionados always claim that the A380-800's greater seat count over the 747-8 is not a detriment, so neither should the 777-9's greater seat count be a detriment.


As for BA, their beef was with the GE90, not the 777. Hence their ordering shedloads of them with RR power. Fortunately, the GE90 has put all her teething problems behind her and the GE90-115B is a very reliable powerplant.

And as I can't see BA replacing their 747-400 fleet 1:1 with the A380-800, they're going to need a big twin. As they already have the 767, 777 and 787, why not add the 777X?

I'm inclined to not see the A350 in BA's fleet. They operate low-enough cabin densities that the 787-9 should work as a 777-200 replacement for them, negating the need for the A350-900.

[Edited 2012-04-15 09:41:40]

User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9099 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15804 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Thread starter):

I'm curious if anyone thinks there will be any current 777 operators that will not order the 777X.


I would expect a number of current 777 operators will be out of business by the time the new aircraft, if ever formally launched and developed makes it into service.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
So it's possible the 777-9 will match the A350-1000 on fuel burn per seat and be very close in cash operating costs.

I doubt it will match the fuel burn per seat.I think zero chance of matching fuel burn, or the cash operating cost, or maintenance cost. Much like the A330-200 to 788, I would be surprised it it exceeded payload.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19699 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15749 times:

Because the A and B offerings will co-evolve to have relatively similar specs, my guess is that most operators will choose one or the other. UA may not order the 77X because they have A350's on order. Analyses done by members on these boards (so it MUST be true!  ) suggest that the 77X will offer some advantage over the A350 on longer routes, at the expense of efficiency on shorter routes. However the same is true when the A320 is compared to the 737. In the end, the difference will be so small as to justify only one type for most carriers. A few large-bore carriers (SQ, EK) might find use for both.

User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15700 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Many airline will fly both, current 777 with A350 orders include AF, Cathay, Singapore, United, Emirates and Qatar, all should get the 777X.

I agree that we will see a lot airplanes flying both A350 and 777X, but only those that will accept the 777X in 10 abreast Y. If not, the A350 will just be a lot more efficient on a per seat basis. Therefore, I'm counting out SQ and CX as potential 777X customers.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
So it's possible the 777-9 will match the A350-1000 on fuel burn per seat and be very close in cash operating costs.

It will need to, if not, there won't be a business case for the 777X.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
And as I can't see BA replacing their 747-400 fleet 1:1 with the A380-800, they're going to need a big twin. As they already have the 767, 777 and 787, why not add the 777X?
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
I'm inclined to not see the A350 in BA's fleet. They operate low-enough cabin densities that the 787-9 should work as a 777-200 replacement for them, negating the need for the A350-900.

I forgot that BA hadn´t yet ordered the A350... I think BA will find the 777-9 a very attractive replacement for a large part of its 744 fleet, but Airbus will fight very hard to prevent that happening. BA should be in an excellent bargaining position.



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2013 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15664 times:

I'm sure IAG will order the A350, for IB. For BA, who knows? Their large current 777 fleet makes a replacement 777 attractive if the numbers add up, but it's all speculation. We don't even know who will power it yet...


it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently onlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1211 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 15546 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The fate of the A350 will go as FAR as the reliability of the Trent 100 will take it. I would HOPE that Airbus asks PWA for a Large GTF for that airplane.. Boeing is tied to GE but being pragmatic a n airplane is ONLY as good as the engine that powers it and the L1011 failed with the lack of a strong engine. The Trent 1000 had better be the Hit right off the bat Or Rolls had better have spares Galore all over the place

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 5 days ago) and read 15520 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
On which routes? With what seating configurations? Granted that the 777-9X, being larger and heavier, will use more fuel per trip, but its 57-seat advantage, and possible payload and cargo capacity advantage also means it has the potential to earn more revenue and thus reduce its costs per seat / tonne.

On every route.

