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, 384 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15887 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, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15821 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, 8090 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15715 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, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15633 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, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15564 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, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15463 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, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15388 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 offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7523 posts, RR: 43
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15302 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, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15296 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, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 15286 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, 2539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15158 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, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15135 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, 8642 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15081 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, 18684 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15026 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, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14978 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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2004 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14942 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 offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14824 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, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 14798 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, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14626 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, 2581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 14586 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, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13870 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 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13586 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, 383 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13497 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, 531 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13472 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, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13270 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.


User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 13348 times:

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, the main one being it’ simply not going to be as efficient as the A3510.

Are projected performance numbers out yet?



RUSH
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2581 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13260 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
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.

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 are only in the fleet as compensation for the 787 delays.
I'm calling on you to provide evidence as to why you believe this.

The facts are:
1. BA ordered a second batch of 777s after their first batch.
2. BA ordered the 77W. They were not gifted them.

So, firstly; Why would BA order a second batch of 777s when their first experience was so terrible it would put them off ordering? Are you perhaps just blowing it out of proportion to serve an ulterior purpose?

Secondly, BA decided to order those 77Ws. I'm not saying they didn't receive a healthy discount, but BA decided to order 77Ws. They were not gifted them, they certainly weren't forced to take them and were not told "It's them or nothing at all". Again, are you perhaps just blowing it out of proportion to serve an ulterior purpose?

More than likely, you cannot see past your obvious bias against Boeing which you have demonstrated on many threads to date and it's clouding your judgement.



arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 13429 times:

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

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 etc...



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15470 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 12962 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 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 couple other Middle Eastern carriers too.

American could conceivably want a few to go with some fairly new 77Ws, if they get their shit together and need a bit more capacity.

Cathay would want a 777X as long as they don't mind fitting ten seats across and especially if they don't jump on ordering a VLA.

Turkish might want some if they don't buy larger planes beforehand.

Air France could find some useful, but I doubt the 777X will be that popular in Europe.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12923 times:

Quoting garpd (Reply 26):
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 are only in the fleet as compensation for the 787 delays

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 part of a compansation deal for the 787's - They were, it is also a fact.

What conclusions you infer from these facts has nothing to do with me.

Quoting garpd (Reply 26):

More than likely, you cannot see past your obvious bias against Boeing which you have demonstrated on many threads to date and it's clouding your judgement.

Really? If only I could be as unbiased and fair as you.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
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.

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 than the 777-300ER. That being said, the fuel burn advantage on long-haul missions was projected at 20%, so empty weight is not where the A350-1000 is making the biggest performance gains.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 12725 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 27):

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 etc...

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 airlines that if they continue to provide long haul service, it would be better with smaller widebodies like the 787 or A350.

I would also add Jet Airways, Kuwait Airways, and Aeromexico. I don't think those airlines would go for larger 777s.

One final airline I see as very unlikely to go for the 777X is Asiana as they seem rather set on going all Airbus with the all variants of the A350 on order in addition to A380s.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 29):

What conclusions you infer from these facts has nothing to do with me.

I think the conclusion you made of BA unlikely to order the 777X because of initial teething issues (BA was the second 777 customer to have the plane enter service) and 787 delays is what he disagrees with. You seem to think they will order a 787/A350 combination, yet BA currently has on order 787s, 77Ws and A380s. The fact they currently have 77Ws on order and an existing large fleet in addition to not ordering the A350 makes them an extremely likely candidate to order the 777X. BA has 50 747s yet only 12 A380 orders. I think it is pretty clear that another widebody order is likely.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12125 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 31):
I would also add Jet Airways

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 probably won't. Such as UA, AC, and TAM.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12102 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
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 than the 777-300ER. That being said, the fuel burn advantage on long-haul missions was projected at 20%, so empty weight is not where the A350-1000 is making the biggest performance gains.

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 have estimated that Boeing would be able to remove as much as 10t from the structure and yet your estimating that it is only going to be 8t heavier than a brand new jet primarily constructed from CFRP? – It just doesn’t make sense.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
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?

The same goes with these estimates. Using the 789 as a comparison, it has an OEW of 115t – yes the A359 is 4m longer, and its slightly wider but do you seriously think this is going to account for an extra 20t?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
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

And again, if we assume this figure is correct and the A359 has an OEW of 135t as you mentioned above then it means the 7m stretch weights another 20 tonnes!

As I’ve already said, I think we need more information.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 31):
The fact they currently have 77Ws on order and an existing large fleet in addition to not ordering the A350 makes them an extremely likely candidate to order the 777X. BA has 50 747s yet only 12 A380 orders. I think it is pretty clear that another widebody order is likely.

I’m just really sceptical that we will see the 77X in BA’s fleet as I believe they will order a combination of A359s and A35J’s to replace the 777s and some of the 744’s. The 787’s I’d expect to replace the 767’s and I’d also expect a follow up order for more A380s to replace the remaining 744’s.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 11994 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):

I’m just really sceptical that we will see the 77X in BA’s fleet as I believe they will order a combination of A359s and A35J’s to replace the 777s and some of the 744’s. The 787’s I’d expect to replace the 767’s and I’d also expect a follow up order for more A380s to replace the remaining 744’s.