How can the 77X have 57 more seats? The A350 in a three class layout will seat 350 passengers; EK’s 77W’s with 10-abreat seating currently have 354 seats. We know that Boeing can’t stretch the 77W much further so at most we can only expect an additional two rows, which if we assume 10-abreat economy this would equate to another 20 seats. Meaning the 77X is going to have between 25 and 30 more seats than the A350.

IMO this is not going to be anything near enough to offset the additional weight of the 777. At present there aren’t any official numbers for the A35J, but it is known that the A359 has a target OEW of around 116t, the current 77W has an OEW of 167.8t. Obviously the A35J is going to be heavier, but even taking this into account I can still see the 77X weighing as much as 40t more than the A35J.

It is also worth bearing in mind that these aircraft are likely to be using identical, or almost identical engines and with them both using the same generation of CFRP wings it is going to be weight which differentiates them.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30978 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15348 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 17):
How can the 77X have 57 more seats? The A350 in a three class layout will seat 350 passengers; EK’s 77W’s with 10-abreat seating currently have 354 seats. We know that Boeing can’t stretch the 77W much further so at most we can only expect an additional two rows, which if we assume 10-abreat economy this would equate to another 20 seats. Meaning the 77X is going to have between 25 and 30 more seats than the A350.

EK have stated the A350-1000 will seat 317 with their hard product so a 777-9 would seat 374 - a difference of 57 seats.


Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 17):
At present there aren’t any official numbers for the A35J, but it is known that the A359 has a target OEW of around 116t, the current 77W has an OEW of 167.8t. Obviously the A35J is going to be heavier, but even taking this into account I can still see the 77X weighing as much as 40t more than the A35J.

That 116t figure is believed to be without interior fittings.

The Ground Clearances chart in the A350-900 has an entry for when the plane weighs 135t. This figure does not relate to MTW, MRW, MTOW, MLW nor MZFW so I wonder if it is OEW with an Airbus OEM spec cabin?

Also, Airbus latest Payload-Range chart for the A350-1000 shows a payload of 65t. Subtract that from the MZFW of 220t would give an OEW of 156t - almost equal to the OEW of the 777-300 and 12t less than the 777-300ER.


User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2654 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15308 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 4):
I’d hazard a guess that BA will go with an A350/787 combination, they had a bad experience as one of the original 772 customers and only ended up with the 77W because they were part of the 787 compensation deal.

So how do you explain the second order for RR powered 777s? Compensation for a rainy day when BA went to visit Boeing?

I'm calling you on this one. Please provide direct and hard evidence that BA are disillusioned with the 777 to the point of not ordering them again. Then, provide proof that the 77Ws are only in the fleet as 787 delay compensation.

[Edited 2012-04-15 11:45:00]


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 841 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14592 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):

EK have stated the A350-1000 will seat 317 with their hard product so a 777-9 would seat 374 - a difference of 57 seats.

For those numbers to be correct EK must be using a 9 abreast layout for the A350 and 10 abreast in the 777. With carriers such as BA who have 9 abreast configuration in their 777’s the difference would be more in line with what I stated; 25-30. The A350 also is capable of going 10 abreast which would obviously also significantly reduce the difference.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
That 116t figure is believed to be without interior fittings.

The Ground Clearances chart in the A350-900 has an entry for when the plane weighs 135t. This figure does not relate to MTW, MRW, MTOW, MLW nor MZFW so I wonder if it is OEW with an Airbus OEM spec cabin?

Also, Airbus latest Payload-Range chart for the A350-1000 shows a payload of 65t. Subtract that from the MZFW of 220t would give an OEW of 156t - almost equal to the OEW of the 777-300 and 12t less than the 777-300ER.

I’ve spent a fair bit of time now trying to find accurate weight estimates, although I don’t dispute my initial estimate is going to be way too high, I also have serious doubts about it being as little as 12t too. I guess this really is something we will have to wait for more information on.