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 facts that initial 777 entry into service had some teething issues and the 787 is late aren't reasons pointing towards an A350 order. The fact that they have a large 777 fleet implies that they would consider the 777X as a 747 replacement on the lower end.

I would expect BA to be a very competitive sales campaign between the A350 and 777X.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11719 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
I think this just further exemplifies the lack of accurate information.

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 787-8's OEM OEW of 112t is only 5t less than the A330-200's OEM OEW of 117t, so clearly CFRP is not quite the wonder weight reducer the marketing people claim.  
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 33):
And again, if we assume this figure is correct and the A359 has an OEW of 135t as you mentioned above then it means the 7m stretch weights another 20 tonnes!

The 787-9 is mostly a direct stretch of the 787-8 with minor strengthening to support higher TOWs.

The A350-1000 is a good deal more than just a direct stretch of the A350-900 with a higher MTOW.

And heck, the 777-300A was 20t heavier in OEW than the 777-200A.


User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11668 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 34):
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 facts that initial 777 entry into service had some teething issues and the 787 is late aren't reasons pointing towards an A350 order. The fact that they have a large 777 fleet implies that they would consider the 777X as a 747 replacement on the lower end.

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 that they already operate the 777 isn’t a reason to assume they will order the latest version. As it wasn’t too long ago they completely rejected the 748i despite operating the worlds largest fleet of 744’s.

Basically, there is no evidence one way or another – it’s anyone’s guess. Mine just happens to be that they will go with the 787/A350/A380 combo platter.

Edit

Quoting Stitch (Reply 35):
Personally, I'd put the most faith in an airline's analysis because you minimize the variables: common seating, common mission rules, etc.

I think there are enough holes in both of our theory’s to conclude we can't put our faith in anything for the time being.  Smile

[Edited 2012-04-15 17:47:22]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 11434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
I think there are enough holes in both of our theory’s to conclude we can't put our faith in anything for the time being.   

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 that is speculative in nature due to the plane not being in final design freeze, much less actually built and weighable.  


User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11009 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 29):
I stated that BA had a bad experience as one of the initial customers of the 772

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 seem like a stretch as a reason.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see them go 787/350/380, but that isn't because of some engine issues back in the 90's.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10764 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 14):
It will need to, if not, there won't be a business case for the 777X.

Not necessarily. If they can make more revenue than they lose in fuel burn per seat, it is still a very attractive proposition.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 17):
On every route.

The current 777-300ER has a payload advantage over the A350-1000 up to 7000nm. The 777-9X will, at the very least, maintain that advantage, if not increase it. The current estimates for the 777-9X shows that it is a distinct possibility that the 777-9X will be able to match the A350-1000 in operating costs per seat.

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

Fewer airlines will chose a 10-abreast configuration on the A350 given that it is narrower than the current 777, let alone the 777X.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
I also have serious doubts about it being as little as 12t

Doubt it all you want. Those figures that Stitch quoted correspond with the latest payload range chart for the A350-1000 (which has been posted on this forum several times before), and Airbus' own figures for its MZFW. To say that the 12t OEW advantage is wrong, then one of Airbus' MZFW figures or maximum payload is incorrect.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 29):
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 part of a compansation deal for the 787's - They were, it is also a fact.

That does not negate garpd's points that they, nonetheless, ordered more 772s after the "bad experience", and that they chose to order the 77Ws, even if they didn't pay full price for them. The sort of "bad experience" they had with their initial 772s aren't any different from what other early operators of new types experience, and to bring this up, 17 years after the fact, and when 777s these days are one of the most reliable aircraft flying - is just plain silly. Using that logic, is it then fair to say that QF (especially), EK and SQ aren't going to order more A380s because of their "bad experience"?



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10546 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 39):
Doubt it all you want. Those figures that Stitch quoted correspond with the latest payload range chart for the A350-1000 (which has been posted on this forum several times before), and Airbus' own figures for its MZFW. To say that the 12t OEW advantage is wrong, then one of Airbus' MZFW figures or maximum payload is incorrect.

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" number known is for the A359 which states it's OEW is going to be around 115t.


In regards to BA, as I said further up the thread there is no evidence for or against the order which leaves it open to speculation. I stand by my view that BA will not order the 77X on the basis that the A350 is going to be a better aircraft.  


User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10203 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 40):
I stand by my view that BA will not order the 77X on the basis that the A350 is going to be a better aircraft.

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 the A380. It makes no sense when they've already ordered the 787 which has the same type rating as the 777, and they already have pilots trained from the 772/77W.



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9924 times:

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

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 simply not true.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 29):
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 part of a compansation deal for the 787's - They were, it is also a fact.

Ok , but the fleet of 43 777-200ERs ... they hated the 772 so much they ordered 43 of the ER model ?? I agree with you that the 77W was heavily discounted for 787 delays ... but to imply that they won't order the 77X because they disliked a plane they ordered 43 of isn't logical. Now if the A350 kicks serious tail ... they would order it because it kicks serious tail NOT because of 'bad' experience with the 777-200A models.


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9398 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
I understand that you’re a strong Boeing supporter, but do you have any evidence that BA is actually interested in the 77X?


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 serious look at it like all other major airlines in the world will?



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5266 posts, RR: 29
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9133 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 40):
I stand by my view that BA will not order the 77X on the basis that the A350 is going to be a better aircraft.

Ok, so that's your view. I thought it was this:

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.

Well, you may very well be right.

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 34):
I understand you are a strong supporter of the A350, but do you have any evidence that BA is actually interested in that plane
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
I understand that you’re a strong Boeing supporter, but do you have any evidence that BA is actually interested in the 77X?

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, 787-10 or 777X. I don't have I direct link other than this article where John Leahy talks about the prospects of more A380s for BA http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rate-up-to-30-a380s-airbus-221397/ But I remember it well because it resulted in heavy debates about the 747-8i being excluded.

Interesting to hear what the timing will be for BA's next order. Widebody orders are slow, I guess the current financial situation in the world has a lot to do with it. But it may also very well be that BA is waiting for Boeing to formally launch the 787-10 and 777X. Anyway, it doesn't look like either the A350, 787-10 or 777X won't be available before 2018/2019. Gonna be interesting...



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,AT3,ATP,E90,F50/70,M11,
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8793 times:

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 frame fleet?

Air Canada
Air China
Air India
Air New Zealand
Alitalia
Asiana
China Southern
Egyptian
EVA
KLM
Korean
Malaysian
Qatar
Thai
Turkish
Vietnam


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
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.

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 it makes more sense to discuss this question.

Quoting zeke (Reply 12):
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.

That could be true if the economic turmoil keeps going on globally. But on the other hand also some new operators might emerge of which we do not think of today.  .


User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 8247 times:

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 45):
But it may also very well be that BA is waiting for Boeing to formally launch the 787-10 and 777X.

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 the A350...it's a fight between the 787/777X and the A350.

If BA can find a place for the 787-10, then with 788s, 789s and current generation 777s already in place, the 777X is the only game town. If however, the 787-10 doesn't have a place, then the A359/A350-1000 can be the second family, sitting above the 787 and replacing the 777.

With respect to early 777s and BA, while they had some problems, it clearly hasn't been an issue in terms of the fleet! BA love the 777...and the 77W only seems to have enhanced the reputation.

Separate note: if Lufthansa prove you can utilise a 748i between an A346 and an A380, why would BA (with a similar route network) not be able to use 77W / 748i / A380 also?


User currently offlinepropellix From Austria, joined May 2005, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 days ago) and read 8090 times:

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 all.

User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7891 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 48):
If BA can find a place for the 787-10,

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.

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 48):
if Lufthansa prove you can utilise a 748i between an A346 and an A380, why would BA (with a similar route network) not be able to use 77W / 748i / A380 also?

I don't think it is a matter of whether BA will be able to use 748i, it is more of a question of whether they need to plug the gap between 77W and A380. Yes, LH/KE think there is a need, but there are plenty of airlines which do not see the need. QF is quite happy to leave a even bigger gap between 787/A330 and A380 for example.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (2 years 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7666 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 50):
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.

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 the 788/9 anyway, then adding a few (or a decent number of) -10's isn't a major operation.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 52, posted (2 years 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7581 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 6):
I don’t think BA will order the 77X, the main one being it’ simply not going to be as efficient as the A3510.

Without accurate numbers, how do you know that?

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 1):
I think it is too early to speculate. We don't know enough about either 777X or A350-1000.

Correct.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 20):
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.

Are you speculating? Since the B-777 has a WIDER body than the A-350XWB, it would be easier and more comfortable for an airline to go to 10 abreast seating on the B-777X. The B-777 is nearly one foot wider than the A-350 for interior cabin width, B-777 is 19'3" or 5.87m, A-350 is 18'4", or 5.61m.

Quoting btblue (Reply 21):
I would hazard BA if it came with RR engines...

Why? The BA B-77Ws are equipped with GE-90-115B1 engines.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 40):
The only "semi-official" number known is for the A359 which states it's OEW is going to be around 115t.

As you said, that is not the 'official weight". Also, that weight does not include any interior fittings or airline configueration, as that would vary widely. The A-359 (which is not the same class of airplane as the B-77X will be or the same class as the B-77W) has a max pax load of 475 pax and 36 LD3s, compared to the max pax load of 550 and 44 LD3s on the B-77W.

Your mixing your apples to bananas.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

Quoting qf002 (Reply 51):
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 the 788/9 anyway, then adding a few (or a decent number of) -10's isn't a major operation.
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 is not well defined enough to be considered at this time.

[Edited 2012-04-16 05:40:18]

User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6911 times:

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 be, "Is it likely, that any current 777 operator buys larger and less efficient aircraft than the A350?". My answer would be: "No, the typical 77W operator has showed the exact opposite aequisition strategy: buy slighty smaller if there are efficiency benefits".


User currently offlineFlyingCello From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 134 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6766 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 50):
it is more of a question of whether they need to plug the gap between 77W and A380.

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 performance is anything to go by (GE engines underperforming pending PIP, but airframe overperforming), then the 748i might be convincing.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 706 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6358 times:

Quoting FlyingCello (Reply 55):
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 performance is anything to go by (GE engines underperforming pending PIP, but airframe overperforming), then the 748i might be convincing.

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 well as finding enough of a gap between 77W and A380. As 77W and A380 improve one feels that 748i really needs to exceed its original targets rather than still working towards it. So far, the order book of 748i suggests that the balance isn't quite right for most airlines.

[Edited 2012-04-16 07:07:50]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 57, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6376 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 53):
IMHO 77X is not well defined enough to be considered at this time.