Quoting garpd (Reply 19):
I'm calling you on this one

And what exactly are you calling me out on? All I said was BA had a bad experience with their early 777’s. They did. If you want evidence of that, then I suggest google.


User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

I would hazard BA if it came with RR engines...

Saying that, I could see an order for A350's offering the ability of dual rating with the A380... so grouping that fleet as L/VLA Just a guess.



146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently offlinedavs5032 From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14219 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):

For those numbers to be correct EK must be using a 9 abreast layout for the A350 and 10 abreast in the 777.

What makes you think that they won't? They already go 10X in their 777's and the 777X is supposed to provide even more cabin width.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
With carriers such as BA who have 9 abreast configuration in their 777’s the difference would be more in line with what I stated; 25-30.

But the number of carriers who operate the 777 in 9X config continues to get smaller, and as I already stated, with the 777X cabin expanding, what makes you think that this trend won't continue. Fuel prices aren't going to get any better, so it makes economic sense for airlines to cram seats in, as passengers have shown time and again that their purchasing decisions are based on ticket price far more than on Y comfort.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
The A350 also is capable of going 10 abreast which would obviously also significantly reduce the difference.

For 99% of airlines, this is utterly false. I know it fits your argument, but you can't in good faith claim that we're going to see A350's in 10X, save for the very few that might do it for charter flights. What would the seat width be...it'd have to be less than 16.5".

[Edited 2012-04-15 13:16:03]

User currently offlineTeamInTheSky From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14194 times:

I am absolutely no DL expert, but I could see their VLA strategy in the future not including any 777X. I believe they will (hopefully) go with the 748i's on the very large side and the 787 family (mostly replacing their huge 767 fleet).


Since 2010: DL, KL, AF, WX, IG, FR , FL, U2, AK, BA, OK, UX, VS, VN, K6
User currently offlineSuperCaravelle From Netherlands, joined Jan 2012, 237 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13992 times:

Quoting TeamInTheSky (Reply 23):


I am absolutely no DL expert, but I could see their VLA strategy in the future not including any 777X. I believe they will (hopefully) go with the 748i's on the very large side and the 787 family (mostly replacing their huge 767 fleet).

It will be interesting to see what they do with their 747 replacement. It is a remarkably small fleet for such a vast airline (10 planes out of 700ish?) that you would be inclined to believe they can do without it and order 777 or A350 in future, especially because the schedule currently flown by the 747 is also relatively roomy (last time I checked).

The A350 will be closer to the 777 than any Airbus plane before. The A340-600 still had four engines which put them at a disadvantage when ETOPS occurred. I think much will depend on the specs of the two, which in the details is still relatively alone. If they are further apart than we think, this question will have a different answer than when they are very close.


25 JHCRJ700 : Are projected performance numbers out yet?
26 garpd : No, you suggested BA would not buy any more 777s due to their bad experience with the early A models. You then stated (not suggested) that the 77Ws a
27 Asiaflyer : Some current 772 operators who does not seem to have a need for larger planes can be on that list. I'm thinking of Royal Brunei, Alitalia, Austrian e
28 BMI727 : I think that a lot won't. It would probably be easier to list the ones that would order it. You can chalk up Emirates for a bunch and probably a coup
29 Daysleeper : I stated that BA had a bad experience as one of the initial customers of the 772, which they did, so it is a fact. I also stated that the 77W's were
30 Stitch : For one carrier, simulations with the same seating product in the same seating configuration were said to have shown the A350-1000 was 8 tons lighter
31 Roseflyer : Thanks for bringing some reality back to the thread. I think those three in particular are very unlikely to order the 777X as I see them as being air
32 iFlyLOTs : I don't know about this, I think that they might order a few, but how many, I have no idea. I do agree that there are a lot of other carriers that pr
33 Daysleeper : I think this just further exemplifies the lack of accurate information. I’ve seen it repeatedly posted that the 77W is over engineered and some hav
34 Roseflyer : I understand you are a strong supporter of the A350, but do you have any evidence that BA is actually interested in that plane? Also, I think the fac
35 Post contains images Stitch : Personally, I'd put the most faith in an airline's analysis because you minimize the variables: common seating, common mission rules, etc. And the 78
36 Post contains images Daysleeper : I understand that you’re a strong Boeing supporter, but do you have any evidence that BA is actually interested in the 77X? Also I think the fact t
37 Post contains images Stitch : True. This airline operates the 777-300ER so they know that OEW data whereas with the A350-1000 they are relying in part on Airbus-supplied data and
38 PlanesNTrains : Sure, but to connect that as a reason for them not to sign on for a hypothetical 777X when they already have dozens of 777's in their fleet would see
39 CXB77L : Not necessarily. If they can make more revenue than they lose in fuel burn per seat, it is still a very attractive proposition. The current 777-300ER
40 Post contains images Daysleeper : Given that there are no official figures for either aircraft then anyone who didn't doubt the figures would be an idiot. The only "semi-official" num
41 iFlyLOTs : While I really have no opinion on which is going to be a better aircraft, I don't think that it would make sense for BA to purchase the 787, A350 and
42 PhxA340 : You know what I meant , no need for the sarcasm sir ... You make it seem like Boeing gave the 77Ws for free to them and they hate their 777 which is
43 Asiaflyer : There can't be much evidence for anything regarding 777X at this early stage, but how can an airline of BA's caliber not be interested in having a se
44 PlanesNTrains : Ok, so that's your view. I thought it was this: Well, you may very well be right. -Dave
45 Post contains links frigatebird : BA has stated that their next widebody order (to replace their second batch of 744's and probably their oldest 777's) will either be for A350XWB, 787
46 Irishpower : Assuming that most of the airlines that currently have a large 777 fleet (30 + frames) will order the 777X, what about the airlines that have a 10-30
47 Post contains images EPA001 : Totally agree. This thread is way too soon. Maybe in 5 years time when the A35J will enter service, and the B777-X variants are not far off anymore i
48 FlyingCello : Think frigatebird is the first to mention the 787-10...and I think he has hit the nail on the head. This is not a straight fight between the 777X and
49 propellix : Smaller operators like Austrian Airlines might not be interested at all, especially at it remains to be seen, whether they´ll continue long-haul at a
50 Cerecl : BA has 21 767-300ER and no A333s, so I am not sure 787-10 is required as 787-8 and 9 should cover the replacement quite well. I don't think it is a m
51 qf002 : A mid-range (ie 5,000-5,500ish nm range) 787-10 would be a killer replacement for many Atlantic 744 routes, and for the 772 at the top end. If BA has
52 KC135TopBoom : Without accurate numbers, how do you know that? Correct. Are you speculating? Since the B-777 has a WIDER body than the A-350XWB, it would be easier
53 Cerecl : OK thanks it makes sense. I guess BA can either go the 787-8/9/10 route or the 787-8/9+A350-900/1000(?) route with an eye on 77E replacement. IMHO 77X