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 not impress many airlines, as there are only about 70 ordered. None of those orders have come after Airbus redefined the A-3510 last year just prior to the PAS.

In contrast to what Airbus has with the A-3510, the airplane it is suppose to 'kill', the B-77W, it is selling like water bottles in the desert. Airlines are not getting very deep discounts on it as Boeing knows the airplane is essentailly 'selling itself'. There are more than 300 B-77Ws on back order.


User currently offlinePhxA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (2 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6354 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 54):
"Is it likely, that any current 777 operator buys larger and less efficient aircraft than the A350?".

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 A350-1000. Why ... I really don't have a clue , maybe availability ? Or its more likely , the solid numbers aren't simply available on the 1000 for potential customers.


User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 384 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6172 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 1):

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!


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 60, posted (2 years 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 54):
The more correct question would be, "Is it likely, that any current 777 operator buys larger and less efficient aircraft than the A350?"

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 disclosed. Is it because of the era of aviation argument that an airplane without a composite fuselage is guaranteed to be less efficient than an airplane with a composite fuselage?

If you had stopped before waving the Airbus flag, then I would agree with the statement and consider it worth some debate and discussion. Is it likely that any current 777 operators want to buy larger airplanes like the 777X or smaller airplanes like the A350? I think efficiency claims between the two airplanes right now is very premature and statements that one is more efficient than the other are out of personal perception than actual fact.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 54):
My answer would be: "No, the typical 77W operator has showed the exact opposite aequisition strategy: buy slighty smaller if there are efficiency benefits".

Operators that replaced 747s with 77Ws did go smaller, but that is not necessarily the typical 77W operator. 16 77W purchasers operated the 747 when ordering the 77W, but 14 did not. Some airlines want more efficient and smaller, but some airlines are expanding and growing and want larger more efficient airplanes.

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):
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 that they already operate the 777 isn’t a reason to assume they will order the latest version. As it wasn’t too long ago they completely rejected the 748i despite operating the worlds largest fleet of 744’s.

Basically, there is no evidence one way or another – it’s anyone’s guess. Mine just happens to be that they will go with the 787/A350/A380 combo platter.

No I don't have any evidence. I just believe it is a logical sales campaign for them to compare both the A350 and 777X and that I think it is almost certain that they will order one of the two if not both. I understand that you believe they will order the A350, I just comment that there aren't really any facts that support one way or the other and I think it will end up being a very legitimate competition between the two manufacturers. I don't think the fact that they have a large 777 fleet is a reason to assume they will order the 777X, but I think it is reason to believe that they are considering it.

[Edited 2012-04-16 09:50:44]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 61, posted (2 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
In contrast to what Airbus has with the A-3510, the airplane it is suppose to 'kill', the B-77W, it is selling like water bottles in the desert. Airlines are not getting very deep discounts on it as Boeing knows the airplane is essentially 'selling itself'. There are more than 300 B-77Ws on back order.

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 wait awfully long before they will get the birds.

There is not a single B77W on back-order for delivery in 2017 or later. That says it all.

But I repeat myself and others, the question this thread is about is way too early to ask and answer.  .


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 61):
Since the first free slots for the A35J are for 2019 no one is ordering now

Great point , has the design actually been frozen for the 1000, I know it was redesigned quite a few times ...


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 63, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5860 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 62):
has the design actually been frozen for the 1000

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 probably set now. But officially they are still working on the design.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 64, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5841 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 61):
There is not a single B77W on back-order for delivery in 2017 or later. That says it all.

At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence.  


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 65, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5820 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence.

That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders.  .


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 66, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders.  

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 significant number of these frames are direct buys, not leases, and even if they follow the SQ/EK route and roll them over after a decade, that's pushing the need for A350-1000s / 777Xs into the late 2020s or early-to-mid-2030s.


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5800 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence

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 expectations. Like everyone has been saying, lets wait and see how the A350 turns out.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 68, posted (2 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5800 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
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.

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 market because of the fact you state and because of the fact that A35J is still a moving target.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 69, posted (2 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5623 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 61):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):In contrast to what Airbus has with the A-3510, the airplane it is suppose to 'kill', the B-77W, it is selling like water bottles in the desert. Airlines are not getting very deep discounts on it as Boeing knows the airplane is essentially 'selling itself'. There are more than 300 B-77Ws on back order.
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 wait awfully long before they will get the birds.

There is not a single B77W on back-order for delivery in 2017 or later. That says it all.

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)

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence

Correct.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders.

You could be right about that. But no one knows for sure what the future holds for the A-3510, B-777X, or B-77W (beyond about 6 years from now). The A-3510 could become Airbus's best (WB) all time seller, or on the other side of that same coin, it could be a (sales) flop like the A-345/6.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 70, posted (2 years 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 have serious appeal.

With their large cabin floor area and belly holds, I could see the 787-10 and A350-1000 becoming the true "killer combo" for the larger carriers.


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 46):
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 frame fleet?


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 Air India maybe not reaching all the way due to weak competitive position.



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 72, posted (2 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5297 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 70):
With their large cabin floor area and belly holds, I could see the 787-10 and A350-1000 becoming the true "killer combo" for the larger carriers.


I would not be surprised if in the long run this becomes the every day reality.  .