54 rheinwaldner : As Boeing has not yet commited to the 777X and currently is leaving all options open, this question is very premature. The more correct question would
55 FlyingCello : Given the current (and future) price of oil, any gap that can be filled with the 'right sized' aircraft, should be filled. And if the 748F performanc
56 Cerecl : I suspect it is rather more complex than that. It is about striking a balance between potential savings and the cost of introducing a new fleet, as w
57 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Until Boeing can present some firm numbers to potential customers no one will consider it. It is like the A-3510, who's current numbers do n
58 PhxA340 : By this standard ... yes , it is happening every month in the form of current 777 operators buying up the 77W instead of the presumed more efficient
59 Post contains images Irishpower : Of course it is too early to speculate but isn't that what we do here on A.Net? Most of the time speculation is all we do!
60 Roseflyer : Isn't that statement a bit premature? How do you know the 777X will be less efficient than the A350? Very little information has been publicly disclo
61 Post contains images EPA001 : Since the first free slots for the A35J are for 2019 no one is ordering now. The ones who already did order secured their positions, but will have to
62 PHXA340 : Great point , has the design actually been frozen for the 1000, I know it was redesigned quite a few times ...
63 EPA001 : As far as I know Airbus is still pushing the detailed design of the A35J trying to squeeze out of it what they can. Though the main parameters are pr
64 Post contains images Stitch : At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence.
65 Post contains images EPA001 : That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders. .
66 Post contains images Stitch : I do wonder what effect all these 777-300ER deliveries coming over the next few years will have on the A350-1000 - and the 777X, for that matter. A s
67 PHXA340 : Maybe the 77W was just ahead of its time in terms of efficiencies thus it will remain a strong seller. I know that the 77W well exceeded performance
68 EPA001 : Legitimate questions imho. Maybe that is why Airbus is not in a hurry with the A35J and also the B777-X launch does not need to be rushed to the mark
69 KC135TopBoom : Which goes back to your comment, no one right now wants to order an airplane for delivery beyond about 5-6 years from now (I paraphrased, sorry) Corr
70 Stitch : I have to believe the A350-1000 is going to be popular. It compliments the A350-900 like the 777-300ER complimented the 777-200ER and that's going to
71 Asiaflyer : Of those listed by you, most are flying 747s today, which put them in the right category for future 777X clients. I only see Air Canada, Alitalia and
72 Post contains images EPA001 : I would not be surprised if in the long run this becomes the every day reality. . Personally I believe the plane will be a huge success, but beating
73 rheinwaldner : Currently it is availability. For usage in this decade, the A351 seems not to be an option. By reading articles about these aircraft. There is absolu
74 KC135TopBoom : The A-3510 has been a "known quantity" for a while now. Airbus has, so far, "adjusted" the design last year, because it needed more thrust from the T
75 rheinwaldner : No, Boeing has released a lot of info about their drafts. E.g. about the size, the ranges and the fuel burn in relation to the 77W. Boeing has said t
76 Stitch : Airbus Aficionados have been adamant for years that the greater payload of the A330-200 will offset the higher fuel burn and keep it competitive again
77 CXB77L : Firstly, the concept as proposed would see the 777-9X have a 21% reduction in fuel burn per seat, and 16% reduction in cash operating cost per seat.
78 neutronstar73 : That doesn't say anything. Except that 1. Boeing will have delivered aircraft already ordered 2. You assume that orders for the 777 are done. And I w
79 Post contains images EPA001 : On the contrary, I have never stated this here or in another thread. I do not know where you got that assumption of yours. I do expect Boeing to cont
80 KC135TopBoom : I know. I have seen the draft info released, and it says those are options Boeing and the airlines are considering. A wingspan out to about 234', and
81 StickShaker : Much of this improvement is due to inserting a 10th seat on every row of the 779X - perfectly legitimate but it does mask somewhat the improvements o
82 rheinwaldner : Maybe, but fact is, that the A351 is sold out longer. At the time you have to line up to get 777's you still won't get a351's. Very good question. I
83 Post contains images Stitch : Design range for a 777-8 will be better than for the 777-300ER, so airlines that are pushing the edge for payload-range on the 777-300ER would probab