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 69):
The A-3510 could become Airbus's best (WB) all time seller, or on the other side of that same coin, it could be a (sales) flop like the A-345/6.


Personally I believe the plane will be a huge success, but beating the still fast selling A330 is not likely imho. Though I would have nothing against it.  . I also do not believe it will be sales-wise comparable to the A345/346. She will do much better then those two ever so beautiful, but sadly outperformed birds.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 73, posted (2 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5296 times:

Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 58):
it is happening every month in the form of current 777 operators buying up the 77W instead of the presumed more efficient A350-1000. Why ... I really don't have a clue , maybe availability?

Currently it is availability. For usage in this decade, the A351 seems not to be an option.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
How do you know the 777X will be less efficient than the A350?

By reading articles about these aircraft.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):
Very little information has been publicly disclosed.

There is absolutely enough to understand that the per seat efficiency of the 777X will be worse.

There are official estimations from Boeing and Airbus that both give us the fuel burn reduction compared to one fixpoint, the 77W. According to these numbers (and let's assume both cheated about the same), the A351 will burn 5% less fuel per seat. You may question these estimations, but it is the best we can get. We can say, that according to published figures by Boeing and Airbus, the 777X will have a worse efficiency per seat. And we can't say the opposite. Because these figures would have to be severly wrong to tilt the balance.

I wonder though, why Boeing seems to think that this will be enough. It may be the exact reason why Boeing is still leaving all options open.

So, my era considerations may be simplistic, but it remains to be prooved that a design, that has been drafted prior the 787 (first full composite design) will be upgradeable to match another full composite design. The A330 in any upgraded form (and the drafts went about as far as those for the 77X) had a rough time and failed ultimatively when it hat to compete with the 787 on other merits than availabiliy.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 66):
A significant number of these frames are direct buys, not leases, and even if they follow the SQ/EK route and roll them over after a decade, that's pushing the need for A350-1000s / 777Xs into the late 2020s or early-to-mid-2030s.

Thats correct, the A351 will hit a very saturated market right after EIS. That is the reason why it will take patience until large batches of A351's will be delivered.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (2 years 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5139 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 73):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60): How do you know the 777X will be less efficient than the A350?
By reading articles about these aircraft.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 60):Very little information has been publicly disclosed.
There is absolutely enough to understand that the per seat efficiency of the 777X will be worse.

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 Trent-XWB engine. IIRC the thrust had to be upgraded by about 5000 lbs per engine, and RR has accomadated that. The 'new' design has been critisized by EK, who holds most of the current A-3510 orders. But, then again, they have yet to cancel or convert the order to another A-350 model.

There is still plenty of time to further change the A-3510 design, it is still far from frozen.

The B-777-X, OTOH is still in its infancy of the design process. All we really know is it will evolve as aeronautical technology and engine technology advance.


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 75, posted (2 years 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5012 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 74):
All we really know is it will evolve as aeronautical technology and engine technology advance.

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 that the 779X would burn up to 20% less fuel per seat than the 77W. Which is a smaller improvement as promised for the A351.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 76, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 against the 787-8, so I'm not surprised Boeing Boosters are now adamant that the greater payload of the 777-9 will offset the higher fuel burn and keep it competitive against the A350-1000.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2539 posts, RR: 5
Reply 77, posted (2 years 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4990 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 75):
Boeing has said that the 779X would burn up to 20% less fuel per seat than the 77W. Which is a smaller improvement as promised for the A351.

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.

Second, for the billionth time, airlines don't decide on buying aircraft on fuel burn alone. I don't see why you get so hung up over it.

Third, I always take a manufacturer's claim against an opposition's product with a grain of salt. I have yet to see Airbus make any claims about the A35J in relation to the A346. When they do, I'll believe it. There is every reason to believe that the 25% Airbus are claiming as inaccurate, by virtue of the fact that they're comparing it with a competitor's product. If they had said that the A35J will be 25% more fuel efficient per seat than the A346, I wouldn't bat an eyelid.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (2 years 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 61):
There is not a single B77W on back-order for delivery in 2017 or later. That says it all.

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 would hazard a SWAG to say that they are not.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders

This is also an assumption. Who knows if airlines will begin securing orders for the A35J. I think that is very premature to say, along with your previous statement.

What we do know about these aircraft is that we DON'T know about these aircraft. Because neither are flying and all we have are manufacturer fluff pieces about them.


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 79, posted (2 years 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4630 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 78):
You assume that orders for the 777 are done

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 continue to secure orders for the B77W, but as availability of the A35J will increase from 2019 on, the A35J will also secure orders. And of course by that time Boeing is selling mostly B777-X's.  .


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 80, posted (2 years 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 75):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 74):All we really know is it will evolve as aeronautical technology and engine technology advance.
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.

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 possibly made of carbon fiber, a range of about 8000 nm at full pax load and 50 tonnes of cargo, MTOW (desired) of less than 750,000 lbs, about 405 pax, in a 3 class, engines of less than 100,000 lbs of thrust. But those are only initial draft numbers, and very well could change. I might point out Boeing has no orders for the B-777-8X/-9X, so everything could change easily. I have heard EK is deeply involved in defining the new B-777 capabilities and operational cost factors. My guess is other airlines may be involved in the design effort, too.


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 81, posted (2 years 23 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 75):
Boeing has said that the 779X would burn up to 20% less fuel per seat than the 77W. Which is a smaller improvement as promised for the A351.

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 over the 77W. Can anyone calculate the fuel burn delta per seat based upon 9 abreast seating - might give a more realistic indication of the improvement of the engine/airframe combination even if most operators do opt for 10 abreast on the 779X.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 79):
I do expect Boeing to continue to secure orders for the B77W, but as availability of the A35J will increase from 2019 on, the A35J will also secure orders. And of course by that time Boeing is selling mostly B777-X's.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 57):
.... the B-77W, it is selling like water bottles in the desert ....

Is there any chance that Boeing will do a "330" with the 77W for deliveries following 35J EIS by heavily discounting the price and hence keep the line alive well into the next decade. All the arguments put forward for further longevity of the 330 should also apply to the 77W, which will have been in service for only 14 years at 777X9 EIS - not much for a platform that was so ahead of its time.


I'm also wondering about the 777X8 - will it attract any 77W operators with its similar capacity or will they favour the more structurally efficient 777X9 rather than an "enlarged 772". Have Boeing released any data for fuel burn for the 777X8 vs 77W as opposed to the 77E.

Will the 777X8 become the lonely black sheep of the family ?


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlinerheinwaldner From Switzerland, joined Jan 2008, 2198 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (2 years 22 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 78):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders

This is also an assumption.

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.

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 81):
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 over the 77W.

Very good question. I agree that 10 abreast is probably the single largest contributor to the efficiency gains of the 77X.

But it also shifts the capacity in realms where the A380 is the closer competitor anyway and no longer the A350. Which means that a 10 abreast 77X is settled on top of the highly demanded 300-350 seat range. It hardly overlaps with the A350 anymore.

And for aircraft with that size the market demand in the recent years has proved to be less than desireable (see 748).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 83, posted (2 years 19 hours ago) and read 4037 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 81):
I'm also wondering about the 777X8 - will it attract any 77W operators with its similar capacity or will they favour the more structurally efficient 777X9 rather than an "enlarged 772".

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 probably be interested in the 777-8.



Quoting StickShaker (Reply 81):
Is there any chance that Boeing will do a "330" with the 77W for deliveries following 35J EIS by heavily discounting the price and hence keep the line alive well into the next decade.

The 777 is said to be a very expensive plane to build. A low production rate may not be economically feasible if the average sales price per frame is too low.



Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 82):
Maybe, but fact is, that the A351 is sold out longer.

  

Full production for the 777 and A350 is scheduled to be 10 deliveries per month. There are 69 unfilled orders for the A350-1000 and 279 for the 777-300ER so Airbus can deliver the entire A350-1000 backlog in as little as 7 months while Boeing would need 28 months for the 777-300ER.

Now if you want to say the A350-1000 is sold out longer because it's EIS is later, well we might as well say the 737 MAX is sold out longer than the A320neo because even though it doesn't have nearly as many orders, it's EIS is later.  


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 84, posted (2 years 19 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 81):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 75):Boeing has said that the 779X would burn up to 20% less fuel per seat than the 77W. Which is a smaller improvement as promised for the A351.
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 over the 77W. Can anyone calculate the fuel burn delta per seat based upon 9 abreast seating - might give a more realistic indication of the improvement of the engine/airframe combination even if most operators do opt for 10 abreast on the 779X.

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 will be narrower, as the A-350 is about a foot narrower (.26m) than the B-777

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 82):
Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 78):Quoting EPA001 (Reply 65):
That could very well be the case. But by that time also the A35J will be securing new orders

This is also an assumption.
Maybe, but fact is, that the A351 is sold out longer.

That too is inaccurate. The A-3510 has about 69 airplanes on order (as of March 2012), from a high of 75 orders. Airbus isn't even going to start building it until 2017, at the earliest. The A-3510 has about 2-3 years worth of production on the current books. If Airbus was really trying to sell the airplane, they would make adjustments to the production schedule, as we know it now, to accomadate those new orders.

The A-350 (all 3 current models) has had a bad 2011 and 2012 to date. With the 31 canceled orders in 2011 the type is down to 555 total orders, from about 34 customers and from a high of 586 ordered. It seems to be repaeating the track record of the B-787 before it was certified and began deliveries, loosing orders.

Current orders, by model (known) are:

A-350-800 = 118
A-350-900 = 368
A-350-1000 = 69
A-350-900F = 0 (not officially launched)
A-350-900R = 0 (not officially launched)


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 85, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3941 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 83):
Quoting StickShaker (Reply 81):
I'm also wondering about the 777X8 - will it attract any 77W operators with its similar capacity or will they favour the more structurally efficient 777X9 rather than an "enlarged 772".

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 probably be interested in the 777-8.

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 what they want plus better CASM. I just get the feeling that the 777X8 might have a hard time as the 787-10 will be squeezing it from beneath with far superior CASM for anything less than long haul (and will be in service around 2 years earlier) and the 35J will squeeze it from above.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 84):
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 will be narrower, as the A-350 is about a foot narrower (.26m) than the B-777

The increase in efficiency is strongly supported by another 40 to 50 seats in capacity over the 77W (yes, the new engines & wing help too) given that the 777X9 is only a very small stretch over the 77W so I think the extra seat is important. 10 abreast in a 350 sounds incredibly tight - are Airbus promoting this ?