84 KC135TopBoom : The 10th seat in each row is not that much of an advantage as the A-3510 is also capable of having 10 seats per row. But those seats on the A-3510 wi
85 StickShaker : But will that be similar to the 77L vs 77W situation and would those airlines already pushing payload/range with a 77W find that the 777X9 gives them
86 Stitch : I've argued since the day the 777-8 was first broached that it should be the same length as the 777-300ER as opposed to being a shrink. I understand
87 Post contains images astuteman : The single biggest reason is the EIS now being so far out, and the attendant waiting time thus being so long. This pattern is clear to see for every
88 neutronstar73 : I think this is a fairly easily disregarded argument, because it is senseless. In fact, so senseless that AIRBUS themselves can't get an A351, becaus
89 brilondon : I believe you are not correct. If the current operators are in the market for that type of aircraft then if they order more of the 777 then the costs
90 Stitch : The A350-900 launched to a strong start so I really don't think airlines are in a "wait and see" position on the A350-1000. The A350-900's EIS is righ
91 Post contains links Roseflyer : If your assertion is that the 777X is competing closer to the A380 then the A350 because of capacity, I completely disagree. The 777-8X is proposed t
92 astuteman : There is a significant relationship between the "desirability of an aircraft, the airframers' ability to service demand, the length of waiting list,
93 Roseflyer : I agree that the A350-900 is coming at a time when that market size is heating up. There haven't been many airlines ordering the 777-200 sized airpla
94 connies4ever : I'm thinking AC won't buy it. The 77W is almost too big for their routes as ti is. And they might not have the cash.
95 Post contains images Asiaflyer : Agree. No one has mentioned KQ and ET which both operates 772s today, but hardly are 777X candidates. Btw, sorry for interrupting the usual A vs B co
96 PHXA340 : Likewise for DL, UA, AA. Only the latter ordered the 77W and I think that they would want to go smaller in size (787 sized) vs 777X size.
97 iFlyLOTs : I would put them in the definite maybe category. I think that with UA supposedly considering the 747-8i (and wasn't there also rumor of them looking
98 Post contains images neutronstar73 : I agree, but in this case, it doesn't apply. At all. Because if it were available to order, and if the desirability was high, why not get in line ear
99 Post contains images Asiaflyer : Do you happen to have a better clue on that question then?
100 Post contains images EPA001 : And that is where you are clearly wrong. How many airlines do you know order large wide-body planes now to be delivered in 2019 or later? No one. Tha
101 StickShaker : Agreed. I'll also think that a (later) 787-10 HGW would have been a better replacement for the 772ER than the 777X8. I think we can make an educated
102 astuteman : It does It is It is And they have. But there aren't any. Which is the point. And airlines will NOT commit to orders that far out when they have press
103 sweair : Any word on Al-Li skin for 777X? 7% weight savings among other benefits they claim. A few tons lighter skin, more lift from new wings and more efficie
104 Roseflyer : According to Flight Global, the 777X is getting a widened cabin with new sidewalls, so it is assumed all operators will go for 10 abreast seating. Th
105 Post contains links and images rotating14 : I found this today and thought that you might want to read it and determine your own opinion afterwards. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ys-pr
106 Stitch : BA is said to like their 777-300ERs (and they appear to like their 777-200ERs) so a mix of 777-9s, 787-10s, 787-9s and 787-8s would give BA significan
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...
Will KLM Order Any Boeing 777's In The Future? posted Thu Feb 22 2001 18:59:13 by AIRNZ_747-800
Any Chance Of New EZY Aircraft Order posted Sun Apr 15 2012 13:56:58 by Calpe
ETOPS Increased To 330 Minutes For 777 Operators posted Mon Dec 12 2011 14:11:00 by MSN007
Who Will Order The First 737 Max? posted Thu Sep 1 2011 22:20:14 by FlyASAGuy2005
777 Operators posted Mon Aug 24 2009 15:41:06 by Henpol747
Who Will Order The Q400? + Other Q400 Questions. posted Tue May 6 2008 06:36:13 by DIA
Unidentified 777-200ERs : Who? posted Sat Nov 17 2007 17:49:14 by PM
737-900ER Who Will Order Them To Replace 757? posted Fri Aug 17 2007 21:10:20 by DAYflyer
Any Embraer 120 Operators Left In The UK? posted Tue Jul 10 2007 15:17:32 by Beaucaire
Why AA Won't Order Boeing (for Now). posted Thu Jun 21 2007 18:16:02 by FXramper