Boeing have stuffed more seats into the airframe and (as rheinwaldner points out) in doing so have moved capacity to the right - the hot selling 350 seat frame now becomes a 400 seat frame. IMO the 777X8 might not be quite so appealing to airlines who find the 77W has hit their sweet spot and find the 777X9 a bit too large.


Cheers,
StickShaker


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 86, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 85):
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 what they want plus better CASM. I just get the feeling that the 777X8 might have a hard time as the 787-10 will be squeezing it from beneath with far superior CASM for anything less than long haul (and will be in service around 2 years earlier) and the 35J will squeeze it from above.

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 Boeing is trying to bracket the A350-1000 from below (777-8) and above (777-9) and trying to address the A350-900's CASM advantage by offering a larger plane with the 777-8. But really, the 787-9 and 787-10 should be Boeing's answer to the A350-900 and replacement for the 777-200ER.


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9835 posts, RR: 96
Reply 87, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3890 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
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,

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 aircraft type that there is.
The amount of time people are prepared to wait is a function of the attractiveness of the type.
It is clear that the A350-1000's 2 year delay has pushed the waiting time back out beyond it's "relative" desirability.

Quoting davs5032 (Reply 22):
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

10-across A350's are already on order for a scheduled carrier, so I think it can be said in very good faith.
I don't expect to see many though  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
At the rate the 77W is securing orders, we might soon need to add a "yet" to the end of that sentence.

Of course we will. But that will not alter the fact that there is currently a differential in the waiting times. I do expect that to narrow somewhat, but I think anyone expecting the 773ER backlog to extend out in time to the same duration as the A350-1000 is going to be waiting a long time.
If it did, then Boeing wouldn't need the 777X would they?  

Rgds


User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 18 hours ago) and read 3853 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 82):
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.

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, because it isn't even off the computer yet. Or even, it isn't off the paper.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 87):
Of course we will. But that will not alter the fact that there is currently a differential in the waiting times. I do expect that to narrow somewhat, but I think anyone expecting the 773ER backlog to extend out in time to the same duration as the A350-1000 is going to be waiting a long time.
If it did, then Boeing wouldn't need the 777X would they?

But this is still a meaningless argument. Because the A351 isn't even flying yet, and the fact that Airbus has scheduled to deliver the plane later this decade is no indication of the merits of the aircraft. At all. The differential in wait times is really nothing to crow about or mention, because it makes very little difference. Just because the 777 has not "yet" secured orders around the A351's scheduled debut means nothing.

As Stitch said above, the 737MAX is in a similar position to the A320NEO as the A351 is to the 777W. It doesn't mean anything, beyond the fact that it will be developed later and delivered later. Nothing more, nothing less.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4057 posts, RR: 1
Reply 89, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

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?

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 associated with acquiring the new equipment would be that much less because the training involved would seemingly be less for the 777X as the pilots and infrastructure would be for the 777 type and not the Airbus aircraft. I don't know if the 777X would be similar to the present day 777 or would it be like the 757 and 767 types.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 90, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 right in the middle of the 300-seater replacement wave, as carriers move to replace their older A330-300s, A340-300s and 777-200s / 777-200ERs.

I think what is really holding back A350-1000 orders is that we're not yet in the main replacement window for 350 seaters. And, unfortunately, the delays in getting the A350-1000 to market are pushing that replacement window farther to the right as Boeing shovels 777-300ERs out the hangar. And as Boeing increases 777-300ER production, that lowers the build price per unit and I expect Boeing is passing those savings on to customers as an incentive for them to buy 777-300ERs.

I also think this is part of what is holding back the A350-800. The 787-8 has already soaked-up a significant chunk of replacement orders for the 767-300ER and early A330-200s so there are less opportunities for the A350-800 until we get into the second wave of A330-200HGW replacements post-2020.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 91, posted (2 years 17 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 82):
But it also shifts the capacity in realms where the A380 is the closer competitor anyway and no longer the A350. Which means that a 10 abreast 77X is settled on top of the highly demanded 300-350 seat range. It hardly overlaps with the A350 anymore.

And for aircraft with that size the market demand in the recent years has proved to be less than desireable (see 748).

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 to have almost the exact same payload and MTOW as the A350-1000 according to flightglobal:

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

The 777-9X is proposed to be larger, but the 777-8X/9X bracket the A351 in capacity and it is their closest competitor. The payload of the A380 is more than 50% larger than the 777-9X compared to the 777-9X being only 15% larger than the A350-1000.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9835 posts, RR: 96
Reply 92, posted (2 years 13 hours ago) and read 3685 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 88):
But this is still a meaningless argument. Because the A351 isn't even flying yet, and the fact that Airbus has scheduled to deliver the plane later this decade is no indication of the merits of the aircraft

There is a significant relationship between the "desirability of an aircraft, the airframers' ability to service demand, the length of waiting list, and the output plans versus current output. That you choose to dismiss it makes it no less real

Rgds

[Edited 2012-04-18 13:17:40]

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 93, posted (2 years 13 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 90):
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 right in the middle of the 300-seater replacement wave, as carriers move to replace their older A330-300s, A340-300s and 777-200s / 777-200ERs.

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 airplane recently (and the A359 has quite a payload advantage over the A333) and there certainly is a market for that size of airplane. The A350-900 comes at a perfect time in the replacement cycle as the 250-320 seat market that sold well in the 1990s with the A333, A343 and early 772s and those are starting to come up for retirement or move to second tier airlines. The A350-1000 is coming into the market where an airplane of very similar capacity and range has been in high production. I believe fewer airlines are in that market for that size of airplane in the 2018-2020 market time, which is partially why the A351 isn't selling that well and also partially why Boeing decided to stretch the 777s rather than replacing them with a matching capacity airplane.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 94, posted (2 years 11 hours ago) and read 3562 times:

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.


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (2 years 9 hours ago) and read 3481 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 94):
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.

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 cock fighting and bringing the thread back on topic..

[Edited 2012-04-18 17:37:51]


SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 832 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (2 years 7 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 95):
Agree. No one has mentioned KQ and ET which both operates 772s today, but hardly are 777X candidates.


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.


User currently offlineiFlyLOTs From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 433 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (2 years 7 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 96):
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.

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 at the A380 as well?) we could see them thinking a little smaller and going for the 777X



"...stay hungry, stay foolish" -Steve Jobs
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 427 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 6 hours ago) and read 3354 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 92):

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 early to secure those coveted "delivery slots"?

If your idea did apply, then by that metric, then the 737Max is more eagerly anticipated than the A320NEO, because its delivery is much further out than the A320NEO, so that says "something", according to that standard.

Back to who won't order the 777X, I think it is far too early to say who won't buy it because it isn't sufficiently defined, or formally offered. I don't think that trying to decide who WON'T buy it is kind of an exercise in futility, because the market may change significantly between now and when it is available.

Probably a better question would be: what airline that currently operates the 77 won't be around when the 777X is offered? You probably will get a better clue as to who won't buy it then.  


User currently offlineAsiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (2 years 6 hours ago) and read 3331 times:

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
Probably a better question would be: what airline that currently operates the 77 won't be around when the 777X is offered?


Do you happen to have a better clue on that question then?  



SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 hours ago) and read 3263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
I agree, but in this case, it doesn't apply. At all.


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. That was the meaning of my earlier remark which you misinterpreted earlier on.  .


User currently offlineStickShaker From Australia, joined Sep 2004, 722 posts, RR: 5
Reply 101, posted (2 years 3 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 86):
But really, the 787-9 and 787-10 should be Boeing's answer to the A350-900 and replacement for the 777-200ER.

Agreed. I'll also think that a (later) 787-10 HGW would have been a better replacement for the 772ER than the 777X8.

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
Back to who won't order the 777X, I think it is far too early to say who won't buy it because it isn't sufficiently defined, or formally offered.

I think we can make an educated guess based upon more established (upcoming) competing products in the various size categories.

For current 772 operators:
Airlines that operate the 772ER and want to replace it with a 300 seater are more likely to order the 789 or 359 rather than the 777X8 configured at 9 abreast. The 787-10, although slightly larger will also suffice for anything less than long haul. All of these alternatives (789/10 359) are likely to have superior CASM to the 777X8 @ 9 abreast.
If these same airlines are happy to up size to around 340/350 seats then the stretched 35J is likely to be more structurally efficient than the 777X8 @ 10 abreast which is an internally fattened shrink of the 77W. Just making an educated guess here that shrinks have difficulty in competing with a new clean sheet stretch (feel free to disagree). The 787-10 sits just below this market and could still be a contender.

For current 77W operators:
The 777X9 is likely to be appealing to all 77W operators whether they prefer to operate at 9 or 10 abreast. Those operating at 9 abreast obviously wont get the full 20% improvement over the 77W promised by Boeing but they will still get an efficient aircraft which will be an improvement on a successful design. If there is any leakage to the 35J it is more likely to be from these operators. While 10 abreast increases seat count to the 400 category it is difficult to gauge any potential resistance to such upsizing.

In summary 772 operators are more likely to order 789/10/359/35J than the 777X8 while a large majority of 77W operators are likely to order the 777X9 with some leakage to the 35J. Current 772 operators who don't have the 77W in service or on order represent potential lost customers for Boeing - think someone already mentioned that.


Regards,
StickShaker


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9835 posts, RR: 96
Reply 102, posted (2 years 1 hour ago) and read 3160 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
but in this case, it doesn't apply

It does

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
Because if it were available to order

It is

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
and if the desirability was high

It is

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 98):
why not get in line early to secure those coveted "delivery slots"?

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 pressing needs in other market sectors that also require capital.

Rgds


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 1 hour ago) and read 3147 times:

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 efficient engines, should be doable. I guess they will keep most systems as they are for commonality, but it would be nice if they made it more 787 like for the future.

User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9378 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2929 times:

Quoting StickShaker (Reply 101):
The 777X9 is likely to be appealing to all 77W operators whether they prefer to operate at 9 or 10 abreast. Those operating at 9 abreast obviously wont get the full 20% improvement over the 77W promised by Boeing but they will still get an efficient aircraft which will be an improvement on a successful design.

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. Those that currently operate 9 abreast and switch to 10 abreast would see the largest seat count increase and thus fuel burn improvement per seat.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 36):

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-prodding-boeing-on-new-777.html   


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29681 posts, RR: 84
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2524 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 significant flexibility and capability in the middle of the fleet, with the A380 anchoring the high-end and the A320 family covering the narrowbody side.

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